text:
The Erosion of Taylor Swift as a Role Model – UPDATED
This story has been updated (at bottom).
For years as a reactionary Taylor Swift hater, one of the main arguments that was made against my stance was that Taylor Swift was a good role model. My rebuttal was that being a role model was not a sonic element, so it could in no way refract the fact that Taylor Swift wasn't country, and couldn't sing. And by the way, is it too much to ask that our role models at least be able to fulfill their roles in whatever discipline they're endeavoring in to even some average level of competency? Isn't that what a role model is, someone who inspires us by exemplifying the extreme of human abilities while not losing sight of themselves and how the world perceives them? For gosh sakes, Taylor Swift couldn't even sing.
Where the Taylor Swift role model identity was realized for me was in her 3rd album Speak Now. Maybe an average effort of music, but for a pop album in a world of mediocrity, average immediately becomes exceptional. And hey, Taylor Swift wrote all of those songs, by herself, and produced the thing too. At 19, she was calling the shots. She was separating herself from the common pop cycle of becoming product. This my friends was inspiring and exceptional to say the least. And this all transpired in a period of renewed attention to her vocal limitations and some honest progress in that direction, paralleled by underwhelming, nondescript relationship news in her personal life. After her 2010 Grammy fiasco, Taylor Swift had righted the ship, and made her critics eat their words. Including this one.
But there's a reason the most successful among us are the few, and why there seems to be celebrities and role models falling from grace on any given day. Human nature is so starkly cyclical, and success so many times breeds overconfidence and the blinding to oneself. Speak Now was yet another wildly-successful album for Taylor, but apparently it wasn't enough. Sales could have been a little better, and radio could have been a little more lucrative. That's the problem with money–you can always have more of it.
So the formula that had propelled Taylor Swift to one of the most successful, if not the most successful musical act of our generation, needed to be revised. The small, but effective team of Taylor, producer Nathan Chapman, and for Taylor's earlier albums, co-writer Liz Rose, was scrapped for a dream team of 8 producers and co-writers, including ultrapop moguls Max Martin and Shellback. And the need to do this was not deemed by Taylor herself focusing inward, but by her label president Scott Borchetta. But hey, it's really only 3 songs Swift is being asked to sign on to that weren't her original ideas. That's mostly harmless, right?
Next thing we know Taylor Swift's public persona is being completely re-shaped and blotted by these 3 songs and how they sully what originally made Taylor Swift ferociously appealing to the masses: being herself, writing and performing her own songs. Yes, those Max Martin / Shellback songs were only 3 out of the 16 tracks on Red, but they constituted 2 of the first 3 singles. And word is, the 4th single will be the last Max Martin / Shellback song "22," once again a song that resides out of her nature, beyond her vocal abilities, and completely out of her character.
Oh, and Taylor Swift is already in the studio again recording. What do we think she's learned from the commercial success of the songs primarily written by others? I doubt they've taught her how to better be herself. I wouldn't be surprised if many of Red's substantive songs are left on the shelf, and new Taylor Swift dance pop material is made available to the public quicker than anticipated.
This feels like a tragedy. Sure, a first world tragedy, but nonetheless. I find myself resisting the urge to hatch a plan of how to reach Taylor Swift and tell her that the success of these ultrapop songs is fool's gold. I hear you can sometimes catch her going to get coffee from her suite in Nashville when she's in town. On second thought, this feels like a plan of how to get tazed.
Whether it was from gross overconfidence, serious self-doubt, or bad counsel from her confidants, Taylor Swift fell during her Red album project like the neckline on her People's Choice Awards dress (I'm told "falling neckline" is how that style is described). But how is she supposed to realize this? She's surrounded by #1 hits and overwhelming financial success. Look, I'm no prude. However that dress was wickedly symbolic.
In an interview on 60 Minutes last year, Taylor Swift said, "I definitely think about a million people when I'm getting dressed in the morning"¦It would be really easy to say, 'I'm 21 now, I do what I want, you raise your kids.' But that's not the truth of it. The truth of it is that every singer out there with songs on the radio is raising the next generation."
But when she got dressed for the People's Choice Awards, Taylor Swift only thought about one person. And are we surprised with all of this loss of self identity that Taylor Swift bombed her New Year's performance, reversing years of work to erase her pitchy past? Or that all of a sudden and out of character Taylor Swift starts hop scotching from one torrid love affair to another, not just making surface scratches to her grounded, good girl luster, but removing large chunks? The question is not if Taylor's now old enough to dress more scantily or to be more promiscuous. The question is does she want to continue to be perceived as a role model or not?
I don't give a shit how many people Taylor Swift dates, who they are, or how long she's with them. It's none of our damn business, and if you think that Taylor's dating practices are any different than most 23-year-old young women, you're a fool. Yes, the stock of men she gets to choose from gives new meaning to the term "the world is your oyster." But possessed with the same opportunities, we would all take them, and make similar, shallow mistakes. That's not the point here.
The point is Taylor Swift is exhibiting all the classic signs of losing herself, and through that, America is losing one of its most important role models. And if being a role model is the metric that allows us to overlook some of the otherwise compromising elements of her music, we're losing one of America's greatest musical performers too. America has never had a positive pop role model like Taylor Swift. And America has never needed a positive female role model more than now.
Taylor Swift taught millions of little girls that you can be exceptional even when you're average, and that you achieve this by being yourself. This is the lesson that hangs in the balance.
UPDATE (8-25-13): At tonight's MTV VMA Awards, Taylor Swift was possibly caught mouthing, "Shut The Fuck Up" in response to boy band One Direction thanking the Brooklyn crowd. Taylor Swift once dated One Direction's Harry Styles. Below is a GIF of the incident, and a video of the incident in context.
In fairness, some are also alleging that Taylor is actually saying, "Sorry for my arm," or "Sorry, that's my arm," as she pulls her arm out from behind pop star Selena Gomez.
2013 VMA, Artists.MTV, Music
Harry Styles, is Taylor Swift a good role model?, Max Martin, One Direction, Red, role model, Scott Borchetta, Shellback, Shut The Fuck Up, Taylor Swift, VMA's
It's unfortunate how this article combines legitimate musical criticism with personal attacks. Who Taylor dates or what she wears is nobody's business except her own.
"Who Taylor dates or what she wears is nobody"™s business except her own."
From above:
"I don"™t give a shit how many people Taylor Swift dates, who they are, or how long she"™s with them. It"™s none of our damn business, and if you think that Taylor"™s dating practices are any different than most 23-year-old young women, you"™re a fool."
But yes, I am criticizing how she dressed in one instance, which I agree is none of our business until she wants to be portrayed as a role model. Then it's fair game.
January 16, 2013	@ 11:20 pm
The girl is good at marketing. This "role model" image is a marketing gimmick. She told a story that many people including you wanted to believe. And then when you see evidence that is not consistent with the story you are disappointed and sad, because it is hard to let go of the fairy tale.
As someone with no interest in Taylor's music, I look at the situation from an objective perspective. Taylor's career is a business. What she is doing makes sense commercially. For the first three albums, she was building a brand and a young fan base. When building a brand it pays to have a consistent image and message. And if pop singers never got older and if their careers lasted forever it would be in her best interest to keep doing what got her to this point.
