• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

NYT on Taylor Swift: Not Part of Any Pop Movement of the Day

Status
Not open for further replies.

Antiochus

Member
A quizzical, almost bizarre review of Taylor Swift's "1989" album in the New York Times. Those statements below will get many a head scratching.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/26/arts/music/taylor-swift-1989-new-album-review.html

For almost a decade, Taylor Swift has been waging, and winning, a war, smiling all the while.

Country music has been — was — a natural enemy for her: hidebound, slow moving, lousy with machismo. She could break the rules and make people nervous simply by showing up. And yet country was also a hospitable host body. She faced almost no direct competition there, and it’s a genre that embraces success, grudgingly if need be.

Most important, country gave Ms. Swift context. It made her a transgressor, which means even her most benign songs could be read with mischievous intent. From the outside, she looked like a conquering titan. But from the inside looking out, even as the genre’s biggest star, she was always something of an underdog, multiplatinum albums and accolades be damned.

That she would one day abandon country has long been clear. It’s a big box, and a porous one, but a box all the same. “1989” (Big Machine), though, her fifth album and the first that doesn’t at all bother with country, manages to find a new foe.

Full of expertly constructed, slightly neutered songs about heartbreak, “1989,” which is to be released on Monday, doesn’t announce itself as oppositional. But there is an implicit enemy on this breezily effective album: the rest of mainstream pop, which “1989” has almost nothing in common with. Modern pop stars — white pop stars, that is — mainly get there by emulating black music. Think of Miley Cyrus, Justin Timberlake, Justin Bieber. In the current ecosystem, Katy Perry is probably the pop star least reliant on hip-hop and R&B to make her sound, but her biggest recent hit featured the rapper Juicy J; she’s not immune.

Ms. Swift, though, is having none of that; what she doesn’t do on this album is as important as what she does. There is no production by Diplo or Mike Will Made-It here, no guest verse by Drake or Pitbull. Her idea of pop music harks back to a period — the mid-1980s — when pop was less overtly hybrid. That choice allows her to stake out popular turf without having to keep up with the latest microtrends, and without being accused of cultural appropriation.

One is left wordless at such meaningless statements

Ms. Swift hasn’t been the type to ask permission in her career, but she has long seen herself as a stranger to the grand-scale fame that New York signifies. “Someday I’ll be living in a big ol’ city” she taunted a critic on “Mean,” from her 2010 album “Speak Now”; now here she is, making the New York spotlight her backlight.

On this new stage, Ms. Swift is thriving. And crucially, she is more or less alone, not part of any pop movement of the day. She has set herself apart and, implicitly, above.

But by making pop with almost no contemporary references, Ms. Swift is aiming somewhere even higher, a mode of timelessness that few true pop stars — aside from, say, Adele, who has a vocal gift that demands such an approach — even bother aspiring to. Everyone else striving to sound like now will have to shift gears once the now sound changes. But not Ms. Swift, who’s waging, and winning, a new war, one she’d never admit to fighting.

As an aside, it appears Ms. Swift has managed the extraordinary feat of appearing, behaving, and perhaps even cogitating like a 28 year old when she was 18 and a 15 year old now that she's 25.
 

Servbot24

Banned
The focus on "black music" was strange but I understood what the rest of the review was saying.

Snippets of the album definitely sound like standard watered-down pop though.
 

Dead

well not really...yet
She's probably the least offensive female pop act on modern radio for what it's worth.
 

Lord Fagan

Junior Member
This reads like an intro to composition essay early in the semester by that one person at the front of the class who likes to try and respond to every one of the professor's questions and/or grandstand other students' comments five different ways with the most complicated words they can understand.
 

Van Owen

Banned
There is no production by Diplo or Mike Will Made-It here, no guest verse by Drake or Pitbull. Her idea of pop music harks back to a period — the mid-1980s — when pop was less overtly hybrid. That choice allows her to stake out popular turf without having to keep up with the latest microtrends, and without being accused of cultural appropriation.

The majority of the album is produced and co-written by Max Martin and Shellback. WTF is this article talking about. Hit a random station on your radio and you'll hear a song with a ton of production around distorted vocals, just like Taylor's new album.
 

studyguy

Member
 

Owzers

Member
are we out of the woods yet are we out of the woods yet are we out of the woods yet are we out of the woods.

Only thing worse than the first two Swift songs i've heard on the album is trying to read that review. I don't like music reviews in general though...listening to a song isn't that big of a commitment especially with services like Spotify out there, it's the ultimate "judge for myself " medium.
 

Kuroyume

Banned
I can't stand music critics. Like, they hear a record and they come up with all these words to describe what they're hearing. All this backstory and interpretation. And it's like how were you able to come up with all that from some pop album? You think any of these ideas are floating around in Swift's head? She's thinking about cats and cookies. Not the fucking "ecosystem" of pop music.

I hear music and the best I can come up with is either I like it, I hate it, It's broing, It's heavy, It's fast and heavy, It sucks. Like, where out of their ass do music critics pull this stuff from?
 

