this new Taylor Swift record

[F15hface]

Saw this on the way to the tube, couldn’t resist.

I also picked up a copy on the way onto the tube. At least since midnights I can't disagree with Courtney. I will fight for Red, 1989, Rep, Folklore, and Evermore, but not at the level they've reached. Everything since Evermore, re-recordings included, has been a big step down.

[Futuron]

Courtney Love is a "rock legend"?!?

[sal paradise]

Taylor Swift has just released 3 “limited” variants of the album. Four days after it launched with at least 4 versions.

That is a bit galling. But she does bleed her fans with every release, so should have been expecting it after so few variants on day one. Gotta pay that genealogy company for their press release saying she’s related to Emily Dickinson I guess.

The Tay Tay commercial juggernaut is genius/terrifying. From the misleading PR stunt about royalties to launch Apple Music to the reworking of her entire catalogue timed to launch between her other albums, it’s all perfectly calculated to make money.

It’s a perfect example of the problem with capitalism & feedback loops. More money to Swift leads to more money to Swift. On one hand that money supports an entire mini-industry. But at what cost to other musicians who’s fans spend all their money on Taylor’s endless merch lines?

[s_mcsleazy]

Saw this on the way to the tube, couldn’t resist.

so there's a term i've been seeing more and more in a lot of alternative/punk communities. "boomer punk" it's basically that older generation of musicians who seemingly do nothing but shit on the younger generations. courtney very much has that energy imho. she was complaining about olivia rodgigo and she's had a long history of doing this. like at this point, i feel her legacy isn't any of the cool albums she's made. it's starting drama.

[F15hface]

Taylor Swift has just released 3 “limited” variants of the album. Four days after it launched with at least 4 versions.

That is a bit galling. But she does bleed her fans with every release, so should have been expecting it after so few variants on day one. Gotta pay that genealogy company for their press release saying she’s related to Emily Dickinson I guess.

The Tay Tay commercial juggernaut is genius/terrifying. From the misleading PR stunt about royalties to launch Apple Music to the reworking of her entire catalogue timed to launch between her other albums, it’s all perfectly calculated to make money.

It’s a perfect example of the problem with capitalism & feedback loops. More money to Swift leads to more money to Swift. On one hand that money supports an entire mini-industry. But at what cost to other musicians who’s fans spend all their money on Taylor’s endless merch lines?

I think those three are the same three that were available for pre order as allegedly limited versions. The same thing happened with Midnights. It's galling.

[andy_tchp]

Courtney Love: Also not important nor interesting in any way (artistically or otherwise).

[seenoevil II]

This Love quote got a whole thread on the pop culture sub reddit, and I was surprised and delighted to see the consensus there being firmly in agreement with Courtney. One of the talking points I saw there was to do with Madonna. For all of her faults, Madonna did an awful lot to expose the public and normalize the lives and culture of gay people, and took a pretty firm stand in supporting those with HIV at a time when it wasn't uncontroversial. Contrast that with Swift's vague and noncommittal opposition to trump and her litany of problematic boyfriends.

As for Love, well she's been doing this her entire career. The most notable example I can think of being her calling out Kathleen Hanna way back in the 90's. But she calls'em like she sees'em- from Weinstein to Swift.

But I'm just a bug scurrying around trying not to die (mostly anyway). I'm out of the 18-34 age bracket. I'm irrelevant to music now. Thank gawd.

[andy_tchp]

As for Love, well she's been doing this her entire career. The most notable example I can think of being her calling out Kathleen Hanna way back in the 90's. But she calls'em like she sees'em- from Weinstein to Swift.

Yep, what a hero, punching Kathleen (whom she'd never even met previously) in the face, completely unprovoked.

[seenoevil II]

As for Love, well she's been doing this her entire career. The most notable example I can think of being her calling out Kathleen Hanna way back in the 90's. But she calls'em like she sees'em- from Weinstein to Swift.

