base talk Has Taylor Swift reached legend status?

[Maroonx]

hater or love her, at this point she is

[The Music Industry]

2 hours ago, JoeAg said:

yes

 

I think the combination of commercial success, versatility, critical acclaim, critical reappraisal, thinkpieces, relationship with fan culture, and number of excellent songs cements her as one. though I find that some of her songs can be overrated, I can't deny the magic of a lot of em. she's got plenty of moments of brilliance in there

 

but I have to concur a bit with @swissman, it MOST CERTAINLY is a bit difficult for a good amount of people to try to be objective and call her a legend due to the frequency at which she releases. this can come off as something desperate (I don't think of it as that, but some do!) or quantity over quality. this can make it feel like her presence can overwhelm any assertion of her as a larger than life legend status. at the same time, it can do the opposite. it could almost seem superhuman to produce as much as she gives out. think about Bowie with his Berlin trilogy, or Kate releasing two albums in 1978 and already being on her fourth by 1982. that's high saturation, but it wasn't uncommon back in the day. Taylor's strategies are uncommon for NOW, but she's really just a productive artist who knows what she wants to do  I think if she DOES eventually take a break, that'll solidify her legend status for many doubters 

It's not really like Taylor releases studio albums every other week. She releases a lot because she also has her re-recordings to get out of the way, and I don't think even she predicted just how much attention they would get. That's a factor that other artists just don't have to deal with because they don't have any reason to re-release their old catalogue.

 

In terms of studio albums, her last 3 were released in 2024, then 2022, then 2020. That's pretty normal for active artists. 

[Relampago.]

1 hour ago, LanaDelRey said:

In all honesty? no. She's still missing a true classic album. 

Some of her albums literally won't leave the BB200 lol…

 

I'm not even a big Swiftie anymore but some of y'all aren't being serious in this thread. I will definitely say that Taylor's numbers don't mean her albums are classics or hugely impactful (TTPD is the perfect example), but you cannot deny that albums like 1989 and Fearless are already there. Everyone knows Shake It Off, Blank Space, YBWM, Love Story, etc. If albums like that aren't classics, then pretty much all our faves bar Adele and '08-'10 Gaga don't have any either. 

 

If we're talking quality, then Folklore easily meets that criteria too, but I'd argue 1989 and Red both fulfill the quality and success metrics of a classic album. 

 

Don't have to like Taylor, but we're setting our faves up trying to deny her impact.

[Zendayababes]

1 hour ago, The Music Industry said:

Do you think you ate with that? Taylor will easily be remembered for the place she has in popular culture, for having one of if not the most impressive career ever in the music industry, for having millions upon millions of fans and admirers who allowed her to dominate the musical landscape for years and years. And yes, the Eras Tour will also be remembered as a global phenomenon that mobilized entire cities, having literal presidents/prime ministers begging her to perform in their countries. 

 

You are incredibly short-minded/disconnected with reality if you think Taylor Swift won't be remembered

That's a long way of writing "for being extremely popular", but I can't tell you how to think. To me, these stats are ephemeral unless they're carried by something else.

 

Whitney = Voice

Beatles, Frank Sinatra = timeless music. 

MJ = Performing, Moonwalk, Thriller dance, iconic style. 

[JoeAg]

53 minutes ago, The Music Industry said:

It's not really like Taylor releases studio albums every other week. She releases a lot because she also has her re-recordings to get out of the way, and I don't think even she predicted just how much attention they would get. That's a factor that other artists just don't have to deal with because they don't have any reason to re-release their old catalogue.

 

In terms of studio albums, her last 3 were released in 2024, then 2022, then 2020. That's pretty normal for active artists. 

yeah I know lol. still stand by what i said, she goes all out with extra content and variants and stuff

[boodytay]

I think Red TV (and specifically All Too Well 10 min) is what cemented her status as a legend. The week it was released is the week she became a legend.

[byzantium]

3 hours ago, LanaDelRey said:

In all honesty? no. She's still missing a true classic album. 

Yet, She objectively has at least 4.  

