I donāt like Taylor Swift or her music. Im not against artists growing and evolving but I personally didnāt like how she genre hopped from pretty much church to country to pop and even somewhat folky styles. She changes her vocal style to whatever is gaining popularity at the time. To me it feels solely for the opportunity to capitalize where thereās money to be made, and her image and product seems very manufactured as a result. Whatās next, a collab with Aerosmith and a transition with a hard rock album? I didnāt like her Crossroads with Def Leppard. Whatās she gonna do, dominate every genre there is? The Chiefs thing this past season was pretty irritating because that revealed a side of the NFL and media that I didnāt like learning about. I canāt seem to find any interest in getting to know her as an artist because she just doesnāt come across as genuine to me. So you might say neither do many many bands out there, many artists are in it for fame and fortune and nothing else. I just donāt know, with TS it is extra icky to be having so many teenage fans while having such a disingenuous vibe.
I came along between her and the height of the Beatles hype but Iāll always be a fan of The Beatles. Yes, they both revolutionized the music landscape but for some reason I respect the Beatles more. I feel like the Beatles had raw charisma and true originality in their songwriting. Taylor, though I guess it can be argued also follows successful formulas of songwriting as did the Beatles, just isnāt original. I donāt know, she just rubs me the wrong way.
I know everyone is discussing the merits of Taylor Swift as a musician, but Rick touches on the key issue starting at 8:10. Sheās certainly a competent musician, but itās her business savvy that got her where she is.
Yes, I read in a book about making money in the music industry that TS made a ton of her money by introducing the loyalty program to her fans. By giving early access and discounted ticket prices to people who buy merchandise is basically a great psychological trick to get people to get concert tickets and then become walking billboards afterwards.
Is Taylor Swift bigger than the Beatles - right now? Yes, totally she is. The Beatles are old music. Itās still good, but old.
Beatles music is great. I discovered them when I was in my teens (Iām early 40s now). I disagree that Beatles fans will die out. The Beatles are a cultural phenomenon and while their music will probably wane over time, their hits will keep getting listened to. For how long? Who knows? The modern, global pop band industry only started in the 20th century. So youāve only got 20th century examples.
Taylor is very big right now. I have two kids who love her music. And also love Ed Sheeran and similar pop artists. Honestly, so do I. Sheās not my first choice but Taylor has a lot of great songs. Who doesnāt start dancing a little when they hear āShake it offā? A good song doesnāt have to be complicated.
The comparison with Mr Beast is apt. Taylor is talented, and also popular. Weāre in the age of the Internet, AI, and streaming, so whatever is popular gets pushed from all angles. The net result is that the āmost popularā is even more popular than it used to be 20 years ago, and there is less diversity in what is popular. The AI algorithms on every streaming, video & social platform double-down on popular.
They are both artists , but as for the calibre I donāt think sheās even close.
If you throw enough shite at a wall, some is going to stick, And sheās thrown plenty of it.
Itās all a gen thing anyway so, sometime sooner or later someone else will be the rage.
I think the question is: Is Taylor Swift bigger now than the Beatles were in their heyday? At least thatās the question the NYT article was addressing. Itās what Beato started out asking, but as he often does, he goes off on a tangent and starts ranting about something different ā in this case, who had more talent or something like that.
This is one of those topics like the Rolling Stone magazine Top 100 albums or guitarists or whatever. Theyāre thrown out for discussion, theyāre meant to be fun but not too serious, provoke interesting threads like this one. I donāt think you can really measure the relative popularity of two artists separated by 50 years ā too much has changed in how we consume our music, how chart positions are determined. Even what it means to be a celebrity, how connected a fan can feel to an artist, etc.
Comparing artists from different eras is futile. The Beatles did what they did and Taylor Swift is doing what sheās doing. Both very successful.
Picking up on a couple of points above:
Hopping music genres?
Who says an artist has to stick with one genre?ā¦And what is a music genre anyway?
Music devolving?ā¦Impossible!
Time would have to go backwards for anything to devolve. Music will always evolve but it might not evolve in the way you think it should or want it to.
Youāre a musician - evolve it any which way you like.
