Scott Borchetta Tried to Convince Taylor Swift to Stay Country
Taylor Swift, who just made her big switch from country to pop, is the focus of Rolling Stone‘s cover story in the latest issue, and the in-depth feature finds Miss Swift dunking in the ocean fully clothed and dropping some very interesting tidbits that could help country music perform its postmortem about why Taylor Swift left and what it really means.
The first interesting nugget from the article is how the Country Music Antichrist and head of Big Machine Records Scott Borchetta attempted to keep Taylor Swift in the genre, or at least tried to convince Swift to give him some country singles that he could use to keep her in the country fold.
A casual fan won’t notice much difference, but to Swift and her brand, it’s a big step. She says she won’t be going to country-awards shows or promoting the album on country radio. When she first turned in the record, she says the head of her label, Scott Borchetta, told her, “This is extraordinary it’s the best album you’ve ever done. Can you just give me three country songs?”
“Love you, mean it,” is how Swift characterizes her response. “But this is how it’s going to be.”
But even more interesting is the wisdom, either purposeful or accidental, that Taylor Swift dropped about trying to pursue a dual musical life, and what the result could be…
One of the quizzical things about Taylor Swift’s country departure is how unnecessary it seemed. The genre has moved so far in the pop direction, she wouldn’t need to deliver Scott Borchetta three country songs to stay country. Swift could simply release any song she wanted to country radio, and they probably would play it. In fact, some country stations are playing Swift’s new single anyway. But this course would have continued the incessant conflict that has dogged Swift’s career since its inception about how she’s not country. By officially making the switch to pop, she puts most of those criticisms to bed.
Also, since Borchetta is being portrayed in the article as trying to keep Swift within the country fold at least to some extent, it shows that Swift’s decision was not based on business. Something else that was strange about Taylor’s move to pop was it seems to be going against the grain of the current trends in popular music. Most pop music is moving towards country not away from it, because country is seen as the greenest pasture at the moment, continuing to gain market share and solidify its place as the most popular genre of music. But Swift’s move appears to be more philosophical, and perhaps, a little more long-sighted; more long-sighted than the view country music is currently taking of itself.
In the Rolling Stone article, Swift acknowledges that her last album, 2012’s Red, straddled the boundary between country and pop. “But at a certain point, if you chase two rabbits, you lose them both,” Swift says.
While most people will likely gloss over this point in the article as they try to spy a wet Taylor Swift nipple through her white shirt or obsess on if it’s really Katy Perry she’s apparently calling out with one of her new songs, there is wisdom here that country music would be smart to heed. When you try to appeal to everyone, which country music is trying to do right now by being so open to pop, rap, and EDM sounds, you end up not capturing anyone. All of the “rabbits” (to use Swift’s analogy) go hopping away, and you’re left in the popular music lurch, just like rock music is at the moment.
The fashionable claim to make right now is that genres don’t matter, and you don’t just hear this from country music’s biggest pop stars, but from independent and Americana artists like Jason Isbell and Sturgill Simpson. But what Taylor Swift did by declaring herself pop is she proved why they still do. Taylor Swift is the most popular artist of the current generation, and she felt the need to more clearly define herself and her music, not because it was necessary or even commercially lucrative, but because it was smarter in the long-term and extricated her from confusion and conflict. She defined herself as pop against the wishes of her label, and against popular trends. And now her career is on more sure footing, and she can be more confident in herself and in her music moving forward, and ironically, gain the respect of many of her country detractors over the years for finally being honest.
Again, most will allow for this wisdom to zoom right over their heads. But Miss Swift just proved she’s one step ahead, and one measure wiser than the industry she just left.
Jonny
September 9, 2014 @ 9:09 am
A side point worth noting about Taylor Swift’s departure from country music is the effect it’ll have on her international career. Unlike most country music, which has trouble exporting anywhere other than Canada, and occasionally the UK & Ireland, Swift has always had a huge career abroad, but it really went into overdrive around the Red era, coincidentally when her sound became unapologetically ‘pop’. Moreover, at least here in the UK, nobody really thinks of her as a country artist, but rather as a pop artist who occasionally flirts with the genre.
