PG Music Home Forums General Discussion Songwriting NYT Says Taylor Swift Is Bigger Than The Beatles

Bass,

This is awesome.

Purple.


And p.s. Bass,

I can't stand Tyler Smith! Who does he thinks she is!!!!

Anyone who believes anything written by the New York Slimes rag should have their head checked for termites...

Just saw this over on FB:

Taylor Swift voted the 8th best guitarist of the last two decades

I am officially logging off the Internet for good.

Goodbye everybody. It's been real.

Not if what's-her-name makes news like that.

This subject interests me and so I'm going to try to answer it seriously. Also, Rick Beato is one of my favorite music YouTubers, but he has an old crankypants bias when he assesses anything that came after the 90s. For the record, I'm not a Swiftie, would never go to a concert, and she's not my favorite young singer. Lorde, Billie Eilish, Lana del Rey, and Mitski are more to my taste, but I admire her craft as a songwriter. (There are many videos on YouTube spotlighting her best bridges) I recommend her albums "Folklore" and "Evermore," if you're curious to see what the fuss is about. If those albums had come out during the 60s, they would have been among my favorites.

Is Taylor Swift a bigger pop star than The Beatles ever were? Absolutely. It's not even close.

Is she "better" than The Beatles? This is such a colossally stupid question for dozens of reasons. They were a band; she's one person. Their music is undeniably more complex musically. She favors more simple chord progressions. They came out at a time when the way music was produced and listened to was totally different, as Beato lays out. For most people of my generation (71) who grew up with The Beatles, the idea of her music being "as good" as The Beatles is ridiculous. We like their music much, much, more. But to a certain degree, this is just because it's the music of our youth. My wife's father never played The Beatles in the car ever. He only liked The Great American Songbook, as sung by Frank Sinatra, Ella Fitzgerald and people like that. When The Beatles were big there were a lot of people Rick Beato's age who didn't listen to them. Or said they were rubbish without listening to them.

To young people today, particularly young women, Taylor Swift is the soundtrack to their youth. So for them, the idea of The Beatles being a bigger group is dumb. This is the music of their young life just as The Beatles was of ours.

The Beatles existed as a band for around eight years, from 1962 to 1970. The canon of Beatles songs is approximately 213 songs (188 originals and 25 covers). Of course the members continued to play after, but that's the core music of The Beatles. Taylor Swift released her first album in 2003. She is still going strong now, almost 22 years later. She officially has released 274 songs. (Nobody knows how much is in her "vault.") So The Beatles were tremendously more productive as songwriters in their short time of existence. But they stopped performing after a few years, while she does these massive ERAS world tours. If she lives, she'll certainly double the songs she's produced and keep touring. She needs to be number one. Which is a little sad, and she does write about it honestly and critically in some of her songs. The Beatles were the number one group in the world, but they grew ambivalent about it. I think Lennon grew to hate their success. They stopped touring. Is she bigger? Yes. They didn't want to be as big as she is driven to be. Will she stay on top of fame and popularity longer? She already has done that and may keep going on for decades. She's only 34. (The Beatles were all under 30 when they broke up).

Talking about numbers of number one hit songs is pure Beato. I guess it came from NYT piece, but it's all he seems to care about in his videos. Billboard, Billboard, Billboard. To me, Bob Dylan was big in the 60s, but he only charted a few times and never had a number one. ("Like a Rolling Stone" was #2). I loved Tim Buckley and he never really charted. The Velvet Underground? Charting is not the only metric of what matters in culture.

Beato creates a very compelling argument in his video that Swift doesn't write her songs. The first problem with that is that she has released 67 songs with herself as the sole writer. The second problem is that she is so famous that there are videos of her writing her songs all by herself. Also video of her working with her producers.In her film "Miss Americana" you can see how she co-writes a song like "Getaway Car" with Jack Antonoff, and it's not the way Beato says. You can see her in the studio with Max Martin, singing the melody of the synth track she wants to hear. It's a collaboration. She is not a tool of producers. Who do you think gets to make the final decision about every detail?

Beato gives the example of "Cardigan," which was in fact written to an Aaron Dessner track. Yes, but that was during the pandemic, when nobody could work together. She did her first vocals in her bedroom closet. If Beato has proof that she writes all her music to other people's tracks, let him show it. I admire him, but I think he pulled that out of his [*****].

He also conveniently forgets that The Beatles also had a very powerful producer, George Martin, who had a massive involvement in their tracks and development as artists.

Let me sum up by saying, "who cares?" The Beatles and Taylor Swift are musicians who have touched the hearts of millions of people. That's a nice thing.

A good balance. Thanks for some more in-depth insights. That was a valuable appraisal.

Exactly. There are only two types of songs. Songs that I like and songs that, as Notes' says, are for someone else's ears.

PS - That was an excellent post.

I enjoyed your post and you've made valid points. But, isn't the real sum between Taylor Swift and the Beatles, being the The Beatles revolutionized and changed how music was recorded and performed where Taylor utilizes what exists?

Being the first rock band to perform a concert at the Stadium level, Vox had to invent a new amplifier to accommodate the Beatles performances at the stadium level, pro-level sound reinforcement didn't exist for large scale, outdoor musical performances, announcing pa systems were all that was available and that wasn't suitable or used for a music concert. Musical concerts were performed in auditoriums and Concert Halls in rooms optimized for sound and had permanent PA systems optimized for music and stage performance. Taylor utilizes what exists.

Taylor is one of the best at what music is today. She didn't create anything new. She exists in what music is today, She's at the top, but the foundation was already in place.

The Beatles prompted changes in recording, performance beyond just writing and singing songs laying the foundation for what the industry evolved into today.

There's another simple numbers factor that strongly influences things.
In 1965 the population of the planet was around 3,000M. It's now over 8,000M so nearly three times as many potential listeners.

As I wrote, I think that Rick Beato’s video on Taylor Swift and the Beatles made a lot of bogus arguments and had misinformation.

Charlie Fogle wrote that “The Beatles revolutionized and changed how music was recorded and performed where Taylor utilizes what exists… She didn't create anything new. She exists in what music is today, She's at the top, but the foundation was already in place. The Beatles prompted changes in recording, performance beyond just writing and singing songs laying the foundation for what the industry evolved into today.” He mentions that they were the first band to perform a concert at the Stadium level.”

I think Charlie makes some good points here, but I don’t agree with him that Swift didn’t create anything new. I’ll explain why I think that later.

But I do agree with both Rick and Charlie’s conclusion: The Beatles have made a deeper contribution to popular music than Taylor Swift. At least, so far. Her story hasn’t fully been written later.

I like The Beatles more than her because of the way it developed from teen songs to Rubber Soul, Revolver, White Album, Sergeant Pepper. They started out with “I Want to Hold Your Hand,” “Twist and Shout,” “I Saw Her Standing There” and eventually they were writing stuff like “In My Life” and “She’s Leaving Home.”

My problem with Swift is that her nature and her desire to be #1 locks her into creating teen songs. She’s certainly capable of creating songs that resonate with older people like “Lover” and “The Archer,” as well as the complete albums, “Folklore” and “Evermore.” Unfortunately with her new album, “The Tortured Poets Department” is IMHO a bit of a step backwards. I think it’s a great album, but she is back doing things like beefing with Kim Kardashian. But her songs are all diaries of what she’s feeling, so obviously she still is hurting from what Kanye and Kim did to her. Still, I also believe she has fans that are under 12, and she has to keep giving them things they can relate to. But she’s 34 and The Beatles were making “Sergeant Pepper” in their 20s.

I think she has the talent to develop into one of the greatest popular songwriters of all time. Many believe she is already that. But will she keep developing like The Beatles did? The jury is still out.

To get back to Charlie and The Beatles being the first to play a Stadium Show. That’s true, but the Shea concert was horrible. You couldn’t hear anything but girls screaming. It was historic, but it’s just a fame thing—they needed a big venue. They didn’t personally build the amps. For me, that’s of minimal importance to their greatness, which is in their incredible songwriting and musicianship, and their ambition to push themselves to higher levels.

Yes, The Beatles did a lot of new things with recording technology and the like, but to me, but to me, without the songs and the performances, it wouldn’t have mattered. The songs last even if they are played by a kid with a ukelele on a street corner.

The idea of the ERAS tour is that it will be the greatest theatrical spectacle event in history. People who go to it are meant to be overwhelmed and to think they’ve never seen anything like that in their life. What is state-of-the-art on Broadway, Vegas, Cirque du Soleil, magic acts? What kind of LED backgrounds are used in Marvel movies? So what if it costs millions? The ERAS tour is a creation between Taylor Swift and her team. At the heart of it is her fierce competitiveness, the need to be better than every other act on the planet. Every act goes backstage for quick changes, but Swift is quickly dropped down into a lower compartment where a team of people change her. It’s like the Indy 500. Famously, she dives into the stage and seems to swim across it. (She’s put on some cart type thing and pulled at great speeds).

The ERAS tour doesn’t play venues. I’m making this up, but I don’t think there are many in the world who can accommodate her coming there and building the set. If I ran a country I’d build one, just for her, because she has an economic impact like the Olympics.

This is the best, biggest, boldest Swift tour. Until the next one, of course, when she’ll top it. It’s also worth mentioning that no performer has ever done an over three and a half concert with 44 songs divided into ten acts representing separate albums. Plus, surprisde song and celebrity guest. These things are well thought out.

So no, I don’t agree that she’s never created anything new. She’s done dozens of new things like this. For example, how many people went back and re-recorded their albums? And did so, while regularly bringing out new albums, touring, directing her own videos, acting in movies, co-writing hit songs for other artists, interacting with fans, marketing, social media, etc?

The Beatles revolutionized the world of music they lived in. Their time. And she does that now, in the multimedia entertainment environment of today, which isn't just records. It’s different world, but she does innovate. The beat goes on.

From the earliest part of her career to today, people have demeaned, condescended to, insulted, or flat-out stated Taylor Swift was a no-talent. Think of Kanye West ruining her moment when she was picking up a Grammy.

Here's what Wikipedia has to say about what you call Taylor Swift's "collaborators"
“In Nashville, Swift worked with experienced Music Row songwriters such as Troy Verges, Brett Beavers, Brett James, Mac McAnally, and the Warren Brothers and formed a lasting working relationship with Liz Rose. They began meeting for two-hour writing sessions every Tuesday afternoon after school. Rose called the sessions "some of the easiest I've ever done. Basically, I was just her editor. She'd write about what happened in school that day. She had such a clear vision of what she was trying to say. And she'd come in with the most incredible hooks."

Swift always wrote about her own life. Other people didn't invent the things that happened in her life, they helped her craft her work into better songs. What her parents did, God bless em', was to move to Tennessee, so that could happen.

People were so relentlessly hating on Taylor Swift that she didn't write her songs, that she wrote all the songs in her third album, "Speak Now," by herself.

Why do some people feel the need to put Taylor Swift down? I'll never understand it. Good thing that Dolly Parton, Paul McCartney, Carole King, Bruce Springsteen, and many other legends think she is a great songwriter.

The real measure of success is how much adjacent industries can make off you.

Ludwig sold drumkits because of Ringo; people still buy Hofner basses like Paul's. And how about the electric sitar? Still going strong, I think. Maybe.

In their heyday, The Beatles had films and television cartoons. I remember having a Yellow Submarine lunchbox. Does Taylor Swift have a lunchbox with a Peter Max style cartoon of her face on it? Do lunchboxes even exist anymore? I refuse to research either point, on the grounds that it might weaken my argument.

How about VSTis that capture the sound of The Beatles? They can't say "The Beatles", because of copyright issues, but everyone knows that the only reason Abbey Roads Studios virtual instruments exist is that people are still trying to capture that elusive string octet from Eleanor Rigby.

And if Taylor Swift was so big, where are the plugins emulating the distinctively warm yet creamy analog distortion of the consoles used to record her albums? Maybe probably, more than half the money that Waves makes comes from Abbey Road plugins. Are there any plugins that emulate the 60Hz hum of fan accidentally plugged into the wrong circuit when Taylor Swift recorded her last album?

BTW, nice to see you back, Mr. The Frog.

The Beatles lasted as a group four a little more than seven years however two of the four continue to perform and create new music. Taylor Swift has been a first line entertainer for 18 years so she has lasted longer than the group but not the people.

One area not mentioned so far is the benefit concert. George Harrison forever changed rock culture by coming up with the idea for the Concert for Bangladesh. It has become commonplace for rock entertainers to participate in benefit performances but I'm not aware of rock entertainers initiating concerts prior to this concert. Of course this concert was after the Beatles broke up so it was a George thing and not a Beatles thing.

Taylor Swift? I'm not aware of any charitable causes she supports.

Is it fair to imagine Taylor Swift as a fast-food chain like McDonald's. It's everywhere, easily accessible, and gets the musical job done if you’re a 13-year-old school girl or similar? The quality might not be top-notch, but it's consistent, reliable and speaks to this demographic.

On the other hand, can we consider The Beatles as dining at a five-star restaurant? It's an experience to savor, with meticulous attention to detail, high-quality ingredients, and a presentation that leaves a lasting impression for decades.

While Taylor serves the masses with music that is largely unremarkable but with concerts that feature glitz, glitter and theater, The Beatles offer a refined and luxurious experience that caters to musicians and fans that seek excellence, sophistication and musical innovation.

Personally, I’ll take a steak and lobster dinner with all the accoutrements over a double whopper. Does that make me a musical snob? Probably

I’m not saying Taylor is devoid of talent. I’m saying that whenever The Beatles are mentioned, we’re talking about a rarified, stratospheric level of musical brilliance.

For those that feel this characterization is less than accurate, here is your challenge.

Provide a Taylor Swift song where you believe her vocals rivals that of Annie Haslam, Stevie Nicks or Whitney Houston.

Provide a song where the quality of her lyrics rival those of Bob Dylan, Paul McCartney, Carole King or Joni Mitchell.

Provide a Taylor Swift song whose chord progression is as emotionally resonant as songs by Pink Floyd, The Beach Boys, Adele and The Beatles.

Provide a Taylor Swift song that has guitar or piano work that rival Eric Clapton, David Gilmour, Billy Joel, Elton John or Stevie Wonder.

Provide a list of commercially successful Taylor Swift tribute bands.

Explain why The Beatles have been awarded multiple Ivor Novello awards and Taylor has received none.

Hahahaha! This is so great, David! Nice to be back.

As I'm sure you know, there is more Taylor Swift merch out there than anybody alive. Regardless of what the BIAB community thinks of her music, can we come together on the fact that there is tons of Taylor Swift crap for her fans? Too much! For those of you with daughters, there is a Black Friday sale on now at the Taylor Swift Official Online Store! Up to 50% off! Of course, there is also Target, her exclusive reseller.

You have totally convinced me on your hilarious argument about plugins. This is the reason why I have always thought the music of Bob Dylan, Joni Mitchell, Dolly Parton, Brian Wilson, Bruce Springsteen, Paul Simon, etc., were garbage. Where are the $%@#@#$ plugins? The gold standard of worth is whether a software company can prove people are morons who think they can get the sound of The Beatles for a few bucks. This is a fundamental part of my belief system and this is why I currently own 37 reverbs.

