celeb news The New Yorker: Why normal music reviews no longer make sense for Taylor Swift

[getBusy]

Music reviews don't make sense, PERIOD. Never did, never will. If you enjoy the music, keep listening. If you don't, move on. 

[Blackout2006]

21 minutes ago, Janet said:

You might have hit the nail on the head there 

ah right, since the "We declared Charlie Puth should be a bigger artist" chanteuse wants to emphasise attention on her lyrics, ugh her mind

 

[Virgos Groove]

She's never beating the MCU of music allegations

[suburbannature]

This is absurd  

[NEX]

1 hour ago, truthteller said:

yall acting like a 76 MC score is THAT bad

 

1 hour ago, Digitalism said:

    It's true 

She is in her Bruce, Dylan, Rolling stones and U2 era. Only the fans care and publications like Rolling stone give them 5 stars like they do with all legends. The GP and real critics don't care  

 

1 hour ago, Pheromosa said:

I mean if the industry and GP are saying this is the biggest artist and she's getting all the acclaim for her work, I don't see an issue with her output being more critically critiqued than others. Goes for any huge artist. 

Whether the critical reception matters is still your choice 

 

59 minutes ago, Brikenbur said:

Not people defending her music. WE DON'T LIKE IT. THE CRITICS DON'T LIKE IT. 
 

STOP TRYING TO MAKE US LIKE IT AND THINK IT'S ACTUALLY GOOD MUSIC AND MAKING A THINK PIECE AROUND IT! 

You all came into this thread with an agenda and posted it without reading the article. It's not about scores being low or high, and the article is not even painting a favourable picture of Taylor. The author is saying that it's hard to critique Taylor's music without understanding the lore and not everyone has time for that unless they are fans. 

[Virgos Groove]

9 minutes ago, getBusy said:

Music reviews don't make sense, PERIOD. Never did, never will. If you enjoy the music, keep listening. If you don't, move on. 

This is such a ridiculous take. Not only can music reviews be a great way to discover new artists, they can also introduce you to different interpretations of what is, at the end of the day, a piece of art. There are plenty of valid criticisms that can be thrown at how music is reviewed, but a world without critiques of art is exactly is what major-label executives want.

[getBusy]

1 minute ago, Virgos Groove said:

music reviews be a great way to discover new artists

If you have similar taste as the reviewer, sure. But just bc a critic says "it's good" or "it's bad" doesn't mean I have to agree. 
 

 

[Digitalism]

1 hour ago, NEX said:

 

 

 

You all came into this thread with an agenda and posted it without reading the article. It's not about scores being low or high, and the article is not even painting a favourable picture of Taylor. The author is saying that it's hard to critique Taylor's music without understanding the lore and not everyone has time for that unless they are fans. 

It's not that we didn't read it's just that it's wrong. A lot of her albums also had lore and the GP liked them. When the music is good people like it no matter what. This was not the case with TTPD. 

Edited May 1 by Digitalism

[Janet]

11 minutes ago, Blackout2006 said:

ah right, since the "We declared Charlie Puth should be a bigger artist" chanteuse wants to emphasise attention on her lyrics, ugh her mind

 

Well there's a serious lack of Melodies on her 31 track long album so lyrics are all we have to go by 

[Virgos Groove]

Just now, getBusy said:

If you have similar taste as the reviewer, sure. But just bc a critic says "it's good" or "it's bad" doesn't mean I have to agree.

And guess what? No one says you do.  There is no singular Mr. Critic dictating what is "good" and what is "bad". Like I said, having different interpreations by people who dedicate their livelihood to critiquing art is a GOOD thing.

[Vespertine]

I'm ready for Swiftmania to be over. I'm sick of the obnoxious takes from fans, critics, and haters alike  

[So Scarlet]

The writer claiming "smash up your life" is a better line than "smash up your bike"  Stick to the day job, please!

[tiagol88]

1 hour ago, Buffy said:

Taylor's music isn't for people with low IQ. She tried to appease these dumb dumbs by making ME! but her fans said NO! That's why these critics are struggling giving TTPD poor reviews. They want those watered down koolaid lyrics while Taylor chooses to serve us fine wine. TTPD is the type of album that will withstand the test of time like the rest of her catalog. When will they learn….

She ain't Shakespeare, lmao.

