Taylor Swift's tour arrives to shake up Europe

Having shaken four continents, Taylor Swift's Eras Tour finally brings the biggest pop culture icon of the century

A big call but hard to argue with. The media understandably reports on her.

Phenomenal success.

Seems like a decent person in the way she treats people working for her.

I don’t get the bitterness about this from some.

I don’t get the bitterness about this from some

I'll try:

The bitterness from some people is certainly over the top, and making a pop singer the target of such hostility is odd.

But, for me at least, the dislike of her stems from the imbalance of love/worship/attention from fans and media vs. the actual quality of what she's producing. Her music is pretty run-of-the-mill fare. Some of the lyrics are interesting, but lots of them are bland and uninspired and even a bit immature. Her music could have been written or performed by dozens of other musicians of the recent generation. Judging purely from a musical perspective, she's fine, but not outstanding in any particular way.

And yet, here we have a news article announcing that her tour has arrived at Europe(!). What an odd bit of "news" (sorry, JT). There's no news here - it's just an excuse to put her name in the headlines, because it sells. Her actual music doesn't deserve that attention. Obsessive fans treat her as if she's some sort of prodigy, and go on the warpath against anyone who disagrees - professional music critics have had to post negative reviews of her music anonymously due to fear of being personally attacked by her fans. It's perfectly fine to love your favorite singers (regardless of who they are), but the discourse about her place in the music world is totally unjustified.

In terms of being a pop cultural icon - she certainly is, of the likes we haven't seen since Michael Jackson and Madonna did it decades ago. But Taylor Swift comes nowhere near MJ or Madonna in terms of the creativity, quality, or importance of her music.

So, I believe the bitterness comes from that - the imbalance of attention/worship with the average-ness of the music she produces.

She is doing what The Beatles when they hit. She is addressing her music to her generation. Just as I loved The Beatles and my parents couldn't understand the world wide attention, if anyone over 30 doesn't like her their opinions don't count. I've listened to a few of her songs and find them trite and with music a lot like other performers around now. But I'm not her target audience. Young people especially like her, love her, and feel that they are being spoken to. Every generation has its own stars. Every generation decides what's good and what sells. She's doing fine, just as she should be.

I am a bit baffled about one thing. Why do all the female performers these days perform in swimsuits? That would be my one "I don't get it" thing. Oh, younger people might be able to tell me.

But, for me at least, the dislike of her stems from the imbalance of love/worship/attention from fans and media vs. the actual quality of what she's producing. Her music is pretty run-of-the-mill fare. Some of the lyrics are interesting, but lots of them are bland and uninspired and even a bit immature. Her music could have been written or performed by dozens of other musicians of the recent generation.

And yet, she's the one absolutely loved by millions. So whether anyone else could have done it is irrelevant, because she's the one who did.

The only objective qualifications to whether or not an artist creates good music or not are the number of fans, and the longevity of the artist. All other qualifiers are subjective. And Taylor Swift has had a lot of fans for over a decade now, so there is no argument as to whether or not she creates good music; objectively she does.

The only objective qualifications to whether or not an artist creates good music or not are the number of fans

You're confusing "popular" with "good." There are plenty of "bad" things in the world that we still enjoy, from junk food to B-movies to celebrity gossip magazines. Myself included. Quality and popularity are separate things.

All other qualifiers are subjective.

Skill is something that can't be measured? Ever? We can't compare a professional painter to a high schooler doodling on a sketch pad, because it's all just subjective?

So whether anyone else could have done it is irrelevant, because she's the one who did.

It's not irrelevant at all. She's the one who did it, so she has certainly earned her mansions, no argument there. But we're talking about an evaluation of an artist, a maker of creative content. How could you say originality is irrelevant?

there is no argument as to whether or not she creates good music

That's clearly not the case. The fact that an argument exists is the reason why we're having this discussion.

You're confusing "popular" with "good."

No I'm not. "Good" is subjective, so the only way to objectively determine if something is good, is by looking at the number of people who subjectively consider it to be good.

