Taylor Swift is horrible.

jp_nyc

Kick Henry Jackassowski
https://tickets.taylorswift.com/
Taylor Swift is getting ready to go on tour. She’s going to help her fans beat the bots on Ticketmaster.com with a program that lets them queue up for tickets in advance. They can even complete activities to get farther ahead in the queue. Activities like buying Taylor’s new album (only $63 if you pay for overnight shipping to get it on release day), buying Taylor’s merchandise, or promoting Taylor on social media.

A woman who can’t even sing without autotune is making her fans work to pay to hear her digitally corrected live singing. I’m not sure what’s worse: that Toby Keith and Co. came up with this idea, that Taylor Swift didn’t say no, or that millions of idiots are going to buy overpriced merch for a chance to buy overpriced tickets and pay overpriced service charges. This is just a new level of horrible shit that somehow doesn’t surprise me at all.
 
All of what you say may be true, however it doesn't in any way change the fact that my 5 and 8 year old daughters love her.
 
Last edited:
While i certainly don't condone this type of behavior, most people's window in the music business is tiny. You have to take advantage of every opportunity to make money in the few short years you may have.
 
What did you think would happen when you and all your friends decided that you were too good to pay $15 for a CD?

Every shitty thing a superstar does today is a direct result of your decision to pirate music and leave them with no choice. And while I'll not cry for Taylor Swift, the real injustice is that bands that aren't and will never be superstars have no recourse. It's not like EMA or the Pains of Being Pure at Heart or whomever can do this. They're going to live in a van forever...or work day jobs (reducing the clip at which they can make art) or rely on spouses, partners, friends, and family to support them. And then only scrape by.

Are you people proud of yourselves? I'm glad Tay Sway is making you buy $200 t shirts for your kids so they can get into the arena show.

Also, 1989 is a pretty good album in a candy coated pop product kinda way.
 
I think the real Taylor Swift matter to discuss in this moment is why the hell she decided to realease that not great first single and why she (as she approaches 30) refuses to round the corner and become a better, less self-involved songwriter.

I mean, she's pretty old for a teen idol and a little too boring to compete with the CULT OF BEY. The fact that she can write a song is what got her into the Justice League of Pop Overlords (because, yeah, her pipes are nothing great).

She needs to do a Rick Rubin record (or similar) and establish her cred if she wants to sink a well in AAA radio and siphon off that Adele-audience money once she's too old to wear unironic hot pants. Maybe she's saving that for the next album cycle...the mea culpa for this upcoming bit of fame-mad overreach.
 
I think the real Taylor Swift matter to discuss in this moment is why the hell she decided to realease that not great first single and why she (as she approaches 30) refuses to round the corner and become a better, less self-involved songwriter.

I mean, she's pretty old for a teen idol and a little too boring to compete with the CULT OF BEY. The fact that she can write a song is what got her into the Justice League of Pop Overlords (because, yeah, her pipes are nothing great).

She needs to do a Rick Rubin record (or similar) and establish her cred if she wants to sink a well in AAA radio and siphon off that Adele-audience money once she's too old to wear unironic hot pants. Maybe she's saving that for the next album cycle...the mea culpa for this upcoming bit of fame-mad overreach.

THIS x 100,000...was coming in here to say pretty much this, but you articulated it better than I would have, anyway.

My only caveat would be that if she were to drop "her team" to establish any kind of cred, she would be truly exposed for the fraud that she is; of course, that hasn't stopped her, yet.


ETA: "Shake It Off" was a godawful 1st single from the last album. Hurt her tremendously (yes, I am being sarcastic in this sentence).
 
While i certainly don't condone this type of behavior, most people's window in the music business is tiny. You have to take advantage of every opportunity to make money in the few short years you may have.

Her open window has been that way for 10+ years, and has let in nearly $300 million.
 
THIS x 100,000...was coming in here to say pretty much this, but you articulated it better than I would have, anyway.

My only caveat would be that if she were to drop "her team" to establish any kind of cred, she would be truly exposed for the fraud that she is; of course, that hasn't stopped her, yet.


ETA: "Shake It Off" was a godawful 1st single from the last album. Hurt her tremendously (yes, I am being sarcastic in this sentence).

"Shake It Off" was b-grade Max Martin, which is worlds better than b-grade Anton Jackoff. It was annoying and cloying, but catchy. I can still hum a few bars and I haven't heard it in months. The chorus on the new track is dismal.
 
I get that Swift is trying to own her bad rep and show the haters. (Shades of King Trump?) But the whole thing is tedious. I don't get the sense that Swift has a rich interior life or a lot of things she wants to explore and express.

She's a very successful privileged person whose parents bought her a dream job and she can't seem to handle people not loving her for that. Which is understandable in a 22 year old.

Taylor Swift is now as old as Kurt Cobain, Janis Joplin, Jim Morrison, or Jimi Hendrix ever were. She's as old as John Lennon was when Sgt. Pepper came out. She's older than Prince was when Purple Rain came out.

She should really be doing better work at this stage if she expects to be great.
 
I don't really blame her. She probably has no choice in the matter due to contractual obligations and other legal stuff. I doubt she has much say in anything marketing related.

And yes, I realise that her artist profile is just a marketing tool. And she will get dumped as soon as she is no longer profitable.

My daughter loves her, and that's ok by me. Would I spend money on her? No way
 
All of what you say may be true, however it doesn't in any way change the fact that my 5 and 8 year old daughters love her.

5 and 8 year olds typically love Pixie Sticks as well, despite the fact that Pixie Sticks are among the worst things you can put in your body.
 
What did you think would happen when you and all your friends decided that you were too good to pay $15 for a CD?

Every shitty thing a superstar does today is a direct result of your decision to pirate music and leave them with no choice. And while I'll not cry for Taylor Swift, the real injustice is that bands that aren't and will never be superstars have no recourse. It's not like EMA or the Pains of Being Pure at Heart or whomever can do this. They're going to live in a van forever...or work day jobs (reducing the clip at which they can make art) or rely on spouses, partners, friends, and family to support them. And then only scrape by.

Are you people proud of yourselves? I'm glad Tay Sway is making you buy $200 t shirts for your kids so they can get into the arena show.

Also, 1989 is a pretty good album in a candy coated pop product kinda way.


I don't blame the decline of cd's (or the loss of digital downloads to pirating) I blame the changing job description of musician that popstars have taken. It goes back a long way to hip hop artists selling clothes, shoes, rock groups licensing their music for tv commercials , etc....Gene simmons selling Kiss Coffins.
It's the evolution of the pop star into a media figure or a marketing PRODUCT rather than an artiste. It's greed and get as much as you can because you can...kinda like the price gougers in texas...you know the people will pay for it so why not, only morals are in the way if you got good ones *spits*
 
Back
Top