If she had wanted to focus on the country audience I could think of one other path she could have taken as she grew older:
This path would involve recording more songs about traditional values, attaching herself to the conservative movement, and expanding her fan base by building a following among conservative American women. It might have worked – a couple of years ago Republican politicians were holding fundraisers at Taylor Swift concerts and many conservative commentators were singing her praises. The conservative movement was ready to welcome her with open arms, and many on the right hungered for a young and preferably female conservative icon, a Sarah Palin of the popular culture. If she had made an anti-Obama campaign ad and released a song titled "Hope and Change" lambasting his policies, she'd have the admiration of tens of millions of Republicans and all her pop music transgressions would be forgiven (:
But that would take strong convictions and a lot of nerve. She'd be running against the entire pop culture and entertainment establishment. And it wouldn't even be authentic because I don't think she's conservative.
But the careers of pop singers with teen fan bases do not last forever. In the next few years she will be too old to appeal to new cohorts of 10-14 year old girls. And the 15-17 year olds will go to college and be liberated from the world of hand hearts, sparkly dresses, and innocent fully clothed crushes. They will move on to edgier acts in popular music.
If I were to guess, Taylor will have one more multi-platinum album after "Red", when she will be 25. The optimal business strategy now is to maximize short term revenue by broadening the audience. Max Martin knows how to get #1 pop hits and generate revenues. 2006-2009 was the time to plant seeds, but the next couple of years is the time to harvest the crops. And if she wants an acting career in Hollywood, she can increase her market value by expanding her audience beyond the Swifties who bought her first previous albums.
Taylor is not a conservative but tries to keep out of politics to avoid alienating anyone. She supports LGBT rights, voted for Obama and is friends with the Kennedys.
She has an audience outside of teenage girls. One Direction, the teen phenomenon of the moment, sold 500,000 copies of their latest album in a week. Bieber sold less again. Taylor sold 1.2 million copies of Red in its first week. That makes it pretty clear that Taylor is also appealing to a wider audience – college students and beyond.
Great points! I don't think she ever mentioned who she voted for, though. Staying apolitical is one of the her best attributes.
Based on her associations I don't think she is a conservative either. But for a few years she acted the part convincingly enough that it freaked out the feminists on the left (see http://www.autostraddle.com/why-taylor-swift-offends-little-monsters-feminists-and-weirdos-31525/, http://thefbomb.org/2010/02/taylor-swift-not-a-feminists-dream/). Interestingly the attacks from the left seem to have stopped after she was seen hanging out with the Kennedys.
To respond to your other point, today's female college students were 12-15 year old girls when Taylor released her first album. So if she is popular with college girls today, that is related to her appeal to teenage girls. Part of the reason she has sold more records than One Direction is because she's had more time to build a fan base.
My previous comment, was somehow rearranged when I posted it, so let me post it again in two parts:
The biggest mistake anyone can make in music today is underestimating Swifties' loyalty. Remember when Bob Lefsetz was predicting after the 2010 Grammys that Taylor's career was over? Well, look how that prognostication turned out.
As someone with no personal interest in Taylor"™s music, I look at the situation from an objective perspective. Taylor"™s career is a business. What she is doing makes sense commercially. For the first three albums, she was building a brand and a young fan base. When building a brand it pays to have a consistent image and message. And if pop singers never got older and if their careers lasted forever it would be in her best interest to keep doing what got her to this point.
If I were to guess, Taylor will have one more multi-platinum album after Red, when she will be 25. The optimal business strategy now is to maximize short term revenue by broadening the audience. Max Martin knows how to get Number 1 pop hits and generate revenues. 2006-2009 was the time to plant seeds, but the next couple of years is the time to harvest the crops. And if she wants an acting career in Hollywood, she can increase her market value by expanding her audience beyond the Swifties who bought her first previous albums.
If she had wanted to focus on the country audience I could think of one other path she could have taken as she grew older.
This path would involve recording more songs about traditional values, attaching herself to the conservative movement, and expanding her fan base by building a following among conservative American women. It might have worked "" a couple of years ago Republican politicians were holding fundraisers at Taylor Swift concerts and many conservative commentators were singing her praises. The conservative movement was ready to welcome her with open arms, and many on the right hungered for a young and preferably female conservative icon, a Sarah Palin of the popular culture. If she had made an anti-Obama campaign ad and released a song titled "Hope and Change" lambasting his policies, she"™d have the admiration of tens of millions of Republicans and all her pop music transgressions would be forgiven.
But that would take strong convictions and a lot of nerve. She"™d be running against the entire pop culture and entertainment establishment. And it wouldn"™t even be authentic because I don"™t think she"™s conservative.
Isn't the whole idea of a "role model" marketing by definition? The entire concept of being a "role model" involves repressing any "negative" tendencies one may have and showing off the "positive" tendencies in order to set an example for one's followers.
It is important to note that Taylor has never called herself a role model. It's a title that has been endowed upon her by her fans.
She was asked on 60 Minutes about being a role model, and she made a comment that every singer with songs on the radio is raising the next generation (http://tasteofcountry.com/taylor-swift-60-minutes-raising-next-generation/). She clearly tried to play up this part of her marketing message.
Autopsy IV
more Taylor Swift SEO fluff?
Folks are just gonna have to get right with the idea that the Taylor Swift theme is something that both intrigues me and is something I'm passionate about. It is also something that I feel is important, however flawed others may feel that logic might be. Whatever "SEO" benefits a Taylor Swift article might bestow will always be countered by negative sentiment from others, so it is a wash. In the end I write about it because I want to. If it's something that folks don't want to read, I've posted 9 other articles in the last week, many of which deal with the topics many clamor for, but curiously never read.
I hope all the SEO traffic made it down to the comments section and wondered, "Is this real life?" then quickly scurried back to tmz.
If you ever deserved to get called out on SEO it was the definitely on the marijuana post after the Justin Bieber thing. I know you got some hits (ahem) from that.
In some ways, I think this Taylor Swift album is a good thing. It gets us to the hair metal/hip hop model of having at least one hit song then doing what you want with the rest of the album. You give us "Cherry Pie," we'll give you "Uncle Tom's Cabin."
I also disagree that we can't judge her based on her "dating practices." Hell, her whole public persona is based on her dating practices. It's almost schtick at this point.
Actually, that marijuana post grossly underperformed from what I was hoping it would do, and I didn't receive any hits from search engines that I know of. That's the thing with this ridiculous "SEO" claim, I'd have to go to battle with sites like TMZ, The Huffington Post, and Perez Hilton to get hits on these topics, and in these instances I will always lose so there's no reason to try. And furthermore, if this was my aim, why would I take 13 paragraphs to do it? I'd do like TMZ does: say a paragraph of quippy bullshit and then post a picture or video. These articles are too long to appeal to the TMZ demographic. I may piggy back off of current events to talk about relevant topics, but that's just a smart way to engage readers and stimulate discussion, not some sellout move.
I think the fact that this comment section filled up with enlightening back and forths about Marxism proves A) I'm doing something right. B) The intellectual adeptness of my readers.
We LOVE Ya!! You're absolutely dead-on right regarding the "Theme" of Taylor Swift and all that it means. This article / mini-rant spoke concisely to the subject; was extraordinarily well structured and supported; and was such a "fresh" set of ideas regarding the much larger complexity of the world of our media stars. More power to you! Love to read more of it.
Well, if I had a paid subscription to this site, I might lodge a minor complaint, but then keep my subscription. As it is, it's all free and since I have a casual interest in Taylor Swift (wife and kids like her and I don't find her music to be awful – just don't make me listen to it on a regular basis), I usually read the articles anyway. Sometimes, the drama in the comment sections get a bit tedious, though. Especially when the Carrie fans drop by.
