I thought she was too young, but I’ve just realized she can run for president THIS time. 34 on election day, but turns 35 in December - that’s good enough right?
Dwayne Johnson for VP?
kinda hard to explain … don’t hold your breath for a comeback-tour, though …
I can’t explain. I think it’s love.
I listen to pop radio stations 100% of the time while driving and I still couldn’t name a single TS song. I am sure I would recognize the popular ones if I heard them, but I never liked any of them enough to pay attention to who the singer was. On the other hand I love Miley Cyrus, her latest song “Flowers” is an absolute banger and I’ve liked almost everything she’s put out since “Party in the USA”. I don’t GET why Taylor Swift is a bigger deal than Miley and it has nothing to do with my age.
Over the past few months on Top 40 radio, the ones they seem to play the hell out of are “Karma,” “Cruel Summer,” and “Anti-Hero.” Like incessantly. The first you should be able to recognize as “Karma” the word is repeated so often (I count over twenty-five times.)
I agree that the music itself leans towards the milquetoast, and I prefer some like Olivia Rodgrigo, and I like that Miley Flowers “Flowers” song quite a bit (And I like “Used to be Young.”) But Taylor’s stuff is all solid, and I like some work that doesn’t quite get as much airplay like “State of Grace” or “Out of the Woods” (though I think these have gotten airplay.)
Thanks, I have definitely heard and would recognize Karma. It’s not bad or anything, but not special either.
Yeah that one kinda annoys the hell out of me, tbh. The other two I like fine.
Planting herb gardens and flying commercial? That’s a joke right?
How about she dials back some of the over consumed, over marketed, single use landfill ready TS branded merchandise? Releasing a dozen different vinyl versions of the same lp record? She’s a motivating force she should up her environmental game.
What on earth is the difference between vinyl records that Swiftie collectors value and billions of other products and services that are non-essential but that people want? I’ll bet that Swift fans who buy the vinyl versions are far more likely to still own them and value them in 25 years than most things that people buy.
“I’m not personally interested in wildly popular product/service X ==> producing X is a waste of resources ==> the person who produces the wildly popular product/service X is an evil facilitator of climate change.”
This just a bizarre attempt to reframe the “I don’t personally like this art and here’s why it’s objectively worse than the cool stuff I like” nonsense as pious moralizing about the environment. It’s complete bollocks.
I’m fairly confident that LPs don’t count as single use and landfill ready. People who purchase them will likely hold onto them for years and then, at worst, resell them to other collectors.
Your arguments sound silly.
(There’s also the basic fact that she likely isn’t in control of most merchandise with her name/likeness on it due to bootlegging)
Fwiw, if you’re sincere about the environment, what you should be advocating is that the cost to the environment is fairly reflected in the price of all goods and services. A phased-in 500% tax on fossil fuels and other oil products, for example. Much higher tariffs on goods according to their specific cost to the environment from waste disposal.
Then consumers can see and compare the true cost of goods and services including environmental costs, and buy or do the things that they personally most value after factoring in those costs.
But what is utterly ridiculous is to suggest that people should not want certain things because you personally place no value in them, and to conclude that those specific products are objectively useless and therefore harmful to the environment while other similar products are not.
Demand should be regulated by fair pricing, not by telling people what they should want.
Some people need to find a nit to pick. No, Taylor isn’t a saint. I’m plenty sure she does things that are suboptimal. Who knows? Maybe there’s even some downright scandalous skeletons buried somewhere. She’s also a human.
I watched The Eras Tour movie the other day and recognized one song ib a 3.5 hour set. I don’t listen to much pop music, but I love Billie Eilish and Olive Rodrigo, so I shouldn’t be this out of touch. That said, the concert blew me away. I get why it was such a cultural touchstone. Believe the hype.
I’ve heard from the Lil 'wrekker her Eras tour tee-shirts are hard to get.
She’s hunting a certain one so maybe it’s just that one.
She’s got many of her tee-shirts and sorta collects them. They’ll not see a landfill anytime soon.
If she decides she doesn’t want them I’ll donate to Goodwill.
I bought a vintage Nirvana T-shirt at Goodwill recently. So I know musical shirts are saleable.
For some reason, the New York Times decided to run a 5,000-word op-ed which purported to analyze song lyrics to “prove” that Taylor is a closet lesbian.
Her Majesty is not amused.
https://www.cnn.com/2024/01/06/business/taylor-swift-new-york-times/index.html
“Taylor Swift is a terrible tramp for dating too many guys! Also, probably a lesbian.”
WTF is the NYT publishing an op-ed piece speculating on anyone’s sexuality?
The comment (I think from her PR people) “Because of her massive success, in this moment there is a Taylor-shaped hole in people’s ethics” does seem apt. Hard to understand how 5,000 words of gutter tabloid salacious gossip - with some words of more than two syllables thus masquerading as social commentary? - got into the NY Times. From the original article (paywalled, and not worth burning a gift link), a data point that conspicuously does not fit the hypothesis is easily dismissed, apparently she is not just closeted but cynically closeted:
Whatever you make of Ms. Swift’s extracurricular activities involving a certain football star (romance for the ages? strategic brand partnership? performance art for entertainment’s sake?), the public’s obsession with the relationship has been attention-grabbing, if not lucrative, for all parties
So I think I can summarize Ms Marks’ thesis in the NY Times as follows.
(1) The lesbian Taylor Swift, given the legacy of homophobia in her country music roots and her signature lucrative storytelling about the emotional rollercoaster of conventional heterosexual relationships, has been determined to remain closeted.
(2) She has nevertheless continually “dropped hairpins” (easter eggs about her true sexuality) throughout her career, and encouraged her fans to spot these and examine their implications; these hairpins are so obvious and extensive that nobody could possibly deny the totality of the evidence, but simultaneously require a 5,000-word essay from the uniquely perceptive Ms Marks to elucidate.
(3) Juggling her conflicting compulsions to both conceal her true sexuality and to reveal it, and given a compelling need for cynical brand promotion given her flagging career, Ms Swift’s chosen beard is the most famous football star in the country, placing their fake heterosexual relationship under intense public scrutiny.
(4) She has friends who are girls, including that Cara Delevingne (nudge nudge wink wink).
This is Pulitzer Prize material.
One wonders how many conspiracy theories would have remained a secret if only the shadowy masterminds behind them could resist the urge to deliberately leave tons of clues in plain sight for smart people like Ms. Marks to find.