Yep, what a hero, punching Kathleen (whom she'd never even met previously) in the face, completely unprovoked.

Huh, wild story. Hadn't heard of that wrinkle before (although, by love's account, it was somewhat provoked). I mean, if you read the article, her critiques aren't scathing or anything. "Not interesting" and "not important" are pretty apt, and frankly not even necessarily insulting.

Glenn Branca is interesting. Ornette Coleman is interesting. Interesting is....interesting, but some of my favorite music isn't that interesting (a good chunk of the Malkmus catalog comes to mind). In fact, interesting often gets in the way of engagement or authenticity (thinking about some of Deerhoof's more recent releases).

In strict musical terms, like the genetics of music and its development, that has to be the one respect in which swift definitely is not important. The industry? Yes. Reach and ubiquity? Yes. But she's not breaking any new ground musically.

Again, that's fine.

I mean, no music doc will be made about swift that includes a music journalist saying something like, "... and I'd never heard anything like this before! What is this sound? This revelation?"

[andy_tchp]

Glenn Branca is interesting. Ornette Coleman is interesting. Interesting is....interesting, but some of my favorite music isn't that interesting (a good chunk of the Malkmus catalog comes to mind). In fact, interesting often gets in the way of engagement or authenticity (thinking about some of Deerhoof's more recent releases).

In strict musical terms, like the genetics of music and its development, that has to be the one respect in which swift definitely is not important. The industry? Yes. Reach and ubiquity? Yes. But she's not breaking any new ground musically.

Again, that's fine.

I mean, no music doc will be made about swift that includes a music journalist saying something like, "... and I'd never heard anything like this before! What is this sound? This revelation?"

Yep, agree with all this. Plenty of 'interesting' stuff that's difficult listening, or unlistenable. Sometimes I am just not in the mood for Branca/My Disco/FACS/Scott Walker and need something lighter.

As I listen more I'm finding a few familiar Swift vocal tropes both lyrically and melodically, though I guess this is bound to happen after a few albums.


I dunno, I guess it's just odd to me that anyone is interested in Courtney Love's opinion in anything musical 30 years since she herself released anything 'interesting' or important.

[sal paradise]

I dunno, I guess it's just odd to me that anyone is interested in Courtney Love's opinion in anything musical 30 years since she herself released anything 'interesting' or important.

We by no means have a monopoly on it, but the UK press love giving headline space to out of touch gobshites: Liam Gallagher, Nigel Farage, Liz Truss, Jeremy Clarkson, Piers Morgan etc… there’s a high tolerance of plain disgusting before tabloids tend to stay away: Tommy Robison & Katie Hopkins can still get front page coverage for no reason.

[crazyzeke]

Taylor Swift has just released 3 “limited” variants of the album. Four days after it launched with at least 4 versions.

The Tay Tay commercial juggernaut is genius/terrifying. From the misleading PR stunt about royalties to launch Apple Music to the reworking of her entire catalogue timed to launch between her other albums, it’s all perfectly calculated to make money.

As she has a predominately young audience, an apt comparison to make could be the way the Pokémon game franchise is run - multiple versions of things released in order to "catch 'em all" so it ends up costing a small fortune if the players want to buy all the limited editions, a lot of the time each of which has slight variations on bundled extras or game content. Good way to bleed devoted fans dry in either case.

For all of her faults, Madonna did an awful lot to expose the public and normalize the lives and culture of gay people, and took a pretty firm stand in supporting those with HIV at a time when it wasn't uncontroversial. Contrast that with Swift's vague and noncommittal opposition to trump and her litany of problematic boyfriends.

