Taylor Swift Lip Syncs to Jimmy Eat World in New Apple Music Ad [Updated]

[adamneer]

She's a famous pop star today, but her music won't last.

Very little music so far from this century will stand the test of time. The period from 1990 to 2016 is the most barren in quality since pop music first appeared.

I'll agree with most of that, but I'd shift the date to around 1995 or so. Pearl Jam, Nirvana, STP, R.E.M and Soundgarden made plenty of great contributions to pop in the early to mid 90s, before boy bands took over the entire genre and turned mass marketed garbage into the golden standard of pop we know today. But at least in the late 90s, MP3s revolutionized the way us non-top 40 listeners were able to discover and enjoy music, so I'd say the 2000s at least kicked off a new wave of "indie pop" that has some staying power. Ultimately it just gave us more variety, which, ironically is one of the things pop music lacks the most.

Taylor Swift is basically the backlash to the shift in music consumption trends that threatened/s the RIAAs precious business model of heavy promotion of a few key artists in order to drive sales. Essentially they went all-in on her and played up the whole "regular teen girl makes it big - Cinderella story" while the industry constantly lauds her as the greatest accomplishment in music history. Her latest album features several songs written entirely by a few industry-insiders from the Netherlands who can be credited as far back as the earlier mentioned Britney Spears/Backstreet Boys era.

People can call it jealousy all they want, but it's only natural to envy the riches a select few people "achieve" through modest talent and a WHOLE BUNCH of sheer luck and artificial support. I for one have no problem admitting that I wish my life and the lives of several future generations of mine were assured extraordinary decadence simply because some key executives happened to see a video I uploaded to the internet.

 

[adamneer]

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...et-music-man-max-martin-elusive-hitmaker.html

not that the open-secret makes any difference to fans of pop music...

 

[Snoopy4]

I've seen plenty music award shows on TV where she lip syncs. She probably does it at her own concert too. If you're a person who loves to sing and be a singer, why would you ever want to lip sync your own songs? If you want to be a singer, then sing!!

Adele showed why they lip sync on award shows in rather dramatic fashion. During an awards show or half time show whatever you have no control over your product because someone else is running the sound board.

Your own soundboard guy never hoses you and if he does he knows he dies.
[doublepost=1461031618][/doublepost]

She's a famous pop star today, but her music won't last.

Very little music so far from this century will stand the test of time. The period from 1990 to 2016 is the most barren in quality since pop music first appeared.

I disagree. She'll survive because she actually is capable of writing her own music and will continue to do so. Like all acts, the popularity will no doubt fizzle, but very few people writing their own material sells millions of copies anymore. I think back to the late 70's to early 80s rock scene before everyone started copying Def Leppard and how original they were with High and Dry and On Through the Night compared to all that disco pop crap which they followed up with Pyromania then Hysteria (credit to Mutt Lange). They are nowhere near as popular today as they were, but they pushed a rediculous amount of material at a time. By the 1990s the industry was ready for a flushing of all that glam rock nonsense. The reason so much of the 1990-2016 era stuff won't survive is because the "idols" aren't actually performing their own material at all, that and half the bands from the early 90's don't exist anymore.

I'm just grateful my daughter likes her and Adele not Katy Perry, Madonna or Lady Gaga.

 

[Pbrutto]

I'm really tired of these Taylor swift alerts.....

 

[johngordon]

I'll agree with most of that, but I'd shift the date to around 1995 or so. Pearl Jam, Nirvana, STP, R.E.M and Soundgarden made plenty of great contributions to pop in the early to mid 90s, before boy bands took over the entire genre and turned mass marketed garbage into the golden standard of pop we know today. But at least in the late 90s, MP3s revolutionized the way us non-top 40 listeners were able to discover and enjoy music, so I'd say the 2000s at least kicked off a new wave of "indie pop" that has some staying power. Ultimately it just gave us more variety, which, ironically is one of the things pop music lacks the most.

Taylor Swift is basically the backlash to the shift in music consumption trends that threatened/s the RIAAs precious business model of heavy promotion of a few key artists in order to drive sales. Essentially they went all-in on her and played up the whole "regular teen girl makes it big - Cinderella story" while the industry constantly lauds her as the greatest accomplishment in music history. Her latest album features several songs written entirely by a few industry-insiders from the Netherlands who can be credited as far back as the earlier mentioned Britney Spears/Backstreet Boys era.