Yeah she writes good lyrics in her good days but she has so many crappy ones as well that sometimes i need to actually pause and check to see if i got them right 

[Headlock]

1 hour ago, Brikenbur said:

Not people defending her music. WE DON'T LIKE IT. THE CRITICS DON'T LIKE IT. 
 

STOP TRYING TO MAKE US LIKE IT AND THINK IT'S ACTUALLY GOOD MUSIC AND MAKING A THINK PIECE AROUND IT! 

[Virgos Groove]

Swifties trying to convince us that the biggest artist in the world is somehow TOO complex for ordinary people is so funny. What's next? Is McDonalds too much of an acquired taste? Is a Ford Focus difficult to drive? Is the iPhone made only for tech nerds?

[Just a Gay on ATRL]

This is actually crazy and ridiculously over complicated. 

[Bimbo]

This is getting actually insane…

[Bussea]

am I the only one who just doesn't care about music reviews in general

[Brikenbur]

23 minutes ago, Headlock said:

[Where are you now?]

16 minutes ago, Virgos Groove said:

Swifties trying to convince us that the biggest artist in the world is somehow TOO complex for ordinary people is so funny. What's next? Is McDonalds too much of an acquired taste? Is a Ford Focus difficult to drive? Is the iPhone made only for tech nerds?

But you're the first person in the McDonald's drive-thru line in your Ford Focus every hour

[Virgos Groove]

4 minutes ago, Where are you now? said:

But you're the first person in the McDonald's drive-thru line in your Ford Focus every hour

Edited May 1 by Virgos Groove

[SecretSecret]

I'm sorry but this is so lame. I think the "easter eggs" and self-references can be really cool but how are they supossed to change our perception of the music? If the song is bad, it is bad. Discovering that the song is about some guy Taylor dated is not going to make it good. 

I listen to music for myself, to enjoy the sounds and relate to the emotions of the lyrics. I can't understand how someone could be listening to an album looking for connections, trying to understand how the songs relate to the life of someone they still won't know anyway. At that point, you're not really a fan of the music, you're just in a parasocial relationship with someone who happens to make music.

[alexrex]

The problem of the album is just that it's way too long and boring to even care. 

She's talking about the same topics again and again.

 

She would benefit from a break, to gain some true inspiration. And then make something truly extraordinary. 

[liquiddiamonds]

Wow people really not reading the article. Whats new?

 

I agree with the author and I like Taylor a lot. She has built a relationship with fans since her beginnings and with social media on the rise. She's a true pioneer of relatability as a main marketing tool and the true break from the previous untouchable pop star image that was the rule until the 2000s. 
 

She has made fans feel invested in every chapter of her life for years and they always made the songs their own by sharing experiences. It helps that she writes about her favorite topics in a very universal approach. It's hers and theirs. 
 

Just like Adele with the age thing, people have massively followed her since the beginning and the rerecordings just gave them that cinematic feel of going through her life, their nostalgia, their current moments if they're young and how much things changed from where she's now.

 

Yeah, she's a whole ass music universe. I think the closest a music fandom has ever approached a Harry Potter type of thing. I usually used to see this only for books and films. 
 

I don't think this warrants criticism in itself, but if you don't care about Taylor, her albums are becoming more and more hyperspecific with time and it will be annoying. She's smart enough to leave some songs ambiguous (Fortnight), but for everyone invested it's a whole world to delve into. People already accused her throughout the years of using her relationships for fame, so I ain't mad about her making the music about her personal life her bread and butter

Edited May 1 by liquiddiamonds

[Dancehall Queen]

I saw a Swiftie on TikTok that went viral for making the same MCU argument. Her point was that the music is inaccessible now and you need to know every reference to begin to understand the songs and that the music itself wasn't delivering without it.

 

Both points I think are pretty brain dead. Just listen to the ******* music. If you like it great, if you don't, that's fine. An artist, of any kind, having personal references, artistic references, and referencing themselves is nothing new. You can enjoy songs even if you don't know which breakup a song is about or which song title the chorus is referencing.  It's still fully a work on its own.
 

Taylor Swift didn't invent having references. Every singer songwriter writes them into their music, there just isn't millions of stans dissecting their personal lives, past discography, lovers' discography, etc. looking to make connections. 

 

There's a few artists I obsess over, but I fully don't know anything about the personal lives of most of the people I listen to, like I wouldn't know if they're in a relationship, married or have kids. Knowing every detail of their lives might inform something, but I don't feel like I'm missing out just listening to the music.