Almost everything with artists of this size tends to fall into the bracket of "carefully calculated" - you wouldn't want her opposing Trump too strongly lest it alienates the parents of fans who are avid Trump supporters and limits/stops them buying her content for their kids. The way I see it, despite being arguably a "modern" version of Madonna in terms of mass market appeal, Madonna has some credibility whereas Swift doesn't. Her being as someone earlier in the thread said a "nepo baby" would be less bothersome if the music was good, but it's pretty bland, and I assume will end up being much like Spice Girls were years ago - a huge household name type phenomena at the time they're initially active, only to be mostly forgotten after the heyday as the fans age out and move onto other things. People don't retroactively go back and appraise them as they might for Jeff Lynne (ELO) or The Beatles, I suppose because well-written, interesting music ages better than stuff which ends up being very much a product of it's time.


I like Courtney's perspective to an extent, but talking of credibility her best music-making days are behind her - Live Through This is about 30 years old at this point and depending on what you believe, some/all of it was ghost-written by Kurdt. If it wasn't it certainly bears a lot of the hallmarks of his style. I'm not complaining as I like that album, plus Celebrity Skin had a couple of decent pop-rock tracks on it, but I can't think of much else she's done since.

[crazyzeke]

Taylor Swift has just released 3 “limited” variants of the album. Four days after it launched with at least 4 versions.

The Tay Tay commercial juggernaut is genius/terrifying. From the misleading PR stunt about royalties to launch Apple Music to the reworking of her entire catalogue timed to launch between her other albums, it’s all perfectly calculated to make money.

As she has a predominately young audience, an apt comparison to make could be the way the Pokémon game franchise is run - multiple versions of things released in order to "catch 'em all" so it ends up costing a small fortune if the players want to buy all the limited editions, a lot of the time each of which has slight variations on bundled extras or game content. Good way to bleed devoted fans dry in either case.

For all of her faults, Madonna did an awful lot to expose the public and normalize the lives and culture of gay people, and took a pretty firm stand in supporting those with HIV at a time when it wasn't uncontroversial. Contrast that with Swift's vague and noncommittal opposition to trump and her litany of problematic boyfriends.

Almost everything with artists of this size tends to fall into the bracket of "carefully calculated" - you wouldn't want her opposing Trump too strongly lest it alienates the parents of fans who are avid Trump supporters and limits/stops them buying her content for their kids. The way I see it, despite being arguably a "modern" version of Madonna in terms of mass market appeal, Madonna has some credibility whereas Swift doesn't. Her being as someone earlier in the thread said a "nepo baby" would be less bothersome if the music was good, but it's pretty bland, and I assume will end up being much like Spice Girls were years ago - a huge household name type phenomena at the time they're initially active, only to be mostly forgotten after the heyday as the fans age out and move onto other things. People don't retroactively go back and appraise them as they might for Tom Petty, Jeff Lynne (ELO) or The Beatles, I suppose because well-written, interesting music ages better than stuff which ends up being very much a product of it's time.


I like Courtney's perspective to an extent, but talking of credibility her best music-making days are behind her - Live Through This is about 30 years old at this point and depending on what you believe, some/all of it was ghost-written by Kurdt. If it wasn't it certainly bears a lot of the hallmarks of his style. I'm not complaining as I like that album, plus Celebrity Skin had a couple of decent pop-rock tracks on it, but I can't think of much else she's done since.

[panoramic]

My (37 year old) wife is a fan but I find al her music pretty throwaway and vapid (and I'm not opposed to pop music). I read her lyrics apparently got analysed to be at an average reading level of Grade 4, which I think is 8-10 years old? Too dumb for my tastes I'm afraid.

Also, she's a total nepo baby, which I hate.

But, fuck it, she's done way better than I ever could with music so what the hell do I know?

Like I said above, my GF's daughters are super into her so I have been indoctrinated by proximity. I can appreciate her regardless of the lyrical content, let's be honest, at least half of the records we all own are probably on that same lyrical grade level.
I think the first two tracks on this record are really well done and the production is great. I am glad it is not like finger nails on a chalkboard bad to me as I will be enduring it for many car rides in the future..

[panoramic]

Courtney Love: Also not important nor interesting in any way (artistically or otherwise).

pretty on the inside is a really great dirgey SY inspired record, it's a less hostile babes in toyland.