People can call it jealousy all they want, but it's only natural to envy the riches a select few people "achieve" through modest talent and a WHOLE BUNCH of sheer luck and artificial support. I for one have no problem admitting that I wish my life and the lives of several future generations of mine were assured extraordinary decadence simply because some key executives happened to see a video I uploaded to the internet.

So you're probably about 5 years older than the other poster.

There was plenty of crappy pop music around before the 90s, and there is still plenty of great music around today.

Which tracks on 1989 were written entirely by other people?

 

[adamneer]

So you're probably about 5 years older than the other poster.

There was plenty of crappy pop music around before the 90s, and there is still plenty of great music around today.

Which tracks on 1989 were written entirely by other people?

Here you go - http://www.csmonitor.com/The-Culture/Music/2014/1027/Taylor-Swift-s-1989-sounds-familiar.-Here-s-why

Looks like she is solely responsible for writing just 1 song on 1989. And don't take "co-produced" or "co-written" lightly either. As evidenced in the other article I linked previously, these songs are largely written by professional songwriters, both lyrics and instrumentation, and as long as the singer sits in with them for any amount of time throughout the process, providing any amount of feedback, they receive co-credits. I don't know how much evidence I can provide you if you fail to see the gravity of what these and so many other articles point out. It's as if you want to believe in this underdog fairy princess story so bad that you willingly disregard the crystal clear evidence to the contrary. This is not an uncommon characteristic of Taylor Swift's supporters, and pop music lovers in general. It's fine if you want to listen to and enjoy Taylor Swift or any other pop musician - music is obviously subjective. It's the unwavering credit and acclaim given to these singers that I really can't stand, when all they are doing is providing a pretty face and a decent voice. There are thousands of equally capable singers throughout the world who could easily do the same, if given the same opportunity.

 

[johngordon]

Here you go - http://www.csmonitor.com/The-Culture/Music/2014/1027/Taylor-Swift-s-1989-sounds-familiar.-Here-s-why

Looks like she is solely responsible for writing just 1 song on 1989. And don't take "co-produced" or "co-written" lightly either. As evidenced in the other article I linked previously, these songs are largely written by professional songwriters, both lyrics and instrumentation, and as long as the singer sits in with them for any amount of time throughout the process, providing any amount of feedback, they receive co-credits. I don't know how much evidence I can provide you if you fail to see the gravity of what these and so many other articles point out. It's as if you want to believe in this underdog fairy princess story so bad that you willingly disregard the crystal clear evidence to the contrary. This is not an uncommon characteristic of Taylor Swift's supporters, and pop music lovers in general. It's fine if you want to listen to and enjoy Taylor Swift or any other pop musician - music is obviously subjective. It's the unwavering credit and acclaim given to these singers that I really can't stand, when all they are doing is providing a pretty face and a decent voice. There are thousands of equally capable singers throughout the world who could easily do the same, if given the same opportunity.

So which tracks were written entirely by other people? Your article doesn't seem to corroborate that claim.

She has a co-writing credit on every track. It may be that she just sat in a room for 10 minutes and contributed nothing, but that's entirely speculation on your part.

The fact that she has been writing songs for years, and was by then an accomplished songwriter gives enough credence to the idea that she would have been capable of more than just sitting there drinking coffee.

I don't doubt that some artists contribute more than others, but by all accounts Swift does come across as one of the more involved in the whole process than many. She wasn't just plucked from a TV show because she looked pretty - she grafted for years to make it in country before becoming more mainstream.

 

[adamneer]

So which tracks were written entirely by other people? Your article doesn't seem to corroborate that claim.

She has a co-writing credit on every track. It may be that she just sat in a room for 10 minutes and contributed nothing, but that's entirely speculation on your part.

The fact that she has been writing songs for years, and was by then an accomplished songwriter gives enough credence to the idea that she would have been capable of more than just sitting there drinking coffee.

I don't doubt that some artists contribute more than others, but by all accounts Swift does come across as one of the more involved in the whole process than many. She wasn't just plucked from a TV show because she looked pretty - she grafted for years to make it in country before becoming more mainstream.

You're speculating her involvement every bit as much as I am, but instead of basing those speculations on documented evidence, you're basing it on your own personal interest in her. It's fairly safe to assume though, that someone with the clout of Taylor Swift would not give co-credits to lesser known artists unless they contributed a substantial amount to a song's final composition. I'm not denying that she at one point wrote the majority of her music, but this is no longer true. And as noted in the articles, all of her biggest hits (read: the ones that elevate someone's career the most) were co-produced/written. Why can't you just enjoy "her" music without also touting her as a musical Jesus to everyone who doesn't like it? It's a slap in the face to the rest of the truly talented musicians in the world who actually do write and produce their own music, but sadly aren't worth 700 million dollars for arbitrary reasons.

 

[johngordon]

You're speculating her involvement every bit as much as I am, but instead of basing those speculations on documented evidence, you're basing it on your own personal interest in her. It's fairly safe to assume though, that someone with the clout of Taylor Swift would not give co-credits to lesser known artists unless they contributed a substantial amount to a song's final composition. I'm not denying that she at one point wrote the majority of her music, but this is no longer true. And as noted in the articles, all of her biggest hits (read: the ones that elevate someone's career the most) were co-produced/written. Why can't you just enjoy "her" music without also touting her as a musical Jesus to everyone who doesn't like it? It's a slap in the face to the rest of the truly talented musicians in the world who actually do write and produce their own music, but sadly aren't worth 700 million dollars for arbitrary reasons.

You still haven't actually produced any documented evidence to support your claim that several songs on 1989 were written entirely by other people.

My speculation isn't based on personal interest in her - its based on there fact that she was already an accomplished songwriter before 1989. If she was a new face, with no previous songwriting background, I would probably be more sceptical.

Here's what Imogen Heap had to say about her:

http://www.billboard.com/articles/news/6304250/imogen-heap-taylor-swift-write-music-1989-clean

And 'touted as a musical Jesus'? Really? Where did you get that from?

 

[adamneer]

You still haven't actually produced any documented evidence to support your claim that several songs on 1989 were written entirely by other people.

My speculation isn't based on personal interest in her - its based on there fact that she was already an accomplished songwriter before 1989. If she was a new face, with no previous songwriting background, I would probably be more sceptical.

Here's what Imogen Heap had to say about her:

http://www.billboard.com/articles/news/6304250/imogen-heap-taylor-swift-write-music-1989-clean

And 'touted as a musical Jesus'? Really? Where did you get that from?

Why are you so hung up on whether or not a song is written ENTIRELY by Taylor Swift or others? That has no bearing whatsoever on what I've said. Your premise appears to be that because Taylor Swift's 1989 wasn't written exclusively by other people (which can't even reliably be proven one way or the other) and because she had prior success (which includes her biggest pre-1989 hit being co-written by an industry powerhouse), she should somehow still be universally praised not only for her (subjectively obnoxious) music, but also her "self made success"?

Much like Jesus, her followers believe she's incapable of sin and incessantly "spread the good word" to all, no matter how little anyone else cares to hear it. But don't be mistaken, not even Jesus was self-made; he was the son of God after all.

 

[johngordon]

Why are you so hung up on whether or not a song is written ENTIRELY by Taylor Swift or others? That has no bearing whatsoever on what I've said. Your premise appears to be that because Taylor Swift's 1989 wasn't written exclusively by other people (which can't even reliably be proven one way or the other) and because she had prior success (which includes her biggest pre-1989 hit being co-written by an industry powerhouse), she should somehow still be universally praised not only for her (subjectively obnoxious) music, but also her "self made success"?

Much like Jesus, her followers believe she's incapable of sin and incessantly "spread the good word" to all, no matter how little anyone else cares to hear it. But don't be mistaken, not even Jesus was self-made; he was the son of God after all.

Because that was your original claim:

"Her latest album features several songs written entirely by a few industry-insiders from the Netherlands who can be credited as far back as the earlier mentioned Britney Spears/Backstreet Boys era."

My premise is that anyone who had a prior songwriting success, who had been writing tracks as good as State of Grace by herself would be perfect capable of legitimate co-writing credits on anything on 1989, rather than be dismissed as some dumb blond who made virtually no contribution.

To take that perfectly reasonable premise, and start making comparison's to Jesus is just plain barmy.

 

[adamneer]

I'd heard that Taylor Swift's fans are relentless in her defense and you've now given me all the evidence I need to convince me never to bother arguing with one again.

 

[johngordon]

Yeah, because the idea that someone who had already had a lot of songwriting success on their own could possibly have co-written some songs is just so difficult to believe, that only a moron could possibly believe it.

Presumably it makes more sense to believe that someone with a lot of songwriting success on their own, just suddenly became incapable of even co-writing anything.

 

[Benjamin Frost]

Yeah, because the idea that someone who had already had a lot of songwriting success on their own could possibly have co-written some songs is just so difficult to believe, that only a moron could possibly believe it.

Presumably it makes more sense to believe that someone with a lot of songwriting success on their own, just suddenly became incapable of even co-writing anything.

I think it's more that she sold out.

She is obviously an intelligent singer, and quite possibly contributed a lot for her country music career. But writing pop songs that have mass appeal is a different kettle of fish, so it's reasonable to assume that she was guided to a large degree by experienced pop song writers.

 

[johngordon]

I think it's more that she sold out.

She is obviously an intelligent singer, and quite possibly contributed a lot for her country music career. But writing pop songs that have mass appeal is a different kettle of fish, so it's reasonable to assume that she was guided to a large degree by experienced pop song writers.

Only a music snob would argue that pop music was somehow inferior to country music. Pop music is as legitimate a type of music as any other And just like any other genre of music, there is good pop music and plenty of bad pop music.

The inference that she couldn't possibly have decided to switch to pop music by her own volition is absurd. Its not like a lot of the stuff on Red is that far removed from some of the stuff on 1989.

A good song is a good song is a good song - as Ryan Adams' version of 1989 will testify.

 

[Benjamin Frost]

Only a music snob would argue that pop music was somehow inferior to country music. Pop music is as legitimate a type of music as any other And just like any other genre of music, there is good pop music and plenty of bad pop music.

The inference that she couldn't possibly have decided to switch to pop music by her own volition is absurd. Its not like a lot of the stuff on Red is that far removed from some of the stuff on 1989.

A good song is a good song is a good song - as Ryan Adams' version of 1989 will testify.

I haven't commented on the quality of pop music, nor whether Swift decided to switch to it.

What I said was that just because you can write country music songs doesn't mean you can write pop songs, particularly ones that have huge success. It's not a question of quality but of mass appeal.

 

[johngordon]

I haven't commented on the quality of pop music, nor whether Swift decided to switch to it.

What I said was that just because you can write country music songs doesn't mean you can write pop songs, particularly ones that have huge success. It's not a question of quality but of mass appeal.

Your comment about selling out certainly suggested that you thought pop music was inferior. If you don't think that, then what did you mean by the comment?

Pop quiz - listen to the track I posted above and tell me if you think its a country song, or a pop song?

 

[Keirasplace]

Only a music snob would argue that pop music was somehow inferior to country music. Pop music is as legitimate a type of music as any other And just like any other genre of music, there is good pop music and plenty of bad pop music.

The inference that she couldn't possibly have decided to switch to pop music by her own volition is absurd. Its not like a lot of the stuff on Red is that far removed from some of the stuff on 1989.

A good song is a good song is a good song - as Ryan Adams' version of 1989 will testify.

Yeah, she was actually a songwriter first, then had country success (mostly writing her songs alone), then had pop success on the last album (and now full on pop for 1989).

Pop songs, especially those with as much production as those on 1989, need a lot more work than simple guitar songs.
She's been transitioning to pop for 3 albums, her first poppy song is probably "You belong to me", which had trad country lyrics but a very pop feel. That song I believe was her first top 10 song on the Hot100 chart. That's 4 albums back.

Considering how popular bro country is these days, it's country in general that has changed a lot in the last decade. If they stayed in pre 2000 mode they'd likely be dead.

I do think Swift is a bit over produced on 1989 and she has to be careful with that because she loses some of what make her sell like crazy by doing that. In the last 15 years, only Rihanna has sold more songs/albums/streams.

 

[952863]

I can't believe we are arguing about her talent. She's talented, and I can't believe people are trying to downplay her every chance they get.