Basically I think you’re 100% on point when you say that she’s made the right decision by clarifying her identity, and in turn, I wonder whether becoming a fully fledged all-American pop star will help her export even more music abroad, no longer tied down by the country label that fails to resonate en masse globally.
Jack
December 4, 2015 @ 8:19 pm
I just wish she would stop making every song about her 5000 Ex-Boyfriends.
Windmills Country
September 9, 2014 @ 9:14 am
Taylor Swift in the Wall Street Journal, July 2014:
Taylor making her 1st “officially documented” pop album really treats genre as an “organizational tool” – it’s a marketing decision that finally matches her music. I’ve said all along that finally declaring herself pop is really an imaging/branding move for Taylor because it changes the parameters of the conversation about her. Taylor no longer wants to be seen as a pop outsider, she wants to be at the center of mainstream pop, and her new peers are global megastars like Beyonce and Taylor’s new feuding partner Katy Perry.
Sure, there’s wisdom in country not trying to be a musical catch-all. But based on her WSJ op-ed, that’s not the lesson Taylor’s learned. She’s still treating genre as musically limiting but her statements about identifying herself as pop are for “organizational” purposes – i.e., marketing, imaging, and branding. And it is precisely because country radio’s treated genre as an “organizational tool” rather than something with musical value that mainstream country has gone through creatively stifling periods of homogeny.
Trigger
September 9, 2014 @ 10:18 am
But then this goes back to the question of “Why make this genre distinction?” Why is she insisting this album is pop if genres don’t matter?
Taylor Swift could have it both ways, three country singles or not. If she simply hadn’t declared her album pop, she would have been welcome with open arms to all of country’s award shows, be given the right to perform, and would have been nominated for awards. And even though she has declared herself pop, she still is up for Female Vocalist of the Year, and I guarantee the CMA would kill to have her come perform, and what would be the harm in it for Taylor, aside from confusing the message she’s trying to get out about what genre she’s in?
The Wall Street Journal Op-Ed was a poor decision on Swift’s part, in my opinion. It simply came across as pining for people to buy her album, and not get pissed at her for leaving country. She entered the realm of intellectual discourse, and got her ass handed to her left and right by pundits who do this sort of thing for a living. In my opinion, many of the dozens of rebuttals were unfair to Swift by not taking into consideration she was a novice, and showed a lot of guts by posting something in the Wall St. Journal. But in the end, what did it accomplish for her?
Is Taylor Swift an intellectualist and a songwriter? Or she is a pop star splashing through the waves in her Levi’s, singing about how “Hater’s gonna hate”?
liza
September 9, 2014 @ 2:37 pm
I would do it just to get away from the negativity that always seems to envelop the country genre.
Adrian
September 9, 2014 @ 10:57 pm
This seems to be more than just a genre change. I think it is a re-branding effort. In the past 2-3 years she has changed more than just her music. She has also changed her look and her persona. The changes address several areas where she had previously faced criticism: the question of whether or not she is country, the focus on boys and breakups, and her culturally conservative image and perceived “anti feminism”.
Now the direction she has chosen – recording top 40 and dance pop hits with Max Martin – is not very original or innovative. So one might ask, what is the motivation for the re-brand? For example, did she listen to her critics? Or did she look back at history and conclude that teen stars usually become fallen angels unless they are able to disrupt themselves?
Windmills Country
September 10, 2014 @ 7:31 am
Genres don’t matter to her as a matter of music, but what she’s saying & doing is consistent with the mainstream market’s treatment of genre as a way of organizing music by lifestyle.
Like Adrian points out and like I’ve said, this is about Taylor making a change of lifestyle – leaving Nashville and moving to New York, embracing the term feminism, and committing to being at the center of pop culture via the radio format that is built on commanding and consuming pop culture: pop. This is about rejecting her status as a pop outsider. This is about leaving behind the marketing limitations of whatever crossover identity Taylor may have had. This is about seeking a new throne as the worldwide pop queen, a much more extravagant throne than crossover queen could ever be.
Sure, promoting a few token singles to country radio would have continued to give her access to the country audience and as you’ve said it’s not like Taylor would have had to change anything musically. But that would not be consistent with the wholesale lifestyle change Taylor’s made. This isn’t strictly about art OR numbers, really. This is about being the biggest star in the universe. For that to happen, for Taylor to command pop culture and pop music, Taylor needed to change her image, ditch the associations with country stereotypes (which are globally limiting), send the message that she’s outgrown the country format, and really embrace her place in the tabloids and gossip blogs (as much as she claims not to enjoy the coverage of her relationships in those outlets, she sure likes to feed the beast). The reason Taylor broke up with the country market (her breakup with country music came years ago) is she believes her path to global domination (not just in terms of sales, but in terms of exposure and coverage) requires her to plant her flag in the pop culture market, which is built around a different mentality and different lifestyle than the country market.
It’s going to be interesting seeing whether Taylor changes the marketing game in pop. The main reason country radio people defended her for so long despite her songs not resonating with listeners is how personable and accessible she was with country radio people. Many pop programmers who come over to country radio from pop talk about how they love how accessible country acts are to country radio compared to pop. Even Bobby Bones was quoted in Aircheck talking about how most pop acts are “a-holes” and country stars are great. I think Taylor’s going to bring that accessibility game to pop radio and it may cause headaches for pop acts who don’t like mingling with radio commoners.
Adrian
September 10, 2014 @ 8:44 am
She talks about change in terms of “change what you believe in” and “change who you hang out with, what’s influencing you, what’s inspiring you”. This is a change of IDENTITY.
This change makes sense from a business perspective if she wants to be a bigger celebrity internationally, or if she wants to pursue an acting career in Hollywood.
If she had simply wanted to be a music artist within the US, I think she would have been better off sticking with her previous persona. There was a craving from middle America and from the right for a culturally conservative young female identity (see: http://www.newsrt.us/news/ohio-governor-calls-taylor-swift-a-great-role-model-68424.html, http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/340838/price-right-robert-costa, http://www.newsmax.com/FastFeatures/taylor-swift-political-fundraising/2011/08/02/id/405784/). And that was a role in which she had NO serious competition.
Liza
September 14, 2014 @ 1:45 pm
I don’t see it as a change in persona as much as a soon to be 25 year-old figuring out who she is and where she wants to be. She should go for it.
Adrian
September 14, 2014 @ 2:17 pm
Liza, no, I disagree. I definitely see an obvious change in persona. It looks like a re-brand. I don’t know if it is a calculated change based on the expectation that the new persona has greater commercial potential, or if it is a defensive move.
When I saw her comments in her announcement for the new album, I thought the speech could have been described as “the re-education of Taylor Swift”. I’ve seen similar things happen many times on college campus. Mom and Dad teach Junior to uphold traditional values related to God, country, and family. Then Junior goes to college and is told by liberal professors and students that everything his parents taught him to believe in is wrong. Junior initially tries to push back, but he is teased and ridiculed by his peers. Eventually Junior gets tired of being criticized and he decides to get with the program. He announces that he has grown and learned from hanging out with his new friends on campus, and apologizes for politically incorrect things he had said before.
Liza
September 14, 2014 @ 2:42 pm
I can accept that as plausible.
Liza
September 14, 2014 @ 2:43 pm
That reply was meant for Adrian 🙂
MH
September 9, 2014 @ 10:23 am
I’m not buying the whole “Borchetta wanted a few country singles and tried to convince me to stay country” bit. Borchetta was the one that brought in Max Martin and that other guy (Dr. Luke? Can’t remember the name) and to write with/produce Taylor. I think the interview is yet another marketing scheme.
Ahmed
September 9, 2014 @ 12:00 pm
No.
You seem to be glossing over the fact that when Borchetta brought in Max Martin and Shellback to work on Red with her, he still made sure there were country-sounding songs on the album, including Begin Again and Red, which he released as singles to country radio.
This what Borchetta wanted. He wanted her to say country pop (i.e. have pop and country songs on her albums, and release them to pop and country radio respectively). He has been doing this “country songs for country radio, pop songs for pop radio” thing for all of her career. Her transition to pure pop cannot be anything but her choice.
Trigger
September 9, 2014 @ 12:36 pm
Blind assumption, but Borchetta could have said for Red, “Give me three pop singles to release to pop radio.” And that’s exactly what we got with the Max Martin/Shellback compositions.
Ahmed
September 9, 2014 @ 1:07 pm
That could be true, and if it actually is, well, that shows that her wanted her to stay country pop for the rest of her career.
liza
September 9, 2014 @ 2:41 pm
Her chasing rabbits comment is on point. She can’t do both and not get skewered for it, especially as she gets older.
Adrian
September 9, 2014 @ 11:10 pm
Shania Twain’s “Up!” tried to chase both rabbits. It wore out her welcome on country radio, while not doing as well in pop as her previous album. If Taylor has studied entertainment history she would know the risk of brand dilution. By leaving country music now, she goes out on top commercially with Nashville begging her to stay.
Chris
September 9, 2014 @ 3:03 pm
Scott and Taylor didn’t say they wanted her to stay country. Long ago it became obvious that they wanted her to go pop, and he wanted 3 country/pop songs for country radio so they would keep playing her.
Camie jo
September 9, 2014 @ 5:24 pm
Good one. I’m right there with you.
It’s reminiscent of Brad Paisley’s leak before the big official announcement. It has that same ring to it. More PR and spin.
Like a swinging door, she can go back and forth whenever she chooses. The world is her oyster and no one will bat an eyeball.
MH
September 9, 2014 @ 10:28 am
Oh yeah. One other thing. Apparently there’s now a channel on the Music Choice tv channels called Pop Country. I caught Chase Rice, FGL………and Miley Cyrus and Sara Bareilles. Now THAT is all-encompassing!
OMFS88
September 9, 2014 @ 11:53 am
OMG… I’m just gonna shake
Chris
September 9, 2014 @ 2:39 pm
I love that Taylor is doing what SHE wants. She’s also doing what I and many country radio listeners want. We only want to hear country songs, not pure pop songs, on country radio. I like some pop and love all types of country including country/pop like Taylor’s entire first album, but country radio playing synthesized pure pop (instead of some great country songs) is where I draw the line and it’s what pop radio is for. Country radio playing synthesized music is like pop radio playing songs full of fiddle or steel, which never happens. There’s too much pop and not enough country on the radio since what 3 or 4 formats are pop now.
>>>>>> “if you chase two rabbits, you lose them both.” <<<<<<
Best. Quote. Ever. Similar to jack of all trades (or genres/formats), master of none.
This is also a lesson for country radio. Chasing/playing pop loses loyal listeners like me. Country radio says they play bro-country to gain disenfrachised rock radio listeners and to me it seems more like a ploy to gain pop fans. But they are disenfranchising many country radio listeners with a narrow playlist that now excludes most of the best female artists and country songs that brought me to country radio. Many or most listeners aren't teen girls or in college or frats and even if we were we wouldn't want to hear generic party songs all day. The format that won me over with better lyrics and music is now driving me away with weak generic lyrics and music, which Taylor's pure pop songs blow away since she's great at pop and most of the country bros aren't. Along with listening to the best country music radio doesn't play, I'm going back to rock more, both where real original lyrics and real music played by real musicians still exist.
Adrian
September 13, 2014 @ 1:12 pm
The quote about trying to chase both rabbits is an interesting one. The technology and distribution channels certainly exist to sell separate country and pop songs to their respective audiences. Producing separate country and pop versions of live shows would be harder, but not impossible (for example, country shows for middle America, pop shows for big cities on the east and west coasts and for international tours).
But the one thing that hasn’t changed in spite of modern technology and the Internet is that it is very difficult for one person to have two different brands. One cannot chase both rabbits because one cannot credibly have two different identities at the same time.
It is also interesting that while Taylor sells ordinary music, she has managed to create a “high end” brand. E.g. By being a fashion icon, talking about being a role model, writing an article in the Wall Street Journal, developing a reputation for top notch fan relations. On the other hand Shania Twain never had a premium brand; her albums felt like mass market commodity products, like something consumers might buy at WalMart. Her fans didn’t have a distinct identity, unlike Taylor’s Swifties. I used to think Shania was a marketing wiz, but Taylor is much better at that game.
Lunchbox
September 9, 2014 @ 2:48 pm
Taylor Swift has moved on from music altogether. she’s an “information security thought princess” now.
@SwiftOnSecurity
Albert
September 9, 2014 @ 5:53 pm
Taylor’s earth- shattering life changing announcement that she’s no longer a country artist brings to mind the famous Woody Allen quote ” I wouldn’t want to belong to ANY club that would have ME as a member ” . You GO girl !
In fact , I ‘m certain there are a lot of REAL country artists who are borderline embarrassed to be associated with todays’ fake country songs and artists .
Bear
September 9, 2014 @ 10:25 pm
Actually to be nerdist here,
The quote is,
”I don’t care to belong to any club that will have me as a member.”
And it was the GREAT Groucho Marx that said it.
And frankly I so totally agree with sentiment and that I refuse to use any label for myself when in discussion even if they require the use of labels. Makes discussions difficult sometimes but damn it labels are for soup cans not people. I also agree I wouldn’t want to be associated with what country music has become right now.
But she’s not doing it because she loves country but because she knows she isn’t country and in the long run pop artists have much longer staying power.
Chris
September 10, 2014 @ 2:03 pm
“…in the long run pop artists have much longer staying power.”
They do? Reba, Dolly, George, Garth, Alan, etc.
Clint
September 9, 2014 @ 7:26 pm
“While most people will likely gloss over this point in the article as they try to spy a wet Taylor Swift nipple through her white shirt”
Yuck. I wish I hadn’t read that.
Bear
September 9, 2014 @ 10:27 pm
I know but the RS cover pretty much sums up the whole move to pop for me. Wet t-shirt and jeans all sexed up, you can’t be demure and be a pop star at some point we have to see a midriff and a pout.
Clint
September 10, 2014 @ 2:19 pm
I said yuck because everything about her makes me sick, including the idea that people think she’s attractive. I can’t stand the sound, or the sight of her.
Dave
September 13, 2014 @ 10:37 pm
Yet you chose to click on a post about her. Interesting. And how is she not attractive?
Clint
September 13, 2014 @ 11:51 pm
I’d love to go into detail, but Trigger would delete it. I’ve tried before.
Ernest
September 10, 2014 @ 4:38 am
I’m glad Taylor’s doing what she wants and finding herself as an artist. I’m excited for her next album and I know she’ll top Red with this one. And this is a little off topic but I found something about the writing credit on this album but I don’t remember exactly where but 7 songs were written with Max Martin and Shellback, and on one of the Max Martin songs, Ali Payami has writing credit, 2 songs were written with Ryan Tedder from OneRepublic, 2 songs were written with Jack Antonoff from fun. who also co-wrote Taylor’s song Sweeter Than Fiction, 1 song was written with Imogen Heap, and a grand total of ONE song written by herself.
Sam Jimenez
September 10, 2014 @ 12:10 pm
Nothing in Nashville gets written solo. I’m surprised there’s actually ONE done that way. Not saying I actually believe it, just that I’m surprised no one managed to bully their name onto the song.
It take a village to make every song sound the same. No man or woman is an island in the sea of music destruction.
Chris
September 10, 2014 @ 1:46 pm
A few more written solo http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moonshine_in_the_Trunk#Track_listing
Ernest
September 10, 2014 @ 4:23 pm
Sam, I know where you’re coming from, believe me, but in Taylor’s case this isn’t entirely true because after her first album, she more often than not has no co-writers. She in fact wrote all 14 songs on the Speak Now album on her own because she was on tour while writing the album, and for 1989 it came as a surprise to see only one song written by just her since expecting a majority of the songs written solo has been the norm
Adrian
September 10, 2014 @ 8:58 am
If she’s changing the set of people she hangs out with and if she doesn’t want to attend country music events any more, this basically amounts to switching from one camp to another. It’s like a politician changing parties.
Eric C.
September 10, 2014 @ 9:12 am
She’s the Jim Jeffords of country music.
Eric C.
September 10, 2014 @ 9:10 am
How can she leave if she was never country in the first place?
Filler
September 10, 2014 @ 1:14 pm
Nice article. I wish Taylor Swift moves her country music that is designed for country radio to pop radio that way her country hits without a crossover for pop can now be played on pop radio non-stop. That would be awesome. She is no longer crossover and she is now pop. That includes her songs that aren’t crossovers. All her country songs without any crossover appeal needs to be pop.
Chris
September 10, 2014 @ 1:37 pm
Apparently pop radio won’t play country crossovers anymore, which is strange because they used to play some crossover songs from Rascal Flatts, Martina, Carrie and others. Remember starting with her first album Taylor remixed songs to make them more pop for pop radio. Also the label wants pop radio to play her new songs to sell her new music.
Chris
September 10, 2014 @ 1:40 pm
I should add that I don’t keep up with pop radio much but does anyone know when was the last time they played a song from a country artist that wasn’t remixed for pop or pop to begin with?
Ahmed
September 10, 2014 @ 1:57 pm
Cruise, I think?
Chris
September 10, 2014 @ 2:23 pm
Pop radio played the Nelly remix.
Filler
September 10, 2014 @ 2:42 pm
Oh yeah, I forgot. Her fifth album, 1989, is where Taylor Swift’s new music was released to pop radio. Anyway, I think pop radio should play Taylor Swift playlist Saturdays. It’s kinda like throwbacks except with just Taylor Swift. Her country songs that were played on country radio only like Mean can be thrown in on the mix too. That would be awesome. Don’t you think?
Zack
September 10, 2014 @ 10:49 pm
Why everyone is saying Taylor’s song “Bad Blood” is about Katy?
I’m surprise not many people guess it might be Carrie Underwood or other artists.
If you read the Rolling Stone article carefully Taylor said that this person just said something rude to her at award shows and then just walked away. It’s obvious that this person has never shown any respect to her and has never been friendly to Taylor.
Taylor and Carrie were great rivalries some years back and they never see each other eye to eye. This is a known fact in the country music community. So it won’t be a shocker if the song and I’m saying if it’s about Carrie.
On the other hand Katy has taken many pictures with Taylor in the past and if I remember correctly they even tweeted about the song “I Knew You Were Trouble” just about a year ago. And that person Taylor was saying has been at odds with her for years. So it just doesn’t add up.
So Katy tweet might actually meant for someone else and not Taylor.
And let the guessing game continues. I must say she is really good at playing
with her fans emotions. Damn you Taylor !! You little evil genius.
Adrian
September 10, 2014 @ 11:29 pm
Interesting comment. Do you think Taylor’s naming a song after Tim McGraw and opening for Tim McGraw in 2006-2007 might have something to do with Carrie and Faith Hill being competitors? If I were in Tim and Faith’s shoes, I’d think having Taylor as the best selling young female artist would be better than having Carrie in that role.
Sam Jimenez
September 11, 2014 @ 1:42 am
I think the song “Never ever ever ever ever never ever ever ever getting back together” is about me. Or maybe it’s “Mean”…one of those…
Sarah
September 11, 2014 @ 10:57 am
Taylor hugged Carrie after she sang See You Again and Carrie thanked her. The only fans who believe this stuff are Taylor fans who hate Carrie and Carrie fans who hate Taylor.
Albert
September 11, 2014 @ 7:06 am
Not sure where to post this observation but here’s as good as any place , I guess.
The irony of the popular music business , it seems , is that it’s young acts are embraced ,financed , promoted, somewhat nurtured , (more and more often molded ) , marketed and supported . However as these young acts mature , become better at their craft , more skilled , more experienced overall , have more “life” to draw from , in terms of expressing themselves , they become progressively more ignored by the business .
I realize that pretty -much the WHOLE game is youth , youthful image , youthful demographic, sex appeal , etc. and perhaps to some extent that has to be the case in order to seduce a demographic more concerned with these things than ACTUAL talent or artistic merit . It seems sad , however , that in just about any other field , experience , maturity , wisdom and an improved skill set and insight are lauded , respected and rewarded where-as in the music biz you become less and less valued as you develop and grow in these respects. Certainly there are exceptions on both ends of the spectrum . Yes , Elton John, for instance , has sustained an incredibly long and prolific career on a grand scale . But for every Sir Elton , there are probably a hundred entertainers who were once ” the next big thing’ and have only become better and better post-deals and label support than they were initially . Many are still around illustrating the meaning of ‘eking out a living ‘ in the music trenches while the NEXT ‘ next big thing’ ,which is progressively a SMALLER big thing ( T.S. , Kruise Kids , Aldean and many many pop acts ) reap the public’s attention , adulation and dollars .