Alrus

Member
So far both Shake it Off and Out of the Woods feel absolutely devoid of personality and aren't really good on top of that. I'm ready to be disappointed. I say this as someone who liked Red.

Shake It Off is one of the vilest lead single I've ever heard from a major pop singer. Even Roar was better.
 
I can't stand music critics. Like, they hear a record and they come up with all these words to describe what they're hearing. All this backstory and interpretation. And it's like how were you able to come up with all that from some pop album? You think any of these ideas are floating around in Swift's head? She's thinking about cats and cookies. Not the fucking "ecosystem" of pop music.

I hear music and the best I can come up with is either I like it, I hate it, It's broing, It's heavy, It's fast and heavy, It sucks. Like, where out of their ass do music critics pull this stuff from?

All music has cultural contexts. It doesn't exist in a void and deserves critique as much. The article makes a lot of valid points about contemporary discourse relating to the appropriation of other cultures in the production of popular music. Taylor Swift and her team are deeply implicated in these discourses like it or not.

There are countless articles and discussions going on about these things and this article is trying to be part of that conversation. Here is a scholar on Winehouse which got started a lot of debates a few years ago.

I am not one to bow down at the altar of any pop star but her or her team deserve praise for going pursuing an album that doesn't lean on problematic appropriations.

http://www.thenation.com/article/amy-winehouse-and-black-art-appropriation
 
So I guess NYT feels she does it the
white
right way.

I don't hate it as an op-ed piece, but as an album review it's pretty lacking.

I did find it interesting though.

These two comments, basically.

The review exists mostly as a means to put forward the theory that Taylor Swift is pursuing pop music without an overtly black influence. As a review of her music - I dunno. I haven't heard the album, but I didn't learn much about it aside from how the songs fit into that above theory.

the review of the album itself doesn't even really start until the halfway point.

That said - I think it's pretty damn cool the New York Times spent like 2000 words on an album review, period - even if the review is more of an essay that happens to use Swift's new album as support for the thesis.
 
"Shake It Off" is gentrified trash. Claiming Swift is standing apart from the rest of pop by working with Max Martin of all people. SMH. That's like a certain Christina stan saying Lotus wasn't meant to be a commercial album even though Max Martin produced the lead single. The argument would've been stronger had Swift actually ditched Martin and worked with Diplo.
 

overcast

Member
Wow. They're just frowning on any dance or rap infused pop? Man, come on. What a fucking cringe worthy piece in general.
 

Futureman

Member
I don't like music reviews in general though...listening to a song isn't that big of a commitment especially with services like Spotify out there, it's the ultimate "judge for myself " medium.

Meh. I like reviews in that there's soooo much music out there and it's nice to find a website with similar tastes to guide you.
 

Sub_Level

wants to fuck an Asian grill.
Country is the last bastion of hope that will save us from this modern degeneracy.

This old shit is the new shit, if you will.
 

Grizzo

Member
So far both Shake it Off and Out of the Woods feel absolutely devoid of personality and aren't really good on top of that. I'm ready to be disappointed. I say this as someone who liked Red.

Shake It Off is one of the vilest lead single I've ever heard from a major pop singer. Even Roar was better.

Out Of The Woods took me by surprise. I really liked it from the get-go. I think it's a pretty good song,

I do agree with you about Shake It Off though. That shit wasn't okay, but it still became another huge hit for her anyway.
 

Ivan 3414

Member
So I guess NYT feels she does it the
white
right way.

taylor swift is above modern pop because shes not making fad tunes like BLACK PEOPLE MUSIC

ok

Wait a minute

I thought it was supposed to be bad that artists like Miley Cyrus and Justin Timberlake blatantly appropriated black music

So when Swift makes music that doesn't commit such unspeakable atrocities, why is the writer being shat on for praising that?
 

Skux

Member
This reviewer has lost the plot.

Taylor Swift actually works better as straight up pop and not trying to be anything country.
 

Alrus

Member
Out Of The Woods took me by surprise. I really liked it from the get-go. I think it's a pretty good song,

I do agree with you about Shake It Off though. That shit wasn't okay, but it still became another huge hit for her anyway.

Out of the Woods suffers from super lazy chorusitis, I hate hate that. (same reason I hated Problem by Ariana Grande, blegh).

And at this point I think Taylor is so insanely popular with her target audience that anything she puts up early in one of her era is going to be a success no matter how bad it is.
 

Grizzo

Member
Out of the Woods suffers from super lazy chorusitis, I hate hate that. (same reason I hated Problem by Ariana Grande, blegh).

And at this point I think Taylor is so insanely popular with her target audience that anything she puts up early in one of her era is going to be a success no matter how bad it is.

well I don't think a chorus with some words repeated ad nauseam is that bad if those words sound good

And in that case, I think they do. But that's just my opinion of course.

Ariana's song is a whole other problem (ha!), it sounds like she just forgot to write a chorus (well I guess she didn't write the songs so I blame her songwriter)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom