NYT Says Taylor Swift Is Bigger Than The Beatles!? WTF

[dglcomp]

My big problem is the fact that she cried about how badly she was treated in the biz and that she didn't own her albums so she could do her "own" versions and basically get her gullible fans to buy her albums twice. I bet she pissed of a lot of artists that truly were treated abysmally.

When you're getting 3% and having to pay for recording the album, making the video and paying the band, then you can start crying. 

OMD released their first best of album, The Best of OMD, in 1988 because they had to, they owed Virgin records £1mil as they made so little from releases, Taylor never had those issues.

 

Personally I think the only place that can still make good pop music is Scandinavia, and that's because that's what they like and they don't seem to accept crap in the way America/UK does, I wonder how many acts that are getting big praise from the industry will be instantly seen as crap once sales/popularity dries up, I don't think any of them will be seen as "legends" in years to come.  

[Tusker]

This thread and the emotions released in it are causing me to re-evaluate Rick Beato, a guy whose knowledge and experience I treasure. Why pit two musicians against each other? Isn’t the music business hard enough?
 

I’m sad. YMMV of course.

[Thethirdapple]

Quote

“Christianity will go,” Lennon said, according to Cleave’s article. “It will vanish and shrink. I needn’t argue about that; I’m right and I will be proved right. We’re more popular than Jesus now; I don’t know which will go first—rock ’n’ roll or Christianity. Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. It’s them twisting it that ruins it for me.”

ouch

 

 

 

PEACE

_
_
_

[MathOfInsects]

Needless to say that comment didn't end up working so well for him in the end. But people forget: he wasn't claiming the Beatles were bigger/better than Jesus. He was quoting a poll of young people that asked about interests/likes. The Beatles polled ahead of Jesus, just as you'd expect. 

That didn't stop all those super-pious and Jesus-following folks from threatening to 6th Commandment a couple of 23-year-old musicians, though, and one of them eventually did. 

[Reezekeys]

6 hours ago, Tusker said:

This thread and the emotions released in it are causing me to re-evaluate Rick Beato, a guy whose knowledge and experience I treasure. Why pit two musicians against each other? Isn’t the music business hard enough?
 

I’m sad. YMMV of course.

 

"Pitting against each other", really? That's not what I got at all. Maybe it was the click-baity title? As I've said before in this thread, that's what folks making a living from youtube clicks do; I'm not gonna judge his content based on a video's title - that's silly stuff, imo. Besides that, what I got from the vid was his take comparing how pop music was made and sold 50 years ago vs today – and making some cogent points about it, imo. The "bigger" part was referencing the wording of the NYT article and he simply used that as a starting point for his arguments. At least that's how I see it.

[Tusker]

10 minutes ago, Reezekeys said:

 

"Pitting against each other", really? That's not what I got at all. Maybe it was the click-baity title? As I've said before in this thread, that's what folks making a living from youtube clicks do; I'm not gonna judge his content based on a video's title - that's silly stuff, imo.

 

Appreciate your point of view. I really do. And those kids you posted are great. They remind me of my son and his friends, many of whom attended the West Conn Jazz program with the awesome Jimmy Greene, just down the street. 

 

No, I am not re-evaluating Rick's content based on the title of his video at all, but on the propensity for musicians to take sides against other musicians based on that content. Sure Rick has got to make a buck. He's a decent chap and almost the opposite of the fictional Hyman Roth. I expect he will re-calibrate, as he sees the kinds of conversations he is creating. A race to the bottom is no race at all. We all have choices. Some are better than others.

[CrossRhodes]

I like some of Swift's music but I don't look down on modern pop like a lot of older people do. I wore out my copy of Ryan Adam's covering her entire 1989 album which is when I realized what a talented song writer she is. I also have a lot of respect for Swift after the reported 55 million in bonuses she gave out to the Eras Tour members and crew. This is from an article which focused on the trucking crew:

 

Shomotion is one of two transportation companies used by the tour, he said. “My company handles transportation of the stage and structure, pretty much the skeleton that everything hangs on at the concert venue.”

While Scherkenbach declined to disclose how many of his staff received the six-figure bonus, he said it was a total of nearly 50 members of the combined trucking crews.

The “generous” amount, he said, far exceeds the standard expected bonus. “The typical amount is $5,000 to $10,000 each. So this large amount is unbelievable.”

But more than that, Scherkenbach said it is a “life-changing” amount of money.

“These men and women, they live on the road. They sleep during the day and work all night,” he said. “It’s a grueling task. They leave their families, young children for weeks. For Taylor’s tour, they’ve been away from home for 24 weeks.”

To receive $100,000 is a down payment on a house or college tuition for a child, he said. “Look, fair wage doesn’t put you in a position to buy a home. But this opens up that possibility.”

 

[MathOfInsects]

Indeed, her disproportionate generosity is covered other threads here. She gives hundreds of thousands of dollars to the local food banks wherever her tours go, and never announces it. I heard first-hand that she kept her entire touring crew on payroll through the pandemic and even paid for college for the crew-kids who attended during that time. Though I think someone who doesn't like her would be justified in saying, "So what, that still doesn't make her a great musician." 

She is, in fact though, a great musician. She's just not for the Beatles4ever crew.

[Docbop]

50 minutes ago, MathOfInsects said:

Indeed, her disproportionate generosity is covered other threads here. She gives hundreds of thousands of dollars to the local food banks wherever her tours go, and never announces it. I heard first-hand that she kept her entire touring crew on payroll through the pandemic and even paid for college for the crew-kids who attended during that time. Though I think someone who doesn't like her would be justified in saying, "So what, that still doesn't make her a great musician." 

She is, in fact though, a great musician. She's just not for the Beatles4ever crew.

 

 

I think of Taylor Swift like Joni Mitchell in that she's become a voice for girls and women who I guess is are majority of her fanbase.   When I first heard of Joni Mitchell it was from women I knew and Joni's tunes spoke to them.   So I think a big part of what made and makes Taylor so big is being someone women relate to. 

[AnotherScott]

4 hours ago, Docbop said:

I think of Taylor Swift like Joni Mitchell in that she's become a voice for girls and women who I guess is are majority of her fanbase.   When I first heard of Joni Mitchell it was from women I knew and Joni's tunes spoke to them.   So I think a big part of what made and makes Taylor so big is being someone women relate to. 

 In that category you can also put, for example, Tori Amos and the Lilith Fair bunch... but as big as some of them got, none of them had the impact (on the industry or pop culture) as Taylor Swift has.

[harmonizer]

On 6/22/2024 at 1:50 AM, Reezekeys said:

 

Just today I was in Ridgefield Connecticut getting a coffee and snack and I hear this band playing in the parking lot. Turns out it's "Make Music Day"  with lots of performers at various spots throughout the town.

 

So, coincidental to your job description above, I'm  pretty sure these kids came from the Ridgefield School Of Rock. The drummer is now at Berklee, the rest of them are still in high school. Dig what they're playing. Maybe there is hope!

 

 

That's an amazing performance of Steely Dan's "Aja".

All Steely Dan songs are a challenge to cover, and any of the songs from the "Aja" album are at the top of that hill.

And the voicings used by the keys player all sound optimum.

 

I gained a better appreciation for the difficulty of Steely Dan songs when during my son's high school years when he participated in a local "School of Rock" show that featured only Steely Dan songs (I transcribed the horn parts for Deacon Blues and Home At Last, which was an adventure), and before that when our covers band performed "Rikki Don't Lose That Number" (which I don't consider among their harder songs).

[Adan]

47 minutes ago, harmonizer said:

 

That's an amazing performance of Steely Dan's "Aja".

All Steely Dan songs are a challenge to cover, and any of the songs from the "Aja" album are at the top of that hill.

And the voicings used by the keys player all sound optimum.

 

I gained a better appreciation for the difficulty of Steely Dan songs when during my son's high school years when he participated in a local "School of Rock" show that featured only Steely Dan songs (I transcribed the horn parts for Deacon Blues and Home At Last, which was an adventure), and before that when our covers band performed "Rikki Don't Lose That Number" (which I don't consider among their harder songs).

Wow, my mind is blown. So now Steely Dan is bigger than the Beatles?! I mean, you mentioned them in the same thread as the Beatles, therefore it's fair for me to assume you think they are bigger. And of course "bigger" is just a synonym for "better" because, as we all know, on the internet words mean whatever we want them to mean.

 

At this point, I'm going to self-validate my outrage by typing the letters "WTF?" in caps. Because one can only type these letters a limited number of times in one's life, and because I've chosen to do so here, this confirms that my anger is supported and appropriate.

 

This is so, so wrong. Steely Dan needed, like, 10,000 top drawer studio musicians to achieve their success. The Beatles smoked weed and jammed with Billy Preston a few times. So, clearly, Steely Dan cheated. 

 

There, I said it: I used the "ch" word. Because the unspoken truth is that music is just as much a competition as a 10th grade algebra test. And our number one job as music listeners is to figure out who peeked over at their neighbor's paper.

 

What's next? The Bay City Rollers bigger than the Beatles? Is there no end to this madness?

 

Edit: BTW, Iove me some Dan!!

[J.F.N.]

Regardless of net worth statistics, number of outspoken fans, awards, billboard positions, etc. ( New York Times reference article )The Beatles created a whole new genre of music paving the way for what we today know as pop music, and with this also created a lifestyle for the generations who were growing up then, something brand new to identify with and to rebel with claiming their (our) little corner of the universe. In saying this, I'm not a huge fan, I do like the occasional tune every now and then, but I definitely understand their importance in the history of modern music, to the core.

 

But clearly, as with everything, times are a changin and new generations have modern new references just like we did, like our parents, and like every generation before that did. In the 20th century music history The Beatles were a HUGE milestone, who knows what the 21st century has in store. As of today Miss Swift seems to have a firm grip, just like The Beatles had, of a huge part of the population providing them the same vehicle for claiming their little corner of the universe, meaning the population who were not born in the 20th century and who has The Beatles as the reference point for their musical universe, now what's next?

 

I LOVE the story of how Brian Wilson and The Beatles "competed" by listening to each others latest album and then feeling they needed to do something that would beat the other, Pet Sounds, Sgt. Pepper etc. ya'll know the story I assume, progress by competition, and I am sure there were quite a bunch of "old people" thinking "wtf is this, this sounds like crap!"...

 

At the end of it, we all get old and grumpy one day!
 

[stoken6]

On 6/21/2024 at 4:29 AM, Baldwin Funster said:

So following the Elvis pattern, here comes Fat Taylor.

Taylor Leisurely?

 

Cheers, Mike.

[TommyRude]

Taylor is bigger than the Beatles and Steely Dan combined

 

[MathOfInsects]

OK, sheesh.

 

The Beatles did not invent pop music. They were the product of pop music, not the progenitors of it.

They came along at a time when pop music had started to go through one of its stagnation cycles. The rock n rollers of the 1950s were middle-aged and not really speaking to the largest record-buying market any more, and nothing had quite emerged to fill the vacuum. (This is something we recognize in retrospect, it's not like people were sitting around going, "I wonder what oh what will fill what we all mutually perceive is a demographic-based musical vacuum?")

The Beatles were one of several Merseybeat groups to sort of burst out of people's radios sounding different from the polished rock n roll and crooner songs of the time. It's a similar phenomenon to how grunge was a big middle finger to the 80's coked-out high-sheen synth- and arena rock that was hanging on past its expiration date. They didn't know they were going to go on to be THE BEATLES, they were just teenagers who happened to be pretty telegenic and mutually pretty damned funny. Their songs had a weird quirk of sort of seeming like they were all chorus, even the verses, and this along with the Merseybeat made those songs very catchy. 

This all happened when post-war England was in a pretty bleak state, and this boppy music hit in the exact right way at the exact right time.

As it turned out, the group also had the exact right four people in it, for whatever alchemical reason, and a genius for tapping into the zeitgeist. It also turned out that the band contained 1, 2, or 3 of the century's great songwriters, depending who is counting, whose potential might not have had the opportunity to be tapped were it not for the financial good fortune of the group. But even then, they contributed to the cannon, they didn't invent it. 

They did some important stuff--a bunch of "f you, we're trying this" stuff that influenced others afterward, just as they'd been influenced by similar artists before them. But in real time the old folks mostly thought of them as some weird thing the kids liked for whatever weird reason that kids like things. 

Literally as I got to this paragraph I realized the TS comparison is far more apt than I'd have argued for. It's not just numbers. It's a tapping into zeitgeist and paying it off with incredibly well-written songs that speak to a particular influential demographic, coupled with the fearlessness that comes with success. 