[Støned]

No doubt she is. The greatest and most popular artist of the 21st century 

[mike_int]

12 hours ago, Shimenawa said:

Only the commercial success is legendary. The rest not so much...

 

11 hours ago, Patient Zero said:

When it comes to success, yes. Being able to be this succesful while being a mediocre singer and a terrible performer is legendary by itself.

 

Other than that, no. There's nothing iconic about her. It's as vanilla as it can get. She's like a more succesful Gracie Adams. I've had enough of these vanilla artists getting hyped up while offering absolute tripe.

 

10 hours ago, LanaDelRey said:

In all honesty? no. She's still missing a true classic album. 

 

10 hours ago, Mr.X said:

Legend of her label's marketing department, for sure

 

13 hours ago, Rev8 said:

Not saying No, but..

 

..reminder that "Legend" doesn't mean having the most sales, biggest tour, all of the awards and etc..

 

11 hours ago, Zendayababes said:

Also what is she truly gonna be remembered for?

 

It's the year 2060: "Oh yes Taylor Swift! She was/had one of the best_________"

 

...what? Tour gross?

 

This is what I was thinking of.

 

Yes she has huge sales and is commercially successful and profitable but from the point of being a singer/performer what are her songs or performances which are "legendary" for general public?

 

Sales/stream/profit numbers don't make you legend. It must be something memorable, something people will automatically connect with your name.

Certain song, certain video, certain performance, certain image and likeness of the person.

 

Taylor doesn't have it ... yet

 

 

That is why what wrote applies.

 

Superstar? Yes

 

Icon? For certain demographic

 

Legend? No

 

 

[dumbsparce]

Girls saying she hasn't flopped yet therefore she's not  Is she supposed to put a flop spell on herself?

 

Yes, without a shadow of a doubt. She might lack the iconic imagery or the breathtaking stage presence that other mpgs have but she never presented herself that way nor was that ever her selling point. Not sure why some users turn a blind eye to what has always been the main reason she stomped on everyone: the relatability factor in the music itself. She practically invented that and has been building upon it ever since her debut. She might not be my cup of tea other than a few songs here and there but painting her as some untalented woman who scams ppl into buying her stuff is gross af.

[Soda Pop Queen]

Not in my book.

[KingJay]

Is McDonald's a 5 star restaurant?

[dussel_06]

I mean

 

Before the Common Era: Jesus of Nazareth

1st Millenium: Prophet Muhammad (PBUH)

2nd Millenium: Albert Einstein or Isaac Newton

3rd Millenium: Taylor Swift (at least so far......)

 

[MattieB]

17 hours ago, swissman said:

YES and NO.

 

 

YES because she's done all she needs to do to be considered a legend insofar as staking her artistic achievements before the public, whether one likes them or not. She could retire today and she'd definitely be in the legend's circle. In fact, if she retired today she may almost immediately become a legend, which brings me to how the answer is also NO. Though she's done what needs to be done to be considered a legend, I think she's still far too "current" and releasing far too regularly for people to actively stop and consider her a legend vs. a contemporary, hugely successful artist. I think legends come into that status once their success or visibility settles down, and then people can view in them in a certain way. OR when they do something that gives them some "distance" from their peers in the industry (not just a level of success but access, or some sort of game changing output) that fast tracks their status in real time.

 

 

This

[MattieB]

To earn the title legend your music and impact need to transcend all ages, genders, classes, and especially geography (notably growing/developing/3rd world countries)

 

Taylor lacks that, her fans consist mostly of caucasian women of a certain demographic, nothing she's done has left a print on music as a musician, she hasn't influenced any changes, or led any movements. Everything she has comes from her fans and the record company's purchase power i.e awards and rank lists.

[Giorgoc]

20 hours ago, DevilsRollTheDice said:

Is the only entertainer in history to be awarded Time's Person of the Year and the first person to ever have a 1 and 2 billion grossing tour (even when adjusted for inflation) and the only recipient of AOTY 4 times, and the only artist born after 1980 to be in the top 10 most consumed artists of all time a legend?

