celeb news NYT: T.Swift has reached demand & media saturation not seen since 1980s MJ & Madonna

[RobynYoBank]

Remember when they tried to convince us that Kim Kardashian ended her? 
 

[georgechxng]

these sites need to stop letting swifties write their articles 

[MardinBeksloy]

2 minutes ago, georgechxng said:

these sites need to stop letting swifties write their articles 

This is the NYT, not buzzfeed  go seethe

[Xtina23]

44 minutes ago, Headlock said:

See, the more y’all say this, the more you are proving how out of touch you are with the world 

Taylor is legitimately everywhere, I can’t remember a time when she was brought up in conversation this frequently, even during the 1989 era. People wearing her merch out and about, talking about her in class, it’s a part of the general zeitgeist to have gone to the Eras Tour or listen to her. Like, we had a class discussion where the professor, who said he didn’t “get the Taylor Swift thing,” which of course is fine, still knew all about what was going on currently with her ‘eras’ and knew multiple people who had gone to her shows. And two people in the class offered to make him playlists, which he listened to 

LMAO gurlll, there is a big world out there OUTSIDE of the classroom.

Obvi people going to school (majority consisting of millennials and gen x) are going to be a part of her demographic.

[MingYouToo]

58 minutes ago, LostInStereo100 said:

While I do agree about your comment with folklore. What makes you think that was a starting point in this surge in popularity? It’s hard to explain lol

Not the user you quoted but Folklore was the gateway opportunity for her to transition into a record that was extremely un-popstar-like. This was the record that revitalized interest in her as not a popstar, but as a songwriter. Lover and Reputation had clear signs of her career circling the drain, and Folklore basically gave her career a second boost. Not only was she taken more seriously especially by the male audience, she also managed to satiate her massive fanbase at the time by giving them what they wanted from her aside from pop music, a singer-songwriter folk album in the vein of Safe and Sound, a 2012 release.

 

So not only was she getting respect and adoration from an audience that used to think she was dumb and ditzy, she also pleased so many of her fans that have wanted this type of album even more. With evermore, she furthered that sound and gained a significant loyal following from the market that's hardest to crack for popstars, the straight men. If you go on your average subreddit, you'll see men flock over her albums Folklore and Evermore, which gives them an excuse/leeway to listen to her other bodies of work without the air of 'this is dumb pop music' 

 

RED TV took that effect and made it tenfold. 

[MingYouToo]

4 hours ago, wanderlust said:

I don't mind Taylor, but her music and visuals and just overall creativity and the songs itself aren't as culturally important.. just look at "like a prayer". or basically all of madonna's videos/music/tours and how political, artistic and innovative they are.. also, the songs by Taylor don't feel big or special. M is more comparable to Beyonce having a lemonade/self titled album sort of success for 20 years

As a casual Madonna lover, I think its important to state that Madonna is a completely different type of popstar. Taylor and Madonna can co-exist while also acknowledging that the ethos both operate in are completely different.

 

Madonna is one-of-one, she is THEE popstar, she challenged societal conventions, risked her career countless of times to make an audiovisual critique about society, her whole brand is about pushing the envelope and changing the world via her music. Taylor, Beyonce, Britney, etc. would not be here without her. And its important to state that above all else, her music is a vehicle for her to push a societal statement, which is why she will forever be the most impactful popstar of all time.

 

Taylor is not like that. Taylor has always been a personal songwriter. She writes about her own feelings mainly. She writes about love, lust, anger, sadness, friendships and all that. And that's not to say Madonna doesn't do that (she does!), but Taylor's whole identity as a popstar revolves around that. She's not there to push societal boundaries (because Madonna has already done that), she sings about her life and what she feels, and yes it may not be a sociopolitical shakeover, but the fact that millions relate to it, you cannot deny that it is culturally impactful. 

[MingYouToo]

9 hours ago, Losing my ground said:

Britney's late-90s and Gaga's late-00s peaks were superior so that's a lie.

Nah its different.

 

Britney and Gaga commanded ZERO respect from the general audience for their craft. Britney was exploited, lusted over, used as a tool by her family and was seen a sex symbol. Yes, its impactful but the respect factor there was zero. 'Does Lady Gaga have a *****? (NOT CLICKBAIT)', 'LADY GAGA SATAN ILLUMINATI', 'LADY GAGA PAPARAZZIE REVERSED (DEMONIC)' was literally the number one thing the GP knew about her as a public figure

 

Taylor is just as popular with the added benefit that she's actually respected as a musician. 

[ebaby]

1 hour ago, TayGod said:

I would compare her more to the Beatles and not Madonna or Michael Jackson. She is more a songwriter. She doesn't have to be sexualized to sell her music. She is more creative in that sense. The Beatles never took off their clothes. Bruce Springsteen didn't take off his clothes; The Rolling Stones didn't take off their clothes. These legends were all known for their songwriting. The same is true of Taylor.

Comments like this to me read like you're downplaying Michael and Madonna's massive success because they happen to have sex appeal when Taylor does not 

 

There's no denying her success and where she's at right now but these type of takes "see! she didn't need to be sexy! to be at the top!" seem to miss what made acts like Michael and Madonna so successful. She will never have the stage presence or videography of either of these two, for one.