There are plenty of "bad" things in the world that we still enjoy, from junk food to B-movies to celebrity gossip magazines.

It depends - junk food is objectively bad for you, not subjective. B-movies can be considered objectively good if enough people like them for long enough, and gossip magazines have lots of fans, and are entertaining to those people, and therefore can be considered to be good.

Skill is something that can't be measured? Ever? We can't compare a professional painter to a high schooler doodling on a sketch pad, because it's all just subjective?

I think you are talking about technical ability here. That can be judged to some level. Lionel Messi is a better footballer than me.

Taylor Swift is a pop musician writing pop songs to appeal to a large audience. She’s the most successful at doing that right now.

How would you you measure songwriting skill for a pop musician writing pop songs to appeal to a large audience?

Skill is something that can't be measured? Ever? We can't compare a professional painter to a high schooler doodling on a sketch pad, because it's all just subjective?

I think you are talking about technical ability here. That can be judged to some level.

I would agree. Challenges can be given to determine the technical ability of someone. We are not talking about technical ability, we are talking about whether not they have created music that can be subjectively considered "good". There is plenty of extremely technical music that no one wants to listen to ever. It's just not good.

She's up there with the best: Milli Vanilli, John Bowser of Sha Na Na, and Pete Best.

I would agree. Challenges can be given to determine the technical ability of someone. We are not talking about technical ability, we are talking about whether not they have created music that can be subjectively considered "good

Fully agree.

Many famous musicians love to almost boast that they aren’t ‘technically good. Paul McCartney loves to do it. He’s also the most successful songwriter in popular music history I think.

Couldn’t songwriting also be regarded as a technical skill? I know some prefer to call pop songwriting a craft rather than an art ( not sure of the exact difference there ).

She's up there with the best: Milli Vanilli, John Bowser of Sha Na Na, and Pete Best.

She writes and sings her own music.

It's interesting that you would criticize that.

Couldn’t songwriting also be regarded as a technical skill?

Yes.

Couldn’t songwriting also be regarded as a technical skill?

Absolutely

The Original WingToday  10:04 am JST

I don’t get the bitterness about this from some

I'll try:

The bitterness from some people is certainly over the top, and making a pop singer the target of such hostility is odd.

But, for me at least, the dislike of her stems from the imbalance of love/worship/attention from fans and media vs. the actual quality of what she's producing. Her music is pretty run-of-the-mill fare. Some of the lyrics are interesting, but lots of them are bland and uninspired and even a bit immature. Her music could have been written or performed by dozens of other musicians of the recent generation. 

Bland, uninspired, generic, pedestrian and not very interesting.

Gene HennighToday  10:34 am JST

She is doing what The Beatles when they hit. She is addressing her music to her generation. Just as I loved The Beatles and my parents couldn't understand the world wide attention, if anyone over 30 doesn't like her their opinions don't count. I've listened to a few of her songs and find them trite and with music a lot like other performers around now.

Ah geez Louise. The Beatles (r)evolutionized rock. They changed the world in so many ways with their inspiration, talent and experimentations. Their influence is HUGE. Although if it weren't for them, somebody else would've done all that. TS is NO Beatles, and she is not 'Fab'. No way, Jose.

I am a bit baffled about one thing. Why do all the female performers these days perform in swimsuits? 

Sex appeal sells. Ask Shania Twain about that. She's beautiful and very sexy but she can't sing/write/etc. to save her life. Her music is trash, it totally SUCKS whale butt. And like TS, she also has released her albums in 2 CD sets - one 'country' + 'pop' (+ 'Eastern') mixes together. Another album was released with cuter sexier pic on the cover and a different track list - the European edition. But when the Clash's first album was released in the 1977 UK version and the 1979 US version, it had substance.

And TS is following in Shania's footsteps as well in her mass marketing. But put the CD in your player w/o looking at the cover art and you hear 'Yeeeccchhh!!!'.