Her main interest is in issues around world hunger. She makes donations to food banks in every city the Eras tour goes to. Billboard did a timeline on her philanthropy.

https://www.billboard.com/lists/taylor-swifts-charity-donations-gifts-timeline/march-2023-swift-gives-back-to-food-banks-on-eras-tour-route/

But point taken. To my knowledge, Taylor Swift has never organized a charity concert. She just reaches into her pocket and gives. But you're right, if she organized a concert of stars, she could do a lot more. I hope she does someday.

Is there anybody who has ever said that Taylor Swift is better than The Beatles? Tell me one music critic who said that.

The New York Times did not. They said, bigger, as in more popular. Which she is.

I clearly said that I don't think so and why.

Taylor Swift has never said it. Knowing what I know about her, she would think the thought is too ridiculous to even address.

I apologize. There actually is one person who said that Taylor Swift is "like that generation's Beatles." Billy Joel.

https://www.businessinsider.com/taylor-swift-praised-by-icons-2023-8

Music is not a competition. It's not the World Series or the Olympics. Everybody makes it in their own ways and should be judged on their own criteria. Who is better? John Prine or Herbie Hancock or Randy Newman or Cole Porter or John Sebastian or Loretta Lynn or Elvis Costello? It depends on who is listening, and what they want to listen to. I really love reading Fred Zollo's "Songwriters on Songwriting" books. There are so many ways to do it. Taylor Swift happens to be the most popular pop star today. Some day somebody else will be the most popular pop star of their day. But songs are songs, and you can evaluate them on their merits. The long eye of time will decide what is a fad and what stands up.

I am familiar with the music of The Beatles since I watched their first Sullivan Show and "Meet the Beatles" came out. I played them with my rock bands, and solo on my guitar and piano. I think those songs mean as much to me as they do to all of you.

But I know their stuff, and I'm interested in learning about new things. With Swift I wondered, "what is all the fuss about?" So I gave her a serious listen and there was much that I liked. The whole fandom around her makes me uncomfortable and I would rather die than go to one of her concerts, but sitting on my bed with my headphones on and my eyes closed, I like some of her songs a lot. I respect that you don't, but how much serious listening have you given to her songs? There are hundreds and they are diverse.

She cut this song out of her album "Red" She brought it back from "The Vault" when she re-recorded it. It's a duet with Ed Sheeran and one of my favorites of her songs. Yes, one of my favorites is something she didn't think deserved to be on her album. Trivia note: This song was clearly inspired by the George Strait song "Run," which is totally different. But we know that Swift loves that song because she sang it at his tribute concert


In a feeble effort to sneak past the Swift hatred to a more cool-headed appraisal of her songs, I'm going to show some covers. Because numerous people cover her songs because they are good, well-crafted songs with beautiful melodies and good lyrics. All my life I have thought about what songs are supposed to do, and many of her best songs do that for me.

The people doing the covers below aren't stars, but the songs carry them. They inspire these young people just like the songs of our youth did us.

Taylor Swift may be "bigger" in terms of dollars or total audience, but what does that really mean artistically? I think she is very talented.....a great songwriter in relative terms....and the perfect marketable product.....young, beautiful, ambitious, and a great singer with a lovely tone. My daughter is a Swifty, one of the cult who goes to the concerts, knows all the lyrics, and sings along when Taylor sings about all the terrible things that love has done to her. There are probably 10 songs by TS that I like very much. Would I put her in the same category as Joni Mitchell, James Taylor, Jackson Browne, Carole King? Not even close! She is an apt representation of the modern world of commercial music, which, in my book, is fine, but not earth shattering. My two cents.

SOoooo....Ginger or Mary Ann?

I couldn't name a TS song if you put a gun to my head. On the other hand, if she delivered a pizza to my front door I'd know her in a heartbeat. But only because I occasionally watch American football. My nieces saw her on her latest tour, so I accept that she's very cool and talented. But no way she could be "bigger" to me than the Beatles. I just don't have the context. But for some (maybe most) folks? Maybe...