Totally agree with that, and the Beatles definitely experimented with a wide range of sound (although the comment above was about Taylor hopping genres)
A few artists who changed āgenresā and were pretty good :
Jimi Hendrix, Aretha Franklin (spent 10 years making Barbra Streisand-like records before hitting it big-time with R-E-S-P-E-C-T), Ray Charles, Stevie Wonder, The Velvet Underground, Otis Redding (his death cut short his move towards pop), Bruce Springsteen, Johnny Cash (went totally pop for a couple of years in the late 50s), Neil Young (famously changed genres as often as his socks), The Byrds, and of course, the greatest of them all, Bob Dylan.
Oh, I was afraid that āwhoās biggerā would be about fat-shaming this beautiful lady who benefits the lives of 100+ million people for years and many years to come ā¦ luckily itās not about anything interesting/staggering here.
and they will remember her for a lifetime of great memories of unforgettable concerts, I am a bit jealous of her, but not of her fameā¦so busy
Greetings
Absolutely!
Most artists are defined by their own sound rather than a genre.
As were The Beatles, as is Taylor Swift.
The music loving public are generally not stuck in one genre either.
Hmmm. Devolving is the right word, in the sense of generally degenerating, losing substance and quality; an apt description of both current music, and the world in generalā¦
Times have changed with the internet so comparisons go out of the window. . Personally I find TS music (not all of it) to be pretty bland and forgetful but a younger generation seem to like it, but then they like rap which all sounds the same noise to me. When I listened to music in my teens my parents thought Led Zeppelin etc was just a noise . Hey ho the joys of being in my sixties.
Iāve not watched the video yet, but my thoughts are that Taylor (along with Ed) is actually one of the better modern pop artists. She writes (or co writes) her own material and she plays guitar, certainly much better than I could in front of 10s of 1000s of people.
Music is consumed differently these days, when I was a kid you went to the shop, bought an LP, came home and actually listened to the whole thing. Modern music needs to be instantly catchy, the skip button is too easily pressed.
Music is constantly changing often driven by a younger generation who donāt want to listen to their parents music however good we might think it was.
Itās also interesting where you pick as your origin for comparison, you could argue itās all been downhill since some of Bachās fugues or Wagnerās Ring Cycle
Well, Iām in the age bracket with many others here. Older shall I say.
64 to be precise.
In my mind, Taylor aināt the Beatles in any sense of the word.
Iāll qualify that by saying I canāt think of one Taylor song. But I have heard her. And her music does nothing for me. It donāt move me.
But I would surprise me if there is a Beatle song Iāve not heard, short of perhaps some out takes.
Iām a die hard Beatles fan. I was listening to the Beatles in '65 or '66. It just went on from there. I couldnāt get enough. Really, I still canāt get enough. Thatās who I relate to musically and culturally. Itās who I play on my guitar (or try to play). Itās still who I listen to if I listen to music. I just canāt go wrong listening to them. Sometimes I even hear something in their music that Iāve not noticed before even.
I think the Beatles were genius for many of the reasons Rick Beto suggested. Other reasons too, I just canāt think of any right off hand.
Since I know nothing of Taylor. I have to take Rick at his word, but it didnāt surprise me what he was saying about the multi writers and producers she has. It seems the way of the new world.
The Beatles did it all, wrote, played, envisioned new sounds, new ways of recording. They were pioneers.
What Rick says about Taylor donāt surprise me in the least. It seems itās the new way to do things. + today. Itās about fame and money.
When the Beatles were doing there thing, it was about music and cultural change.
I just donāt see any comparison between Taylor and The Beatles. Apples and oranges to me.
While Taylor may be very popular, perhaps even more popular than the Beatles (suppose it could be, but not in my mind). But she and her brand of music is not even close to the same league (in my mind) as āThe Beatlesā.
I have no heroās, but if I did, The Beatles would be my heroās.
My suspicion is that the Beatles will be closer to Bach/Beethoven than Taylor ever will be. She will be relegated to the dust bin a hundred years from now while folks are still listening to the Beatles.
Again. The Beatles were pioneers in music. Not many folks make that scene, but imho the Beatles did.
Disclaimer, I think Iām biasā¦
:
ā¦ luckily itās not about anything interesting/staggering here. 