She has worn very low-cut dresses to award shows as far back as 2006 so I don't think the above dress is a sign she's 'losing herself'. She wore a very similar dress to the Grammys in 2009. She's a 23 year old woman and has very gradually become more open about discussing sex in her songs. I think she has made the transition from child star to adult more gracefully than most.
Taylor wrote 9 of 16 songs on Red alone and co-wrote the others – that's as much creative input as she has had on any album bar Speak Now. In addition, Ed Sheeran has said their duet was almost finished when she brought it to him. (Can't find that interview link at the minute – I'll post it later) I'm not sure why you're not giving Taylor any credit for the Max Martin co-writes. According to her account of their songwriting sessions, it was a joint endeavor. Scott may have suggested Max Martin, but Taylor has been a fan of his work for many years. Her love of pure pop is not a new development or a sign she's losing herself.
I think she should date or sleep with whomever she wants. I know it's hard when you're very famous, but I do think she should try to be more low-key about her hook-ups until she's sure it will last for a little while. Just to save herself all the mocking in the media.
Could the highly public relationships be part of the marketing strategy? Celebrities are in the business of creating publicity around themselves. Public short term relationships have kept her in the news during the past six months. The stories about Conor came out before the release of her album, and the stories about Harry came out soon after the release. I think she would have sold fewer albums without those stories. Might the publicity be the point of some celebrities' relationships? Do you know for a fact that those relationships actually happened, beyond the photo ops?
Are you actually alleging that the Conor Kennedy relationship wasn't real? If so, the entire Kennedy family had to have been part of that conspiracy, since almost every member of that family gave an opinion on the relationship to tabloids, either directly or through anonymous sources.
I do not know what happened behind the scenes. And there are different ways in which a relationship can be real. People get into relationships for a variety of reasons.
One theory that I did not come up with, is that Taylor is interested in the Kennedy family because they are thought of by many as American royalty, and the Kennedy family doesn't mind being associated with her because she can help them stay culturally relevant to today's youth.
Taylor spent a lot of time with Conor over the summer. On the many days they weren't papped together, there were fan photos or twitter sightings. Why would they be spending time together in scuzzy BBQ restaurants in Nashville if it was just for publicity? They'd just do the occasional photo-op and go their separate ways in between time.
I'm sure Taylor enjoyed the publicity that came with dating Harry Styles but I think it was a genuine romance. His bandmates have been teasing him about his crush on her in interviews all year. They spent time in London, i his hometown of Cheshire for a week with just twitter sightings until their last day there, when paparazzi finally found them. They went skiing in Utah with no paparazzi and on holiday to the Caribbean with no paparazzi. They were virtually inseparable for three months – I think that would be a lot of effort just for PR.
I believe that she could have spent a lot of time with Conor and Harry. It takes more than one or two photo ops to make a celebrity romance appear believable, otherwise the celebrities involved could lose credibility with their fans. Taylor's a hard working girl and in other aspects of her career she has been willing to put in the time and effort to get the marketing message right.
The relationship with Harry is a great marketing move for both of them. It's an incredible cross-selling opportunity: Taylor can sell more albums to Directioners, and One Direction can sell more albums to Swifties. And it kept Taylor in the news between the release of her album and the start of her next tour.
Just before Christmas I was talking with a friend who said that his 18 year old daughter had a huge crush on Harry Styles and she was bummed that Taylor got him. Guess what, she's also a Taylor Swift fan. Funny that Taylor dates guys that her fans are interested in. Methinks that might not be a coincidence. The message is, "I'm just like one of you, but you want to be just like ME." That's good marketing, I'd say.
Found the Ed Sheeran interview. The remark is at 3mins. "Taylor came with pretty much the song done and was like, 'Which bits would you change?'"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5noFCeZZ2VQ
What do we give the chances of this song being released as a single? Its not necessarily the ratio of songs on the album, its how the most pop songs that happen to be the ones she didn't write are being given top billing. The songs from her previous albums like "Love Story" " You Belong With Me" "Tim McGraw" were all initiated by Taylor.
I would say that song will definitely be released as a single, internationally anyway. Sheeran is massive in the UK and the rest of Europe and the song will give Taylor a big boost there.
The truth of it is that every singer out there with songs on the radio is raising the next generation."-
I absolutely detest this line. For one, it reminds me of why I don't get along with many of the people of my generation, as being a guy that is only 18, and wishing that I was born in the 50's or 60's. For another, why should people listen to what the hoards of morons listen to? Can't they be original and stop following the masses and stop being influenced by them? I wasn't raised by Eminem, nor by Lady Gaga nor by Maroon 5.I barely knew those guys until fairly recently. Sure, I have learned several life lessons from listening to George Strait or Alan Jackson, but that's because I took my own way.
The culture of idolizing singers isn't new. Back in the 50's and 60's, young people used to worship Elvis and the Beatles.
Unfortunately Eduardo, though that may be true for you, many kids are turned over to corporate culture to raise them because their parents are either too busy or don't care. I believe this is the majority experience in America, and I can say this because in many ways, this was the way I was raised. Luckily I had a sense there was something different out there and started looking for it. I think its the obligation of people who've been awakened to then power of real art to attempt to share it.
Who cares what "culture" kids are raised in? Why does it even matter if they adhere to the "corporate" entertainment culture? At least the "corporate" culture teaches the virtues of tolerance, unlike many parents.
One of the greatest things about America is that culture and lifestyle are individual choices, not things that are forced on everybody by society.
What a bunch of silly, Marxist crap. Its so tiring to read this drivel, every day, in every post you write.
Trigger, I asked before, but is there a way that a poster can be blocked, so I don't have to even see it come up on my screen? I have reduced my reading of and interaction on this site, primarily due to this issue. Thanks.
How in the world does saying that there is nothing wrong with "corporate culture" constitute anything close to Marxism??? Last I checked, Marxists aren't exactly fond of corporations.
New England Country
I think what RD might have been getting at is that your comment is the epitome of cultural relativism, which a lot of us despise. You act as if corporate culture "" which promotes consumerism, materialism, self-promotion, mass conformity, carefully crafted images on the outside papering over rampant shallowness on the inside (as manifested, e.g., in hobbies, music, the capacity for ethical deliberation, meaningful relationships including within families, etc. etc.) "" and traditional culture on which this country operated almost unanimously and exceptionlessly for its first ~200 years "" which promotes now antiquated values like a commitment to the nuclear family, self-sacrifice, honor, humility, taking responsibility for one's actions, and Christianity, or at the very least Judeo-Christian values which emphasized some sort of accountability to God ""Â are basically the same thing. Or that the differences don't really matter.
To me, it's very short-sighted to say, 'hey, one's a culture, the other's a culture, they're probably about the same, both have their strengths and weaknesses.' It's like saying, well my cousin plays basketball and Michael Jordan played basketball, so they're probably basically the same. In fact, MJ is old and washed up by now, and my cousin's only 21. In actuality, only an idiot would say this. But this is exactly what a lot of people say about culture. And people like RD and me are sick of the relativism, because there are HUGE differences between cultures, and they matter, and corporate culture, ever more powerful, is churning out human beings by the millions in its own image: shallow, lifeless, boring, conformist, thoughtless, ignorant, disrespectful….
You're right that Marxists aren't pro-corporation per se. But I think the underlying similarity that RD alludes to is that both corporate culture and Marxism utilize enormously powerful mechanisms to create mass conformity. As Marxism encourages the surrender of possessions from individuals for the sake of an egalitarian collective, so corporate culture encourages the surrender of individualism, freedom of thought, autonomy, etc. to the vast, monotonous ocean of Facebook/record labels/myspace/Twitter/Abercrombie & Fitch/WalMart/whatever where everyone lives in the same suburban mass-produced houses, wears the same clothes, listens to the same music, watches the same TV shows, plays the same video games, etc. etc.. And if people like you "" who are undoubtedly a majority in this country "" can't even recognize when they've been had, when their spirits and individualities have been evacuated for the sake of a buck in someone else's pocket, we've reached a pretty poor state.
New England Country dropping knowledge!
RD: Nobody's getting banned or censored unless they break the rules. As much as I may or may not like certain commenters, I despise censorship even more.
Eric: As I've said before, you have to appreciate you're in enemy territory in many ways. I appreciate your perspective, but please learn to pick your battles.
I cannot agree more. Kids should be taught to think for themselves. And it is the responsibility of the parents to be good role models. That is not a job that should be outsourced to celebrities.
When I heard her statement on 60 Minutes my first reaction was that it seemed very contrived and manipulative, as if she was trying too hard. Swifties don't watch 60 Minutes. Their parents do, and she was speaking to them, marketing her albums to Mom and Dad. She was speaking to overworked parents who felt a little guilty about not having spent enough time with their 12 year old daughters as they were entering the awkward phase of adolesence, offering to take a bit of the burden off their shoulders. It was great marketing.
A.T. Matthew
I can't believe these comments got into an argument about marxism before a single mention was made of how good Taylor swift looked in that dress…
she looked good in that dress, first time i ever thought of her as hot
Trigger, I'm not asking for censorship, in any way. There is a fishing site that I frequent, where you simply check a box next to any posters name and you no longer see the text from any of their posts going forward. If you uncheck the box, you can again see their posts. Their posts don't disappear to any other readers but you. It saves a lot of needless confrontation. You would probably have to make people register for an account, however. I just would prefer not to read anything that Eric writes.
I've seen this capability before in chat boards and such, doubtful I could implement it here. We'll look into it.
@rd I don't disagree with your "box checking" idea but it did give me a thought. I've learned a lot from people I don't like and disagree with on many things. If I had a way to filter out the bullshit, I may forget what bullshit looks like.
Sites like this are not open forums. We are drawn here because we share a like for the same kind of music, and many come from similar backgrounds, share similar values, etc. I don't go onto The Source's message board and argue with posters about why I don't like rap music or ghetto culture. The people that frequent that board like those things. An Orthodox Christian going onto a Muslim message board to berate Muslims about their false prophet is being a boor. I don't need more exposure to the ideas of the dominant culture, I'm exposed to it everyday, in every way. Its shoved down my throat from every direction. I hear you and I don't agree.
I don't see nothing wrong with the dress,she really doesn't show anything and don't have squat to show off anyway.I am suprised you didn't bring up that "mean" stank eye look she gave Adele when she deservedly beat her Marxist ass,lol
Taylor didn't give Adele any "stank-eye", they didn't even pan to Taylor when she lost the reaction Taylor gave was the same as everyone else's DURING Adele's acceptance speech. They showed Keith Urban give a little smirk to what Adele was saying, then Taylor did, and another woman laughing right after. Taylor did absolutely nothing wrong there not sure why people are jumping on her for that at all, just people looking to make a story and make a buck off her name. Sad really.
the media has been kissing taylors ass ever since the kanye incident and now its time for them to turn on her. im old enough not to be surprised by how her image is starting to take a beating but i never bought into it anyways so i dont really care. she isnt blameless at all since shes always played that pr game and lately shes been playing it very badly. all that said i i still like her and her music (mostly) and im not gonna let the media decide for me wether or not shes worthy of being admired or vilified. celebrity role models are a fantasy for morons and lazy parents.
not really a reaction to your article so much as it is to all the negative publicity shes been getting lately.
She deserves it. Why is she so much special than any other country artist?
Scott Borchetta while he allows creative control should treat all his singers the same way.
I mean why should Taylor be the only one with all that "red" promotion, Papa Johns, Walgreens.
To me Country Music is family, and if you act too big for your country roots, you deserve the backlash.
They kicked out Shania, Faith, Leann Womack, and Martina Mcbride for going pop.
It's a shame that these woman plus a few others Terri Clark, Jo Dee Messina, and Sara Evans got the boot from country radio.
Luckily All too Well was sent to radio, not 22. I hope Treacherous is after that, and not 22. 22 is the worst song she's ever put out :S
I'm not seeing that information corroborated anywhere. Not saying you're wrong, but everything I've seen indicates "22" will be the next single. I hope you're right. Time will tell.
Taylor could make even more product endorsement money by advertising for the cosmetic surgeon that created her new pair of "oranges" she likes to put on display these days. Whatever happened to her her message to be yourself and be natural to all her adoring little girl fans? Well at least she didn't go for the Katy Perry look, but I'm sure that crossed her mind…
Now it's back to the boobs. Some time between the age of 19 and 22 TS grew "oranges"? Well how the hell did that happen? And to make matters worse, sometimes she maybe wears bras! For shame, that bad girl! She should have just bound her chest and promised to never ever ever try to grow up. All her little girl fans are going to have that same problem.
Back to the music.
Good comment!
To New England Country:
It appears that we have a fundamental difference in worldview. Your post conflates several issues and constitutes a general indictment of modern society. I will attempt to distill the issues and discuss them individually.
It's important to first define what "culture" means. I view culture as a multi-dimensional quantity, with the following key components:
1) individual lifestyle
2) how individuals treat other individuals
3) the principles on which society is run
I am a complete cultural relativist when it comes to component #1, and that is what I was referring to when I mentioned that I don't care about the lifestyles portrayed in mass entertainment. However, I am NOT a relativist on #2 or #3, and on #3 I am very much an absolutist.
Let us focus on the third component. I firmly believe that one of the central principles of society is liberty, i.e. individual autonomy as you put it. Criticizing modern entertainment culture for violating individual autonomy while upholding the traditional "Judeo-Christian" culture is laughable. The purveyors of mass entertainment have never created a prescribed lifestyle that they attempted to force on the general population through the force of law. However, "Judeo-Christian" fundamentalist culture has done just that for the last 1500 years. When it comes to America and Western civilization in general, Christian fundamentalist forces, since the beginning of the Middle Ages, have served as the epitomy of conformism and the antithesis of individual autonomy. The key reason that Christian fundamentalists were never able to establish a authoritarian theocracy in America was due to our embrace of the humanist principles of the Enlightenment right from our birth as a nation. However, the first 200 years of America that you praise so strongly were dominated by many authoritarian theocratic laws, such as sodomy bans, obscenity laws, and restrictions on women's rights.
Same goes for the difference between Marxism and the mass entertainment culture. Marxism does not "encourage" people to surrender their possessions. It FORCES them to do so by law. Once again, mass entertainment does not FORCE people to do anything.
I finally want to touch on your general criticisms of modern society.
First, the idea that we are worse off now culturally than we were in the first 200 years of America is an argument that I wholeheartedly disagree with. This gets me to my component #2 of culture, how individuals treat other individuals. For almost all of our first two centuries as a country, it was part of mainstream American culture for most people to treat women and racial minorities as inferior, religious minorities as aliens, gays as mental patients, etc. The fact that we are far better now as a culture in judging people as individuals rather than by what demographic groups they may belong to is, in my opinion, a sign of major progress in our culture.
Second, your contention that mass entertainment is churning out people who are "shallow, lifeless, boring, conformist, thoughtless, ignorant, disrespectful" is a sweeping generalization and seems to be an attack on my generation. It is not an original statement, as this rant that has been made by older generations about younger generations for ages now. Since I spend a pretty significant amount of time with people my age who grew up in this age of mass entertainment, I happen to know my generation quite well and none of the attributes you listed apply to them. Your claim that the current generation is "ignorant" especially falls flat. This is the best educated generation in American history, and young voters 18-29 just turned out in the last election at the highest rate that this age demographic has ever turned out at. Furthermore, I would argue that your stereotyping of this generation is very disrespectful in and of itself. It takes away any moral authority you may have to label an entire generation as disrespectful.
Third, Facebook, Myspace, and Twitter are simply means of communication, not some form of corporate mass entertainment. The fact that you would single them out for criticism only confirms to me that your problem is with the modern era in general, not specifically corporate entertainment.
As for everyone living in the same suburban houses or wearing the same clothes or watching the same TV shows: wasn't this far truer in the 1950's than today? In the bygone era you so glorify, a whole gamut of businesses and educational institutions used to have dress codes, for crying out loud!
And finally we come to this:
"And if people like you "" who are undoubtedly a majority in this country "" can"™t even recognize when they"™ve been had, when their spirits and individualities have been evacuated for the sake of a buck in someone else"™s pocket, we"™ve reached a pretty poor state."
This statement goes to the heart of why we have such a deep disagreement. You believe that people are fundamentally weak and can be sapped of their spirits and individualism just by listening to some form of entertainment. You think that people do not know what is best for themselves. I, on the other hand, believe that human individuality is too powerful to be eroded by some silly entertainment and that lifestyle, including choice of entertainment, is an individual decision.
Love the debate! Thanks for this. A few points that I hope stay relevant to the larger question of culture's effects on individuals….
1) You really think "individual lifestyle" can be hermetically sealed from "how individuals treat" others or the "principles on which society is run?" What if my "individual lifestyle" is to be a drug addict. No spillover into how I treat others? No interaction between that "lifestyle" and the deepest values of a society? Please. The three forces you mention all bleed into each other, by necessity. We're not robots, we're people, and the compartments you mention aren't and can't ever be airtight.
2) There were no fundamentalists before the 20th century. By definition. It's important – I think – to use that word correctly, not as a weapon to bludgeon whole generations of Christians who would have found fundamentalism completely foreign, not to mention heretical, if they had ever come into contact with it. Which, of course, they didn't. Because it didn't exist.
3) Christianity has been an unmatched force for the flourishing of human rights (of many kinds – true, not "rights" to abortion or gay marriage, but many other more basic ones you and I now take for granted), arts, architecture, education (Christians invented the university), economics, science (such as it was in the pre-modern world), etc. In fact, no other worldview can hold a candle to Christianity's creative power, historically speaking.
4. I take your point about Marxism's use of coercion. Two points:
A) I could just say Marxism and consumerism have conformity of the masses to a single contrived standard as a common goal, and take out the use of 'encouragement.' That would fix your criticism, I think.
B) I'm less optimistic than you that these forces of consumerism aren't (more subtly) coercive. Example: do you think differently now vs. before you had email? Internet? A cell phone? I mean at the core of your mind – has your attention span shortened? Your patience for little delays? Your tolerance for not knowing something the moment it comes into your mind? Mine has. Example 2: Don't you think people are way more desensitized to violence and sex than they used to be? Example 3: Are people less close to their families since the mass availability of the automobile? Of course they are. How about since the advent of the nursing home? Or Social Security/Medicare? There was a time when people lived the last years of their lives in their children's homes. Now most of us would find that kind of burden intolerable. How did that happen? Example 4: Do children receive the same attention from their mothers as they did before the women's liberation movement when women started to get out of the domestic sphere and began to work? Do you think this has an affect on children's emotional/psychological development? Again, the answer is obvious. Example 5: The tide has dramatically turned on support for gay marriage in the past, say 15-20 years, and certainly the past 40. It's been a shockingly sudden transformation, actually. Do you think that's happened because 100 million Americans independently deliberated by themselves in the privacy of their homes over that time and happened to come to the same – historically unprecedented – conclusion? Or is it because of shows like Will and Grace, Modern Family, various news stories, celebrity testimonies, a cultural crusade in favor of 'diversity' and against traditional religious 'authoritarian' forms of morality, etc., etc.? I could go on and on…. Needless to say there are a lot of examples of cultural developments, technological advances, and consumerism interacting to change individuals' behaviors and preferences, sometimes at very deep levels. And if you think you can be a consumerist materialist individualist while remaining unaffected by the surrounding culture, it only shows how much of a product of materialism you are – and you don't even know it. You think very, very differently than your great grandparents did – and not because you independently decided to.
5. No people aren't sapped of their spirits "just by listening to some form of entertainment." But prolonged exposure, day in and day out, over months and years, when all one's friends are similarly exposed…. Yeah, that changes people. For example….
6. You say: "I, on the other hand, believe that human individuality is too powerful … and that lifestyle, including choice of entertainment, is an individual decision." Yeah? How'd you come up with that idea? Did you think of it on your own? Or could our culture, which loves to elevate individual autonomy and personal choice in nearly everything and which has nurtured you from the day you were born, influenced your opinion? Your dogmatic elevation of individual autonomy is, ironically, pretty strong evidence of your own lack of it.
Sorry for the length. And apologies to those who came here to read something about music…
First, I absolutely think that lifestyle can be separated from how the principles on which a society is run. In a society based on liberty and tolerance, it is a core responsibility that the two are separated and that all individuals are free to pursue their lifestyles.
Unfortunately, the forces of Christian theocracy (sound better than Christian fundamentalism?) have historically constituted the chief enemy to such liberty in Western civilization (as do the forces of Islamic theocracy still today in the Islamic world). Your point that the Church laid much of the basis for modern intellectualism is a good one. However, the open question remains whether the important work it did in the Late Middle Ages can counter all of the ways in which it held back Western Civilization for more than a thousand years. But that debate probably cannot be resolved easily, so let's move on…
As for your points #4-6, they again show your lack of belief in human independent thinking.
Persuasion is not coercion. If TV shows are changing people's minds about gay marriage, that is an excellent example of persuasion. Furthermore, I'm not sure if people are more desensitized to violence than in the past, as the past was plenty violent. Yes, people are more desensitized to sex, but that is what freedom does to a society. When people realize that there is nothing wrong with a certain activity, then desensitization is a natural result.
Women's liberation had nothing to do with consumerism. It was about women asserting themselves as equal to men outside the domestic sphere.
As for your other examples: they are simply the natural consequences of technology. When people change their lives in response to technology, it reflects the outpouring of repressed desires they already had but had not been able to follow through on. That represents an expansion of freedom, not coercion.
Finally, I do agree with you on this:
"Or could our culture, which loves to elevate individual autonomy and personal choice in nearly everything and which has nurtured you from the day you were born, influenced your opinion?"
Yes, my beliefs were very much influenced by the principles of the Enlightenment, which have fortunately become the fundamental principles of society for most of the world today.
By the way, this statement contradicts what you said earlier about how modern culture destroys individual autonomy. Thanks for correcting yourself.
"Theocracy" is an improvement, since at least it was a familiar concept from the Old Testament – but it's not much of one. For instance, there's never been theocracy in the history of America, so it seems, at least for our context today, as if you're overstating your case.
As for the rest, I'm reluctant (though tempted) to make another extended argument about culture on this site, which is supposed to be about music. Suffice it to say, I agree persuasion and coercion aren't the same. But I think they overlap considerably and when you look beneath the surface it's often hard to tell the difference. For instance, how many of your core beliefs would you have if you lived 2500 years ago in Mesopotamia, or 700 years ago in (what is now) the US, or if you lived in Saudi Arabia or Indonesia or Mongolia today.? Probably very few. Are you coerced into your beliefs? Not really – coercion seems to be the wrong word. On the other hand, did you have much choice in them? Again, not really. That's part of why I think it's misleading to claim that people have as much individual self-determination as you claim they do – and why I think it's dangerous to assert that when the music most absorb week in and week out is (to quote this website) "lifeless," that that will not – sooner or later – erode people's minds and characters, and therefore help to corrode society itself. How could it not?
As for the alleged contradiction, I don't see any. I think the two statements support each other completely.
PS – Enlightenment ideas are not the fundamental principles of society for most of the world today. Far from it.
Let me bring this back to the music. I'll start with this:
"For instance, how many of your core beliefs would you have if you lived 2500 years ago in Mesopotamia, or 700 years ago in (what is now) the US, or if you lived in Saudi Arabia or Indonesia or Mongolia today.?"
You're right that my core beliefs derive from the Enlightenment. Asking me how many of these beliefs I would have had if I had lived in a different era is somewhat like asking religious Christians how many of their core beliefs they would have had if they had lived in a different society.
The question is whether modern mass entertainment conflicts with these Enlightenment values. I have seen no evidence that it does; if anything, it seems to be actually promoting values like tolerance. Many parents, on the other hand, do teach values that run contrary to Enlightenment principles. This brings me back to my original comment, that there is nothing necessarily wrong with absorbing values from mass entertainment rather than from parents.
"For instance, there"™s never been theocracy in the history of America, so it seems, at least for our context today, as if you"™re overstating your case."
I was referring to the "forces of theocracy" in America. Fortunately, America after independence has never succumbed to these forces, but that does not mean that they haven't been a historically powerful force in Western civilization and that they haven't been responsible for many of the theocratic-inspired laws of the past in this country, such as sodomy bans, obscenity laws, restrictions on women's rights, contraception bans, alcohol prohibition, etc.
"Enlightenment ideas are not the fundamental principles of society for most of the world today."
Taken by population, the societies governed by Enlightenment principles outnumber those governed by pre-Enlightenment ones. Enlightenment principles more or less govern Europe, the entire Western Hemisphere, India, and Southeast Asia. Societies not governed by such principles are China and most of the Islamic world. Sub-Saharan Africa lies somewhere in between.
Hey Eric,
"Let me bring this back to the music," you say. You got my hopes up, but went on to say nothing about music. I'm disappointed!
It boils down to this: you espouse tolerance, practically above all else. But tolerance in itself won't provide the highest guiding principles of society. For instance, do you tolerate murderers? Thieves? Petty shoplifters? How about doctors who commit malpractice? What if they had the best intentions? Do you tolerate racists? Drunk drivers? Extortionists? The list goes on. The point is, we all draw substantive – rather than merely procedural/pragmatic/prudential – lines in the sand somewhere. The big difference between us is that I'm acknowledging the lines I draw and stating that corporate pop music sucks and is bad for society, generally speaking. You think that you don't draw substantive lines in the sand (even though in practice you do every day), and then wonder out loud how all of us 'intolerant,' unwashed, retrograde Nashville haters can be so dogmatic. Tolerance is fine as far as it goes. But it's not a worldview to base your whole life on, much less a whole culture or society. It's just too thin.
PS – look up theocracy in the dictionary. Most of the items you mention have nothing to do with theocracy.
There are two types of tolerance:
1) legal tolerance (i.e. personal liberty)
2) personal tolerance
By the principle of personal liberty, any action that does not cause physical or financial harm must be legally tolerated. Obviously that does not include any of your examples, except for racist speech. As much as I abhor racist speech, banning it would be infinitely worse.
The other aspect of tolerance is personal tolerance, i.e. how we treat those who are behaving in a manner different than that which we would prefer. Unlike the issue of legal tolerance, this is first and foremost a personal choice, again according to the principle of personal liberty. My views on personal tolerance, for example, may be different from others. I am completely personally tolerant of people doing whatever they want with their bodies or with other consenting adults, even if I would never undertake such activities myself. However, I am not personally tolerant of those who treat others in a mean-spirited manner or promote bigoted or authoritarian beliefs (once again, though, I would NEVER want such forms of expression curbed by the force of law).
Let's now extend this to the sphere of music. According to the principle of legal tolerance, there should be no censorship of music, period. Hopefully we can agree on that. Now, let's evaluate music based on personal tolerance. From my perspective on this matter, I do not have any moral problem with any pop songs unless they promote mean-spiritedness, violence, bigotry, or authoritarianism. Pop songs these days virtually never promote the latter two, so those are not a problem. Unfortunately, some hip-hop songs do promote violence and "meanness", but these songs are a small minority of overall pop music. I very much dislike modern pop music in general, but my problems with it stem from musical taste, not morality.
esfoster
I'm not up to an writing an essay, but I do want to address point 4A. If I change it to "Marxism, consumerism and Christianity have conformity of the masses to a single contrived standard as a common goal," the substance stays the same but it casts equal suspicion on the worldview you're espousing.
The largest point of contention I can see is whether or not you would concede that the standard of "Judeo-Christian values" is contrived. Judged by the same standard as Marxism and consumerism–which can be no more true or false than capitalism or asceticism or any other worldview, philosophy, or lifestyle–Judeo-Christian values are obviously contrived. The only escape clause is proving the the existence of the Judeo-Christian God, and I'm well aware that's a rather tall order.
Though back on topic, this is one of the few times I disagree with Trigger. The only reason that dress should affect her status as a role model is because of religious taboos surrounding sexuality. I really can't imagine how Taylor Swift in a low cut dress is doing any more damage to young girls than seeing their mother or older sister in a bikini.
"And by the way, is it too much to ask that our role models at least be able to fulfill their roles in whatever discipline they"™re endeavoring in to even some average level of competency?"
CapnWain
It's amazing how much some of y'all know about, keep up with, and give inordinate amounts of time and thought, an artist that is considered part of the problem of all that's wrong with Nashville and country music.
Maybe if we spent this much time and effort discussing real country musicians, we could help them get exposed and recognized.
I just stumbled across this… you haven't lived until you've heard Samuel L. Jackson covering Taylor Swift.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=xP2cIz57Ggw
I would have went with:
No, we're not getting back together, and I hope you burn in haaayull!
Failure Swift Sux
we'll always have kellie pickler. Failure swift would never shaver her head for a friend in need, she worries too much about losing a date this friday
Well, Taylor has written an entire song about a child that she didn't even know who died of cancer. She then put the song on itunes, where it shot to #1, and all the proceeds from that song were donated to cancer charities.
You do realize also that Taylor Swift and Kellie Pickler are very close friends, right? You are not helping Kellie Pickler by tearing down Taylor. It is possible to be a big fan of both artists, as I am.
I don't think Taylor's in contact with Kellie Pickler these days. It has been years since they've been photographed together or mentioned each other publicly.
True. I've scoured the Internet looking for recent news stories about them together, but haven't been able to find any. There was a time a few years ago when they very publicly declared that they regarded each other as sisters.
I hope that they rekindle their friendship and maybe even write some new songs together! Imagine what a great artistic team they would make, especially now with Kellie having attained a new artistic peak.
MayBeth
why doesn't she donate any of her own damn money (to cancer)
She has donated plenty of her money to a whole variety of charitable causes. In fact, she is reputed to be the most charitable celebrity. You don't know about it because she doesn't show off her charitable works. She just does the right thing quietly.
I have a few things to add:
1. Tim McGraw is simple and poppy and sappy, but it still is an excellent song. (You can have my man card if you want it.)
2. Dang, you have to get over this Taylor Swift obsession. I don't really care what Taylor Swift does or does not do with her career. I couldn't name one of her songs since Tim McGraw. She does seem to be a fairly normal woman in her 20's when you consider her fame and fortune, so I give her that. But remember that she is very young and has been famous for a long time. My sense is that she is rebelling a bit against type (albeit with some godawful but lucrative dance pop). My prediction is that she will return to country / Americana roots in her 30s, and will be re-embraced by the traditionalists.
3. Boobies! (nice red carpet pic). She is a very beautiful and elegant young woman.
The only obsession here is to cover all the facets of "country" music of which Taylor Swift is a big part of because like it or not, she is the biggest name in the genre, and the biggest name in all of music at the moment. Overall, she makes up less than 5% of what happens here, it just happens to be it's her coverage that gets most of the attention.
I agree that whoever Taylor dates is her business. However, so much emphasis has been placed on the fact that she writes about her past relationships – some lyric snippets that a hardcore fan can understand, placing hints/clues on the lyrics on her album inserts, the media coverage, countless interviews where she herself admitted that certain songs are about her relationships – that I think it gave people that it is alright to speculate and talk about her love life.
At one point her penchant for writing songs about her life and experience was heartfelt and precocious, making her extremely relatable to her young fans. However, somewhere along the way, she crossed the line from heartfelt and precocious to cunning and calculated. Now some people think that she goes into these relationships to have something to write about for her songs for future albums.
I still think that her career will last for a long, long time. I may not be a fan, but even I must admit that the girl is a talented songwriter. Yes, she's not much of a vocalist lol, but the songwriting ability is very much present. I do think though, that she and her team should rethink their strategies for the next album. Have the focus be diverted away from her relationships, stop coyly hinting at the identity of the guys that inspired the songs, and focus on the songwriting talent, her ability to convey emotions through simple words, which I think is what her fans originally loved best about her. And for heaven's sake, no more Max Martin/Shellback songwriting sessions please lol.
First I think many people exaggerate her songwriting talent because she has been able to lower expectations by playing the "young and innocent" card. Until the past year or two, I think many people still thought she was a 15 year old girl.
And is it not possible that the coyness and the gimmicks are part of what her young fan base is attracted to? Recently a female friend of mine observed that Taylor is like the president of the world's largest sorority. It's complete with rituals like the famous hand heart gesture, secret messages, and boys – she dates the popular guys and shows them off to the sisters so they will look up to her. I think Taylor Swift is much better at identity politics than she is at music.
I don't see how someone who has won a Grammy for Album of the Year would get any slack cut when it comes to expectations.
If I recall the Grammy you are referring to was awarded in early 2010, a few months after the Kanye West incident. She may have benefited from the sympathy vote. People are instinctively protective of females who act young and innocent, especially if they see her in a "victim" role.
Well, the critics sure didn't cut her any slack after the Grammys in their review of her performance with Stevie Nicks!
Given how vacuous your arguments have become, I think it's probably time for you to lay off the sexism and start posting more substantive comments.
" she is the biggest name in the genre"
If this is even close to the truth, we are truly
Doomed as a race.
" less than 5%"???????
Sadly, every time I check this site it's
another T Swift article… Like seriously ??
You pay this little tart far too much attention.
It really has me wondering about your sites name….
I think we give too much attention to this girl and her little QUICK relationships. Everyone is saying her dating life is a joke. Well, if that's the case why are people wasting weeks and weeks discussing her love life? I do think she should be dating older boys/men. Of course she should. But perhaps the reason she's decided to date younger is because she doesn't want to be sexually active. Which could be understandable. Dating someone like John Mayer or Jake G you know they likely expect sex. But dating a Conor Kennedy or a Harry Styles she probably feels she has a little more control of what happens sexually (while still keeping everything legal since they are 18). Look there could be a number of reasons but one thing she's not doing is HURTING anyone. A song might be written but who wouldn't want a multi million selling smash song written about them? haha.
I think the obsession with her love life is a little sick if you ask me and I'd be ashamed to be writing an entire article (complaining) about it still. Didn't she break up with the boy nearly a month ago? Let's let it go for now. Kay? It's starting to look creepy. Hey those of you obsessed with Taylor's love life. How is your own? haha. Likely terrible if all you can do is obsess with this silly mess for days and weeks on end.
Come on we are talking about the love life of an 18 y/o and a 23 y/o both single people with NO CHILDREN. Who cares!
A major part of Taylor's appeal to her young fan base is identity politics. In other words, "I'm just like one of you, but you want to be just like me." By dating 18 year old guys, she can send a message to teenage girls that she's one of them. This could be one way to appear younger and more relevant to teens.
I don't think your theory about dating 18 year olds to avoid sex makes much sense. I've been an 18 year old man before, many years ago. And 18 year old guys are horny. In fact 18 year old men have stronger sex drives than 35 year olds. Perhaps you are inclined to believe that she is trying to avoid sex because you have the perception that she is younger than she is, because she portrays herself in that way.
"Perhaps you are inclined to believe that she is trying to avoid sex because you have the perception that she is younger than she is, because she portrays herself in that way."
I think you should check out her interviews. She comes off as more mature and articulate than many celebrities twice her age.
If you haven't noticed that she portrays a young image, try listening to her song Sparks Fly, which was released as a single when she was 21. The lyrics and vocals sound like those of a 15 year old girl.
Probably because she wrote the original version of the song when she was 16.
Prior to the Speak Now album, she performed "Sparks Fly" only once, in 2007 in Oroville, California. Over the years, the video of that performance went viral and her fans began to increasingly request that she release the song. As a result, she changed some of lyrics and put the song in Speak Now.
Funny article about Michael J. Fox entertaining the notion of Taylor Swift dating his son.
http://omg.yahoo.com/blogs/celeb-news/michael-j-fox-tells-taylor-swift-back-off-214440202.html
My favorite line:
"I wouldn"™t even know who she was," he said, before agreeing it would dawn on him when the eventual breakup song hit the radio. "'Sam, You Piece of S–t.' Oh "¦ that was the girl you brought home!"
DoctaMario
Adrian is on the money in regards to TS playing up her youth and innocence for marketing purposes. In reality, she seems like a bit of a shark to me, so I don't trust the marketing machine's summation of her.
I agree with Eric that she comes across as very mature and intelligent in interviews, but it's a shame that her music doesn't seem to reflect a lot of that. Regardless, there are much worse role models young girls could have and it's silly to expect that a pop singer won't grow up and start to change. She's still a lot more "role model-worthy" than say, Rihanna.
With the exception of the Max Martin songs, most of the songs on Red are quite mature. Her songwriting has evolved significantly since the Fearless era.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u1RU6a_2WMU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yUYWucrGnAo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EBwpMelH6Gg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qRXP0Whtlgg (probably her best lyrics ever)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oyQXRmVrwmA
Taylor's singing voice sounds much younger than her age. I still hear the "little girl sound" in most of her songs. I don't know if she is cultivating the young sound to make 12-15 year old fans think she's just like one of them, or if her voice is really that thin.
The most commercially successful pop singers are usually those who have mastered the art of identity politics, which is what makes young fans think of the singers as role models. Unfortunately, the nature of the business of popular music, and the type of personalities it attracts, usually produces artists who are poor role models.
Here is a link to an article that provides a different perspective about Taylor's role as a role model:
http://www.debbieschlussel.com/53445/despite-conventional-wisdom-taylor-swift-was-never-a-good-role-model-for-girls/
I agree that her image of excessive dependency on her boyfriends, combined with her routine trashing of her exes, makes her a poor role model.
By the way, this article is now at the very top of the search results for "taylor swift role model".
I used to love Taylor Swift as an artist and i've never seen her as a country artist. By listening to her first album, we could label her as a country pop artist. Now, she's a pop princess.
I love her, but think that her commercial success turned her into something I am not confortable with. Her first album was incredible comparing to the current one.
Actually, I think the commercial Taylor kinda ruined a part of her image. And the one I loved most.
One of the things that will always bother me is what happened between herself and Kellie Pickler. They were great friends, but followed different directions.
ReinstateHank
Why is Taylor Swift even an issue on a website called savingcountrymusic.com? After all Taylor Swift is not country…. duh!
March 6, 2013	@ 5:01 pm
In an interview on 60 Minutes last year, Taylor Swift said, "I definitely think about a million people when I"™m getting dressed in the morning"¦It would be really easy to say, "˜I"™m 21 now, I do what I want, you raise your kids."™ But that"™s not the truth of it. The truth of it is that every singer out there with songs on the radio is raising the next generation."
I don't agree with this at all. Seriously, why doesn't she just tell parents to stop raising their kids and let money suckers like her, Gaga and Perry raise them? Swift knows as much about raising kids as she does dating men, unto which she is simply a novice at. Like many other pop stars today, Taylor must think that most of her fans are stupid and will believe anything she says. When she released her first album, I had respect for her as a person and her music, but then threw all of it out the window once she developed a thick head after the release of Speak Now, as she proved to me and others to be just another pop star who thinks that they're "invincible" and that they can do no wrong. These pop stars should really keep their traps shut with issues like this.
Absolutely agree with your post. Comments such as "I definitely think about a million people when I"™m getting dressed in the morning" and "the reality is, what you wear matters" are more appropriate for a fashion advertisement. Being a role model is NOT all about the clothes you wear, that is unless you are just talking about it as a marketing gimmick. When I first heard her make those comments on 60 Minutes I thought she didn't really mean any of it and she was just trying to tell the middle aged parents of her fans what they wanted to hear.
Taylor is an average looking singer with a below average voice who makes up for her lack of musical talent with marketing hype. Unfortunately many people who should know better drank the Koolaid and fell for it.
One Direction weren't excepting an award. They were reading the nominees for an award; Selena was one of the nominees.
Yeah…I don't see her swearing….
I think it's like those old backmasking things on Zepplin records; You can only hear them when they are pointed out to you. At first i thought it looked like she was saying shut the fuck up but then when the arm thing was pointed out, thats what it looked like she was saying.
D.W. Pennington
April 18, 2016	@ 1:50 pm
I think, in the GIF, there is no doubt she's talking about her arm as claimed. It's a reach to think the other possibility matches her visual vocalization.
June 2, 2016	@ 4:10 pm
I have a replacement role model
Lacey Sturm
Leave a Reply to Adrian Cancel reply
Trigger on Album Review – Bruce Robison & Kelly Willis, "Beautiful Lie"
LG on Album Review – Bruce Robison & Kelly Willis, "Beautiful Lie"
Brad Johnson on Album Review – Bruce Robison & Kelly Willis, "Beautiful Lie"
Trigger on Dear Ben Haggard, Please Record an Original Album


text:
layout: post
title: Top 250 movies of all time
---

# What makes a movie successful?
What makes some movies so successful? How does a movie end up in the IMDB top 250 movies of all time? Are movie ratings influenced by factors like the number of academy awards it won, the gross it generated or simply the number of IMDB voters?
We built a regression tree model to try and see if some of these factors influenced a movie's IMDB score. We trained and tested our model on the IMDB top 250 movies of all time and extracted its most relevant features.

## What kind of movies are included in IMDB's top 250 movies?

Top 250 movies scores range between 8 and 9.3.
21 directors have more than three movies in the top. Five directors have seven movies in the top (a maximum): Christopher Nolan, Steven Spielberg, Stanley Kubrick, Martin Scorsese and Alfred Hitchcock.

The top includes movies dating from 1921 to 2016.
55.8% are from the 20th century and 44.2% from the 21st century.

Their gross products range between $10,177 and $936,627,416. The lowest gross product is associated with a movie from 1950. The highest is from a 2015 movie.

The highest number of academy awards ever won by a movie is 11. It has been achieved by three movies, two of which are in the top: The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King	and Ben Hur. However, the third movie - Titanic - isn't in the top.

From these plots, we can see that imbd scores seem to be positively correlated with the number of votes and the gross.

## Which model performed best to predict imbd scores?

Five models were tested and optimised to try and model imdb scores: decision tree, random forest, ada boost, gradient boosting trees and extra trees.
We compared cross validated r2 scores of these models and based on the graph below, we concluded that the random forest algorithm was the most performant.

## Most relevant features

Based on the random forest model, the most relevant features in predicting imdb scores are the number of votes, the gross, the movie's year and its runtime.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaGithub


text:
Eastham home damaged by lightning strike
Madeleine List
mlist@capecodonline.com
EASTHAM — A house caught fire after a lightning bolt struck its chimney Wednesday night, according to Eastham fire Capt. Lisa Albino.
Two residents of 20 Stone Court heard a loud bang and evacuated the house at around 7:12 p.m., she said.
Firefighters responded and found a fire burning the kitchen wall on the inside and the outside, she said. The chimney sustained extensive damage.
Firefighters extinguished the fire after about 15 minutes, she said. No one was injured, but the house is currently uninhabitable and the residents are staying with friends.
The lightning strike and fire caused about $50,000 in damage, she said. The house is worth $116,200, according to town assessors records.
— Follow Madeleine List on Twitter: @madeleine_list.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


There is a narrative in modern society that casts shade on anyone who does not agree with or condone the LGBT community and its non-expedient behavior. It's true that among their detractors, there is a vast mixture of those who are blindly intolerant and hurtful, and those who are compassionate and caring. It's my belief based on observation and research that the former category is a mere fragment of the latter, and that the majority of proponents of straight behavior are loving, principled individuals.
Nevertheless, to be openly opposed to homosexuality and other aberrant sexual behavior in our current cultural climate puts one at risk of being labeled "homophobic", a "hater", "intolerant", etc. These unfair labels completely distract from the facts that, not only does the Bible give clear instruction against this behavior, but so does science.
If you're interested in some scholarly reading regarding sexual orientation, gender identity, and the mental health outcomes, and social stress of sexuality, I highly recommend this study on Sexuality and Gender conducted by world-renowned Johns Hopkins University scientists Dr. Lawrence S. Mayer and Dr. Paul R. McHugh. It was published in the fall 2016 edition of The New Atlantis Journal. It's a meta-analysis of data from over 200 peer-reviewed studies regarding "sexual orientation" and "gender identity." It was and is, far and away, the most objective, exhaustive, and comprehensive study on the topic to date.
This paper is just one of several recent scholarly reports that show the destruction of sexual confusion.
It is vital for Christians to understand that culture does not trump the word of God. We have to remain true to scripture, even when culture and pop-science appear to claim otherwise. In the end, God will always be true. Those experiencing the confusion of sexual identity, and those promoting aberrant sexual behavior, need compassion, but they also need facts. These are both essential if we are to love them to Jesus and show them that there is a better way.
God, help us to be knowledgeable and compassionate in order to lead this generation to you!