And there has been and are plenty of good and great female performers who did not/do not push the sexuality angle because they didn't 'need to'. Aretha Franklin, Go-Go's, Bangles, Joan Jett, Heart, Anita Baker, Marie Fredrickson of Roxette, Chrissy Hynde of the Pretenders, Pat Benatar, and on and on and on....

@Strangerland

I understand what you're saying, but I disagree. For me, it comes back to your earlier comment:

All other qualifiers are subjective

And I'll repeat my own response:

Skill is something that can't be measured? Ever?

With due respect, I think "everything is subjective" is an argument that (1.) makes it pointless for any layperson to ever express an opinion, and (2.) discredits the high-level, technical knowledge of experts (for music, that would be accomplished musicians, music theorists, credible music critics, etc.) who can understand and evaluate things along scales that normal people have no knowledge of.

Skill is something that can't be measured? Ever?

Sure, it can be measured, but skill and "good music" are not synonymous. Some "good music" doesn't take a lot of skill, some skillful music isn't liked by much of anyone.

With due respect, I think "everything is subjective" is an argument that (1.) makes it pointless for any layperson to ever express an opinion

You mean opinions, that by definition, are all subjective?

(2.) discredits the high-level, technical knowledge of experts (for music, that would be accomplished musicians, music theorists, credible music critics, etc.)

...who have their own subjective opinions. But enjoyment of music requires no skill, it's a human trait, so ability to create music isn't a requirement to be able to enjoy music, nor does that inability give one a lower value subjective opinion on the matter. If a simple pop song is a total banger to them, and the most technical song ever is boring, then in their subjective opinion the pop song is going to be much better.

Since everyone has an equally valid right to have a subjective opinion as to what they think is good or not, the only objective qualifiers of whether the music is good are how many people like it, and how long it continues to be listened for.

The key word here is objective.

...who can understand and evaluate things along scales that normal people have no knowledge of.

Yes, they can evaluate technical skill. They can also objectively evaluate whether music is good or not, by looking at how many people listen to the music in question, the longevity of that music.

From the perspective of percentage of people who know her, she isn't actually exceptionally famous in western countries. She was famous ten years ago and the same people know her now.

Yes, she is the most famous person in the music industry right now, and she can be called "most famous person in the music industry", but she is nowhere near as famous as the likes of Beyonce, Rihanna, Madonna, Britney Spears, Lady Gaga, etc... at their time.

2.) discredits the high-level, technical knowledge of experts (for music, that would be accomplished musicians, music theorists, credible music critics, etc.) who can understand and evaluate things along scales that normal people have no knowledge of.

And as a musician, I can say that even if music is subjective, and I’m in no way, shape or form a fan of the woman, but she is a formidable and talented writer, musician and arranger, there is no denying that. My kids love her music, but it’s just not in my genre alignment of style move me, I personally think Ariana Grande and Katy Perry are better musicians overall, but then there is also the business side and Swift is just no joke when it comes to that, people can hate on the woman all they want, but like Beyoncé or Madonna or even Janet Jackson, this woman knows how to market herself to a tee. I’ll give her that, in fact, I respect her business skills more than her musical attributes, she just knows how to sell herself, grow the business as well as some music, she has a good ear to know what young people want and like, so there is no denying that this woman is a powerhouse.

@bass4funk She is from the same origins as Britney Spears or Miley Cyrus in that she was bred from a young age to be a star and has all of Hollywood promoting her. For most millenieals she has been famous since they were young.

Taylor Swift's family comes from three generations of very very successful bankers. The very first record she made her father purchased 1 million copies of her debut album that guaranteed her to chart in the top 10 on the billboard. She is an investment working for a banker family. Her music is second to the money she makes for her family and investors.

@jib

That is correct, Dua Lipa's family did the same thing.

I find her OK but none of her albums makes the earth shake for me (and yes, I've heard all of her albums).

She's an all right pop singer and entertainer but the amount of adulation and fanatacism surrounding her is a bit over the top.

