celeb news Pollstar: Taylor Swift is biggest dominating artist in culture since prime MJ/Madonna

[fijitears]

The megathread….wishes were granted 

[PoisonedIvy]

2 minutes ago, Tropical said:

Last year if you'd compared Taylor to Madonna I'd have slapped you, but now there's no denying that, if anyone, Taylor and Taylor only could usurp her - and maybe she already has. I think like a lot of people, for a long time I found Taylor calculating and unlikeable, but that was only because I didn't find her to be "authentic." However, what I realise now is that she has always been authentic - she is authentically, and openly, driven to be the most successful. She's really no different to a school's top student wanting to ace all the of the exams, except with her its charts, awards, tickets sold etc.

 

I re-watched her doco recently and she's quite open and blunt about it, she's not pretending to be anything otherwise. Sure everyone doesn't vibe with that, but there's nothing fake or deceptive about anything she's doing.

 

Plus, at the end of the day she is incredibly talented and hundreds of millions of people connect with her and can relate to her music. If it was so easy to do that, everyone would.

Excellent post  

[Klein]

3 minutes ago, Tropical said:

Last year if you'd compared Taylor to Madonna I'd have slapped you, but now there's no denying that, if anyone, Taylor and Taylor only could usurp her - and maybe she could. I think like a lot of people, for a long time I found Taylor calculating and unlikeable, but that was only because I didn't find her to be "authentic." However, what I realise now is that she has always been authentic - she is authentically, and openly, driven to be the most successful. She's really no different to a school's top student wanting to ace all the of the exams, except with her its charts, awards, tickets sold etc.

 

I re-watched her doco recently and she's quite open and blunt about it, she's not pretending to be anything otherwise. Sure everyone doesn't vibe with that, but there's nothing fake or deceptive about anything she's doing.

 

Plus, at the end of the day she is incredibly talented and hundreds of millions of people connect with her and can relate to her music. If it was so easy to do that, everyone would.

The only part I disagree with is that Taylor could "usurp" Madonna. She's just carving a lane of her own. Just like Madonna, there's a reason there are no artist before her that you could be like "she's the next XYZ". And there's a reason no artist later on actually managed to be the new Madonna or Taylor. That's the case for all the biggest artists of all time. They had something unique, and every attempt at recreating something similar later on failed. 

Edited December 6, 2023 by Klein

[PoisonedIvy]

The fact Taylor was suffering from so much success that the mods forced us to stop opening so many threads about her achievements, and now she’s suffering from too much impact so we’re going through the same censorship all over again  

[PoisonedIvy]

Just now, Klein said:

The only part I disagree with is that Taylor could "usurp" Madonna. She's just carving a lane of her own. Just like Madonna, there's a reason there are no artist before her that you could be like "she's the next XYZ". And there's a reason no artist later on actually managed to be the new Madonna or Taylor. That's the case for all the biggest artists of all time. They had something unique, and every attempt at recreating something similar later on failed. 

Agreed — I have no desire as a fan for Taylor to “overthrow” Madonna. Madonna will always be the Queen of Pop and the original female global superstar. That will never go away. Taylor is carving out a distinct lane of her own that is equally as impressive, and they deserve to be seated at the throne next to each other  

[Pillz]

She could influence the US elections at this point

[Bubble Tea]

3 minutes ago, Klein said:

The only part I disagree with is that Taylor could "usurp" Madonna. She's just carving a lane of her own. Just like Madonna, there's a reason there are no artist before her that you could be like "she's the next XYZ". And there's a reason no artist later on actually managed to be the new Madonna or Taylor. That's the case for all the biggest artists of all time. They had something unique, and every attempt at recreating something similar later on failed. 

That's totally fair point, I guess I'm just responding to the million comparative friends I've seen of late and wanting to preempt the same tired old "not as much impact" line which may well be true, but perhaps they just have a very different type of impact. Who is to really say?

[Kristie Kuwa]

8 minutes ago, Lemon said:

But why do you paint “what the song is talking about” as something… bad? 
 

I mean, that’s the core answer to your question regarding Taylor. 

I think its a wave in pop. You had real talented singers in the 50/60s, and then the Beatles emerged and served sth completely different. Their success was insane only to be followed by MJ and Madonna.

 

I feel after the reign of Bey, Rihanna, Gaga, and Brit, the people wanted sth different again akin to the Beatles. 

 

So basically probably by the end of the decade we can finally look forward to a new surpreme.  