For me , it seems back-asswards …but then its about the BUSINESS of music ….not the MUSIC of the business . It also seems disrespectful to listeners , fans , BUYERS of these products that as a favorite artist becomes better , possibly more focused at what they do , they are appreciated less and less by the business . I am so grateful that the internet ( You Tube , iTunes etc) is available to me . I don’t HAVE to listen to or watch a young unrealized entertainer when I can watch all of the amazingly skilled talent that the business at large has turned out to pasture . I AM about the music and the art and life’s too short not to acknowledge and appreciate that most of us get better at who we are and what we do as we get older .
Filler
September 11, 2014 @ 7:38 am
Yeah, I agree on that. the internet should take over the music’s business, not money and younger acts. We need talent and internet, not money and mainstream. I’m tired of today’s running gags like Top 40. I want internet and talent promoting music in general public. Stupid today’s America.
Adrian
September 11, 2014 @ 8:18 am
Music is a hit driven business. A few big mainstream hit makers beats many niche players, from a profitability perspective. Young people do a lot of the buying, and their buying decisions are heavily influenced by what their peers buy. And young consumers often become fans because of image and identity politics. And in identity politics, consumers buy the work “most similar” artist or the artist they can most relate to, rather than the “best” music artist.
Eric
September 11, 2014 @ 12:22 pm
The problem lies in coming up with an objective definition of “best” when it comes to music. For example, while you and I consider country to be the “best” genre, others might think that rock, rap, jazz, or classical are the best.
Albert
September 13, 2014 @ 10:22 am
” And young consumers often become fans because of image and identity politics. ”
THIS is perhaps the biggest reason the younger demographic is targeted and you could not have articulated it more precisely . At the risk of seeming offensive , the fastest way to market an artist , a movie ,a fashion , a new piece of ‘gotta have it” technology , is to make it “hip” and trendy amongst a young demographic who want to be SEEN to be like everyone else . Nowhere have we seen that illustrated better than with the Bro stuff and the way it has captured a generation of otherwise non-country fans . Its hip to like it .
Eric
September 11, 2014 @ 12:19 pm
“most of us get better at who we are and what we do as we get older”
Disagree. Artists, like practitioners of all other professions, decline after peaking. When that peak is reached varies by artist and the particular aspect of art under question, of course. Vocal skills, for example, peak well before songwriting skills.
Albert
September 13, 2014 @ 10:29 am
Well ….yes Eric …at some point its hard to entertain from our death beds …. My point was , of course , that in general most of us with a passion or a goal or raw talent get better at it as we develop it with age and experience . I attended a Glen Campbell show three years ago . We are probably all aware of Glen’s health issues . However aside from a few moments on stage when he seemed a bit confused , his vocal abilities were incredibly on the mark pitch-wise , timing wise and in terms of the strength of those legendary vocals. Have you listened to Tony Bennett in the past 6-8 years …AMAZING ability to deliver the emotion of a song even now in his 80’s . George Burns was booked to play Vegas , I believe , for his 100th birthday . Unfortunately we lost him before that but into his 90’s he could deliver a line with impeccable timing .
Mark
September 12, 2014 @ 9:44 pm
after that interview, i kind of think of miss Swift as a stupid person.
Mark
September 12, 2014 @ 9:46 pm
Kellie Pickler should be considered as a female country powerhouse. She gave a poppy career for real country music. She has sold less than 100k, but is a respectable country lady.
Ann
September 13, 2014 @ 1:02 am
You kind of sound stupid yourself and no,
Miley Virus should be considered as a female country powerhouse.
taylor swift is a hypocrite
July 29, 2015 @ 10:41 am
GUYS YOU ARE all welcome to my new page https://www.facebook.com/taylorswifthypocrite that says the truth about many facts related to our Dear taylor, who pretended to love so much country music to use it as she wanted for her success.