Yes, she writes her own songs, which is great, but nothing on par with the greats. Her songs aren't really that deep and, in fact, are a bit bubble gummish.

Good on her for having a big following, but I personally don't consider her "one of the greats."

I find her OK but none of her albums makes the earth shake for me (and yes, I've heard all of her albums). 

She's an all right pop singer and entertainer but the amount of adulation and fanatacism surrounding her is a bit over the top. 

Yes, she writes her own songs, which is great, but nothing on par with the greats. Her songs aren't really that deep and, in fact, are a bit bubble gummish. 

Good on her for having a big following, but I personally don't consider her "one of the greats."

I completely agree, spot on, but for this generation she is all that and more. I’m just glad I didn’t grow up in this era. The musicians that I listened to growing up as a child and teenager was done by musicians for the most part that didn’t care about their outside appearance to a crazy fashionable level, it was always about the music first. This generation does not want anything played over for minutes, intricate, heavy, guitar, solos, or complex, bridges, or great emotional, or creative, lyrical, writing. They want something simple, they want someone that looks cool. That’s what musicians care about today.

Yes, she is the most famous person in the music industry right now, and she can be called "most famous person in the music industry", but she is nowhere near as famous as the likes of Beyonce, Rihanna, Madonna, Britney Spears, Lady Gaga, etc... at their time.

Difficult to measure.

Best stick with record and concert sales. More tangible.

(2.) discredits the high-level, technical knowledge of experts (for music, that would be accomplished musicians, music theorists, credible music critics, etc.)

Credible music critics?

A lot of them are up their own arses. I get the feeling some of them are deliberately contrarian on certain reviews just to stand out.

Credible music critics?

A lot of them are up their own arses. I get the feeling some of them are deliberately contrarian on certain reviews just to stand out.

Not all, but some are reputable and have very impeccable knowledge and good insight, and let's not forget, we hear music differently than the way the average person listens and enjoys music.

@Jizmo

A good indication is that many of the concert sales even in Europe and Asia are by American fans. It's likely that she has a large core base of fans (which she has always had) and she has strong promotion by Hollywood (which is normal considering her history and background in the Hollywood pop industry).

So in other words she is the most famous pop star currently in western countries, but certainly not the a extremely famous popstar in western countries considering the history of pop music, and combined with a lack of competition to compare her with.

Music is an art form it is an expression. Call it what you want to call it, but what TS is doing, its selling and people are listening. Good for her!

Yes, The Beatles were everything. Totally. No doubting that. Taylor Swift writes her own songs. So did The Beatles. Before The Beatles, there was Elvis Presley. He shook up the music seen. Didn't write his own songs. Before that there was Frank Sinatra with the Tommy Dorsey and then the Harry James big bands, who made the bobby-socksers swoon. Didn't write his own songs. Before that Glenn Miller, who didn't write his own songs. He was so popular that the British knew they had accidently killed him but were afraid the US might withdraw their help. No one knew about it till his widow died. Then they admitted it. Before him was Rudy Vallee with his megaphone. He wrote only a handful of his own stuff.

So Taylor Swift and The Beatles wrote their own songs. Her writing speaks to her followers, just as The Beatles did. She's her generation's Beatles. Changing music forever? Who really knows right now. But if the pre-Beatles hot acts were as big as they were without writing their music, Swift is only the second big act to do so. She's the real deal. Even if us older cats don't care for her.

In terms of being a pop cultural icon - she certainly is, of the likes we haven't seen since Michael Jackson and Madonna did it decades ago. But Taylor Swift comes nowhere near MJ or Madonna in terms of the creativity, quality, or importance of her music.

So, I believe the bitterness comes from that - the imbalance of attention/worship with the average-ness of the music she produces.

Exactly.

"She's a complete artist who writes her own words, and you really have to listen to the lyrics and understand them, which is something unique," she added.

That’s something unique?

But if the pre-Beatles hot acts were as big as they were without writing their music, Swift is only the second big act to do so.

What?