[Baldwin Funster]

I still like the Beatles better. And not cause I heard them first and for many impressionable years. Their records evolved and evolved us so fast in 6 or so years. Has Taylor been at the front of musical revolutions? I actually didn't even notice she had gotten super duperstar popular until she was too big to ignore.

[J.F.N.]

The Beatles definitely created pop music, the way we know it today, layered multi track recording stem by stem, themed albums, mixed styles, flirting with trends in society, all  incorporated in their productions.

[HSS]

Yawn... FWIW My 18 year-old son and his friends think Taylor Swift's music is corny and for "old" folks.   HIs 17 year-old girlfriend said her 39 year-old mom took her to a Taylor Swift concert, and she hated it.

 

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-02-18/why-are-so-many-taylor-swift-fans-middle-aged/103457252 

 

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1372971/taylor-swift-fans-by-generation/

 

[MathOfInsects]

20 minutes ago, J.F.N. said:

The Beatles definitely created pop music, the way we know it today, layered multi track recording stem by stem, themed albums, mixed styles, flirting with trends in society, all  incorporated in their productions.

They did not invent any of those things.

[J.F.N.]

1 hour ago, MathOfInsects said:

They did not invent any of those things.

 

They definitely were part of all that, influencing others, but yeah, invent may be a bit too stroy expression in a context of trends evolving, I stand corrected!

 

 

[HSS]

Taylor Swift's fans are mainly bored millennial soccer moms and beta males looking to get in their sweat pants  

 

Sorry for trolling y'all but I'm bored. 

[MathOfInsects]

They were the most popular band in the world, so when they did things, it influenced others. But they did not invent any of the elements they are best known for. They simply found a way to make those things marketable through amazing songs, which is its own genius. Where there's money, there's record labels looking for ways to grab it. Those few years in the 70s after they broke up had lots of "Beatles-like" songs and bands in the mix, because the Beatles were the ones who took those elements and turned them into hits. But there were concept albums before Sgt Pepper and plenty of folks working in multitrack recording (EMI was very late to the party on this), and plenty of people writing protest songs, and plenty of people using the studio to create amazing and unperformable sounds, and plenty of people doing experimental music, and plenty of people dabbling in different genres on the same record, just as there were plenty of people doing tape-pieces like "Revolution No. 9" and incorporating Indian Classical music into their sound before the Beatles ever got there. They are the reason the Beatles got there, in fact. Even that chop-chop-chop rhythm that people associated with "sounding like the Beatles" (like in Penny Lane) was the Beatles trying to sound like the Beach Boys (God Only Knows).

 

The Beatles' gift tended to be finding their way to the front-edge of the zeitgeist pretty frequently. They were constantly radar-pinging for ideas and influences, and they were in a position to act on the resulting inspiration in ways that wrote them into some social movements of the time.

They also blew it plenty of times, particularly after Epstein died and they made the atrocious Magical Mystery Tour, which was completely behind the social curve on the idea of the psychedelic hippie bus. The fact is they basically never made another record after Epstein died until Paul pushed them to make Abbey Road as a conscious gesture that if the world's most important and popular band was going to break up, maybe they should leave on something other the slapdash legacy of Let It Be (which was looking like it might not even be released at the time). Before you say "The White Album"...don't get me wrong. IMO it's their greatest record. But it wasn't a Beatles album, it was an album made by the members of the Beatles. They basically went from Sgt Peppers to Abbey Road without a real album in between. 

Viewed through a different lens, that means that all that incredible influence and legacy was in a three- or four-year period up front. Amazing. Ridiculous, in fact. But it also means they spent the last half of their career chasing the curve instead of setting it. They were rich and starting to get married off and had been the most famous people in the world before they were 25, and their interests were definitely somewhere other than "The Beatles," which felt young and cute and meaningless to at least two of them by then. Paul basically strapped the band together with duct tape for the last two years after Sgt Pepper. The rest were perfectly willing to move on and be something other than that cute band, even if they had emerged as the Greatest Band in the World by that time.

 

[J.F.N.]

23 minutes ago, MathOfInsects said:

They were the most popular band in the world, so when they did things, it influenced others. But they did not invent any of the elements they are best known for. They simply found a way to make those things marketable through amazing songs, which is its own genius. Where there's money, there's record labels looking for ways to grab it. Those few years in the 70s after they broke up had lots of "Beatles-like" songs and bands in the mix, because the Beatles were the ones who took those elements and turned them into hits. But there were concept albums before Sgt Pepper and plenty of folks working in multitrack recording (EMI was very late to the party on this), and plenty of people writing protest songs, and plenty of people using the studio to create amazing and unperformable sounds, and plenty of people doing experimental music, and plenty of people dabbling in different genres on the same record, just as there were plenty of people doing tape-pieces like "Revolution No. 9" and incorporating Indian Classical music into their sound before the Beatles ever got there. They are the reason the Beatles got there, in fact. Even that chop-chop-chop rhythm that people associated with "sounding like the Beatles" (like in Penny Lane) was the Beatles trying to sound like the Beach Boys (God Only Knows).

 

The Beatles' gift tended to be finding their way to the front-edge of the zeitgeist pretty frequently. They were constantly radar-pinging for ideas and influences, and they were in a position to act on the resulting inspiration in ways that wrote them into some social movements of the time.

They also blew it plenty of times, particularly after Epstein died and they made the atrocious Magical Mystery Tour, which was completely behind the social curve on the idea of the psychedelic hippie bus. The fact is they basically never made another record after Epstein died until Paul pushed them to make Abbey Road as a conscious gesture that if the world's most important and popular band was going to break up, maybe they should leave on something other the slapdash legacy of Let It Be (which was looking like it might not even be released at the time). Before you say "The White Album"...don't get me wrong. IMO it's their greatest record. But it wasn't a Beatles album, it was an album made by the members of the Beatles. They basically went from Sgt Peppers to Abbey Road without a real album in between. 

Viewed through a different lens, that means that all that incredible influence and legacy was in a three- or four-year period up front. Amazing. Ridiculous, in fact. But it also means they spent the last half of their career chasing the curve instead of setting it. They were rich and starting to get married off and had been the most famous people in the world before they were 25, and their interests were definitely somewhere other than "The Beatles," which felt young and cute and meaningless to at least two of them by then. Paul basically strapped the band together with duct tape for the last two years after Sgt Pepper. The rest were perfectly willing to move on and be something other than that cute band, even if they had emerged as the Greatest Band in the World by that time.

 

 

Impressive, thanks for sharing!

 

University professor?

 

[funkyhammond]

23 hours ago, Docbop said:

I think of Taylor Swift like Joni Mitchell in that she's become a voice for girls and women who I guess is are majority of her fanbase.  

 

Joni's appeal seemed pretty broad to me. And it appears Taylor's is also...

 

https://business.yougov.com/content/48990-8-fascinating-insights-on-taylor-swifts-american-fanbase

 

EDIT: On second read, the wording on that article is confusing. Here is another poll: 

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1424475/share-of-us-respondents-who-consider-themselves-taylor-swift-fans-by-gender/#:~:text=According to the results of,the survey said the same.

 

[HSS]

Dave Grohl took a jab at Taylor Swift in a recent concert.  He may regret his words when psycho millennial soccer mom Swifties come after him on Social media.  Dave will probably be forced to kneel and kiss Queen Taylor's ring if he wants to continue making serious coin in the business. 

 

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/dave-grohl-trolls-taylor-swift-185431012.html?fr=sycsrp_catchall

[CrossRhodes]

Once again, nobody's changing hearts and minds on the interwebs so I'll go a bit off topic as this "debate" seems to be running it's course. For Beatles fans, this is a great watch if you haven't seen it. Rick Rubin definitely knows how to set the stage for insightful conversations geared towards musicians. 
 

 

[CyberGene]

Classical music is “better” to me than any modern music, the Beatles included 😀 It’s all too subjective.

 

My wife and daughter were recently very fond of Billie Eilish. When I first heard the Barbie song “what was I made for” (or whatever it’s called) I thought it was nice but after 5 more times that whispering really got under my nerves and I started hating it the way only I can and naturally I influenced the kid who also started agreeing with me. You see, it’s all subjective! 🤣

[TommyRude]

8 hours ago, Baldwin Funster said:

I actually didn't even notice she had gotten super duperstar popular until she was too big to ignore.

She is too big to fail. 

[Thethirdapple]

Brilliant…

 

 

 

 

PEACE

_
_
_