[khalyan]

5 minutes ago, PoisonedIvy said:

The fact Taylor was suffering from so much success that the mods forced us to stop opening so many threads about her achievements, and now she’s suffering from too much impact so we’re going through the same censorship all over again  

Not a megathread being censorship  

[Headlock]

1 hour ago, Richie.Valdez said:

I am getting sick of Taylor Swift threads. Can @ATRL Administration create a Taylor Swift-only subforum? Is it possible? 

You seemed very interested in Taylor threads when you seemed to almost rejoice over the tragic death of a fan so you could try and attack Taylor over it.

Edited December 6, 2023 by Headlock

[Lemon]

3 minutes ago, Kristie Kuwa said:

I think its a wave in pop. You had real talented singers in the 50/60s, and then the Beatles emerged and served sth completely different. Their success was insane only to be followed by MJ and Madonna.

 

I feel after the reign of Bey, Rihanna, Gaga, and Brit, the people wanted sth different again akin to the Beatles. 

 

So basically probably by the end of the decade we can finally look forward to a new surpreme.  

I get what you mean by this cycle theory, but what do you mean by “real talented singers” that were followed by Beatles? Are you implying Beatles were not talented? Are you boliling down musical talents to singing only? Where are compositions, melody and lyrics, productions, instrumentations, etc? 

[Klein]

4 minutes ago, Tropical said:

That's totally fair point, I guess I'm just responding to the million comparative friends I've seen of late and wanting to preempt the same tired old "not as much impact" line which may well be true, but perhaps they just have a very different type of impact. Who is to really say?

Yeah, I'd say their impact is completely different. You can't have the same impact in the world currently as someone from the 80s. Each one has had impact that was relevant to their cultural landscape. 

[Headlock]

8 minutes ago, khalyan said:

Not a megathread being censorship  

It’s not censorship obviously (), but some of the threads merged into here make no sense, it just turned into a catch-all thread about Taylor, which is… what her Base is for.

Edited December 6, 2023 by Headlock

[PoisonedIvy]

15 minutes ago, khalyan said:

Not a megathread being censorship  

Perhaps I should’ve said restriction, limitation, or handicap; either way, I’m clearly laughing about all of this, it’s just a silly online forum at the end of the day

Edited December 6, 2023 by PoisonedIvy

[vale9001]

This thread name makes not sense and incorporate threads have nothing to do with this title. Moderators embarassing as always. 

Edited December 6, 2023 by vale9001

[khalyan]

3 minutes ago, vale9001 said:

This thread name makes not sense and incorporate threads have nothing to do with this title. Moderators embarassing as always. 

Gladly take suggestions for the thread title 

[Alexz]

1 hour ago, Feanor said:

No. An entertainer covering TIME's POTY issue is a historic achievement, probably the biggest thing one can achieve in the magazine world, so it's rightfully taking over ATRL. 

Hitler was TIME's person of the year too.

[byzantium]

lol, y’all mega threaded this? 
 

 

[Kristie Kuwa]

18 minutes ago, Lemon said:

I get what you mean by this cycle theory, but what do you mean by “real talented singers” that were followed by Beatles? Are you implying Beatles were not talented? Are you boliling down musical talents to singing only? Where are compositions, melody and lyrics, productions, instrumentations, etc? 

They were not great singers. They were ok, but clearly not on the level of the Arethas, the Elvis', and Motown in general that ruled before

[UnusualBoy]

22 pages?

 

Y'all are bored  

[byzantium]

4 minutes ago, Alexz said:

Hitler was TIME's person of the year too.

Go ahead, complete your thought.  Are you saying Hitler was not an influential person or are you saying Taylor Swift is comparable to Hitler.  

[Badgalbriel]

5 minutes ago, Alexz said:

Hitler was TIME's person of the year too.

Because he was the person of that year. As well as you, the computer, the women, the planet earth.... Dumb attempt, sis. Dumb attempt 

[Alexz]

1 minute ago, Badgalbriel said:

Because he was the person of that year. As well as you, the computer, the women, the planet earth.... Dumb attempt, sis. Dumb attempt 

Wow. There are no words.

[Cruel Summer]

I think TIME put it better than anyone else could:

 

“But this year, something shifted. To discuss her movements felt like discussing politics or the weather - a language spoken so widely it needed no context. She became the main character of the world.”

 

What an astoundingly powerful passage.

[Headlock]

10 minutes ago, Alexz said:

Hitler was TIME's person of the year too.

Godwin’s law rings true