 

According to ATRL an icon maybe unlike artists who debuted after Taylor and already can't debut a lead single in the top 10. 
 

Ofc she is and literally the entire public and media would agree. And she did it all in a much harder environment to maintain relevance. 

Sales, sales, billions, billions, sales, sales.

 

It's not all about that, although many (NOT all) always focus on that. The cultural impact, the legendary performances and iconic moments, standing up for communities are all part of what make an artist a legend. An artist who goes through failure, reinvents themselves and comes back on top is legendary. There is 0 doubt that Taylor is the most successful artist of all time at this point, nobody is taking that away from her. A legend though? I don't think so and it's all because she's just too safe and vanilla.

[DevilsRollTheDice]

16 minutes ago, Giorgoc said:

Sales, sales, billions, billions, sales, sales.

 

It's not all about that, although many (NOT all) always focus on that. The cultural impact, the legendary performances and iconic moments, standing up for communities are all part of what make an artist a legend. An artist who goes through failure, reinvents themselves and comes back on top is legendary. There is 0 doubt that Taylor is the most successful artist of all time at this point, nobody is taking that away from her. A legend though? I don't think so and it's all because she's just too safe and vanilla.

2 of the 4 achievements I listed were not sales or success related at all. They were honors bestowed to no other entertainer. Taylor's list of cultural achievements that aren't just her massive consumption is endless.
 

Anyway, this is such an insanely tired and delusional narrative. Just because Taylor's risks pay off (because of her intelligence and talent) doesn't mean she doesn't take risks. The industry balked at her re-recording project which was an extremely risky venture. She's changed her image and sound endless times. To ATRL, risk = flop because that's what happens when your faves attempt it. 

[Erreur2 La Nature]

Sales don't make someone a legend

[Giorgoc]

1 hour ago, DevilsRollTheDice said:

2 of the 4 achievements I listed were not sales or success related at all. They were honors bestowed to no other entertainer. Taylor's list of cultural achievements that aren't just her massive consumption is endless.
 

Anyway, this is such an insanely tired and delusional narrative. Just because Taylor's risks pay off (because of her intelligence and talent) doesn't mean she doesn't take risks. The industry balked at her re-recording project which was an extremely risky venture. She's changed her image and sound endless times. To ATRL, risk = flop because that's what happens when your faves attempt it. 

She's changed her image and sound? Literally the only change has been pre-1989 to post-1989. The only meaningful one at least.

 

 

[Shinkirou]

For me she is. I think some people may feel like she isn't because her work isn't exactly groundbreaking. She isn't pushing music into the future or developing new sounds, she's just doing conventional pop music really really well. She's "changed the game" on the business side of the industry, but on the creative side her impact is more subtle than even some smaller artists like Gaga.

 

I do wonder how that will pan out in say, 30 years from now. Will people still remember her legacy because it's "timeless"? Or will they forget it because it failed to set a landmark in the overall landscape?

[DevilsRollTheDice]

57 minutes ago, Giorgoc said:

She's changed her image and sound? Literally the only change has been pre-1989 to post-1989. The only meaningful one at least.

 

 

If you don't think Lover -> folklore is a massive sonic shift then you've already gone completely mask off as delusional 

[Mr. Duff]

Obviously.

[Rotunda]

IMO she hit legend status with Folklore, but I don't see how anyone can say otherwise after Eras/the re-recording success.

[MissedTheTrain]

On 1/11/2025 at 3:00 PM, Zendayababes said:

That's a long way of writing "for being extremely popular", but I can't tell you how to think. To me, these stats are ephemeral unless they're carried by something else.

 

Whitney = Voice

Beatles, Frank Sinatra = timeless music. 

MJ = Performing, Moonwalk, Thriller dance, iconic style. 

Taylor = her songs/songwriting.  That's been her biggest angle for her entire career, dominating the music space with the stories she's written about her life in a detailed, specific way that still manage to connect with masses of people.  That's why people love her.

[Popboi.]

Eras cemented her name forever, anyone saying no is in denial