 

[Life Savers]

Period. 

[nostalgic]

We might not like it but we must accept it, she is the Prime Minister of the music industry and everyone else is just a backbencher 

[MardinBeksloy]

45 minutes ago, ebaby said:

Comments like this to me read like you're downplaying Michael and Madonna's massive success because they happen to have sex appeal when Taylor does not 

 

There's no denying her success and where she's at right now but these type of takes "see! she didn't need to be sexy! to be at the top!" seem to miss what made acts like Michael and Madonna so successful. She will never have the stage presence or videography of either of these two, for one.

 

And??? Do we have to repeat to you all a million times that she is not where she is right now because of stage presence/vocal? 

[elevate]

It's Beatles stuff and the only reason some people can't feel it is because we're living in it. It's wild, tbh. 

[Relampago.]

I mean, yeah this feels like common knowledge at this point. If she keeps playing her cards right, she will surpass them both too.

 

I know that’s upsetting to some people, but it’s the truth. You don’t have to like her or her music but her success is absolutely, undeniably gargantuan. A once in a lifetime type of success.

[TayGod]

1 hour ago, LOTF said:

Tell me you're a misogynist without telling me you're a misogynist lmao typical swiftie behavior

Where's the misogyny? A songwriter is a songwriter. It doesn't have anything to do with sex or gender. Or did I not mention another female songwriter, such as Carole King or Joni Mitchell? I am speaking about artists who can stand on stage with an instrument and self-created songs.  Yes, perhaps they can sing about sex, but the music itself is not all about sex but a creative endeavor from a personal relatable place--whether male or female.

[Headlock]

1 hour ago, Xtina23 said:

LMAO gurlll, there is a big world out there OUTSIDE of the classroom.

Obvi people going to school (majority consisting of millennials and gen x) are going to be a part of her demographic.

Which I included in my example  Unless we are including boomers walking their dogs in Gen Z  Like, my mom, who could not care less about current popular music, has even asked me about her concert because it is talked about in her social circle as well.

 

At this point it seems you are actively ignoring what people talk about in the real world. And not for nothing, because this gets into a separate conversation about how media has changed with social networking, but the internet is a part of that world. Taylor has both bases covered, globally. You objectively can’t argue against this fact anymore, every metric you would use would illustrate this. 

[LOTF]

12 minutes ago, TayGod said:

I am speaking about artists who can stand on stage with an instrument and self-created songs.

Welp, Madonna can also fit this description but you came in here implying as if sex was Madonna's only selling point. That in itself is misogynistic because you are putting women who express themselves through sexuality as less worthy of acclaim and success.

[ebaby]

24 minutes ago, TayGod said:

Where's the misogyny? A songwriter is a songwriter. 

both Madonna and Michael have written most of their own songs and are just as much songwriters as Taylor...so what now 

 

25 minutes ago, TayGod said:

Yes, perhaps they can sing about sex, but the music itself is not all about sex but a creative endeavor from a personal relatable place--whether male or female.

part of what makes both of these two artists so legendary is the boundaries each of them pushed with their music with topics of race, gender, sexuality, religion — which by the way are also personal and relatable to them and clearly to many people.

 

but maybe they should just make songs about their exes instead  

 

 

[TayGod]

Ok! I am not saying Madonna and Michael Jackson are not good (they are), but a lot of members here seem to think that having impact means doing something shocking and when someone relies on songwriting alone as a mainstay, then they must be 'vanilla' and have no impact, which is not the case. I only compared Taylor to the Beatles because they both have the same type of modus operandi in the songwriting sphere.

[Steve Johnson]

I don't get why some people here are saying she was decling or struggling against new girls in 2019-20? Wasn't she #1 on IFPI global artist chart in 2019 beating both Billie and Ariana?  

[Steve Johnson]

5 hours ago, Fleahive said:

The gee pee is sick of her! Swifties good luck, you don’t want this level of hype it’ll only come back to haunt you. 

Good luck with that 

[Steve Johnson]

5 hours ago, Shelter said:

If she has one flop, she has another album on the way.

Where is the flop? 

[Taylor fanboy]

Thanos Of Pop!   

Khaleesi of Country!

 

Shiv Roy of Alternative!

[Ger]

Yeah, it's true and it should be said. And to be fair, how can you NOT love Taylor?

[ebaby]

1 hour ago, TayGod said:

Ok! I am not saying Madonna and Michael Jackson are not good (they are), but a lot of members here seem to think that having impact means doing something shocking and when someone relies on songwriting alone as a mainstay, then they must be 'vanilla' and have no impact, which is not the case. I only compared Taylor to the Beatles because they both have the same type of modus operandi in the songwriting sphere.

I think someone else put it best where they made the point that it's okay for her to occupy a different lane or whatever. I think that's the point you've been trying to make but it just comes off as reductionary of where Madonna and Michael's impact came from — clue, it's far more than being shocking or as you put it, taking your clothes off.

 

Also Taylor is textbook vanilla. That isn't even shade that's just all tea — it's a big part of why she's so successful. 

[Soda Pop Queen]