# Stairway To Heaven



## opium (Dec 15, 2011)

Just listened to it for the first time in around 4 years and wanted to know;

Do you think it's as phenomenal as it's made out to be?
Or do you feel that it's overrated?

I'd be interested to hear your opinions on it


----------



## elgar's ghost (Aug 8, 2010)

Hi Opium.

I'm afraid my affection for 'Stairway...' has dimmed badly over the years - I remember the crowd at Knebworth Park in 1979 going eppo when Page started the intro and there was I dispassionately muttering 'oh, looks like they're going to play it after all, then...' Why the disdain? Well, sat as I am in the comfy chair of hindsight I think it's simply a case of too many requests for it at Youth Club discos and it being a perennial victim of unimaginative radio playlists - plus the initial five minutes do drag a bit and the lyrics are...well, a bit too airy-fairy for my liking, really...

It IS a great song, of course, and for me nowadays it always comes over better on concert footage but I'm afraid it's a song I just don't like hearing any more than Plant allegedly likes singing it - I admit to going for the skip button more often than not whenever I play the fourth album or the 'How The West Was Won' live collection.

Incidentally, John Bonham's final resting place is only about 5 miles away from here.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

I clicked on this thread because I confused the title with 'I'll Build a Stairway To Paradise". Major disappointment.


----------



## misterjones (Oct 9, 2007)

Though I don't like Page or Plant (the latter's voice being akin to nails on a chalkboard to my ears), I think it's more of an over-exposure issue. In the 1970s, I certainly got my fill of the song . . . and Knights in White Satin and Bohemian Rhapsody and Roundabout and Come Sail Away and Hotel California and similar over-the-top staples of the Almighty FM.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

Yeah, overexposure for sure. Zeppelin IV, along with Who's Next are probably the two most overplayed albums of 1971. I still dig Black Dog every time I hear it. It's the quintessential Zeppelin number imo, and one of the greatest heavy rock tunes of the era.

As far as Stairway goes, I really like the 12 string electric rhythm guitar track, and Bonham's drumming.


----------



## opium (Dec 15, 2011)

I'm only 20 and so when I started getting into music, I walked into the hype of Stairway to Heaven being _the undisputed_ greatest rock song ever. Now obviously I have enough self respect not to base my musical span on radio playlists and magazine polls - but the hype about this song was undoubtedly present...

It's interesting to hear elgars ghost talk about how his view of the song has diminished since he was there to remember Led Zeppelin IV first hand.


----------



## elgar's ghost (Aug 8, 2010)

opium said:


> It's interesting to hear elgars ghost talk about how his view of the song has diminished since he was there to remember Led Zeppelin IV first hand.


Not QUITE first hand, Opium - I bought LZ IV in, I think, 1977 (six years after its release) when I would have been about 14 years old. 'Stairway...' was one of those 'anthems' that blew me away when I first heard it but I was just as guilty as the next kid for overplaying the damned song over the next few years and slowly crushing all the appeal out of it! In more recent times I've felt exactly the same towards other songs, such as Primal Scream's 'Loaded' and The Dandy Warhols' 'Bohemian Like You' - although I like to think that wasn't my fault this time!

Back to Zeppelin - for real epic classics that deserve all the hype try 'Kashmir', 'No Quarter', 'The Rain Song' and 'How Many More Times' (even though they didn't exactly write that one all by themselves).


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

The Rain Song is a beauty. Years ago I learned how to play it on guitar. I forget the tuning.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

starthrower said:


> The Rain Song is a beauty. Years ago I learned how to play it on guitar. I forget the tuning.


I remember that tuning: (Low to High) C-G-C-G-C-D


----------



## opium (Dec 15, 2011)

tdc said:


> I remember that tuning: (Low to High) C-G-C-G-C-D


I could be wrong but I thought it was D-G-C-G-C-D ?


----------



## elgar's ghost (Aug 8, 2010)

As regards the tuning, wiki seems to suggest the tunings were different for live performances -

'During Led Zeppelin concerts from late 1972 until 1975, the band played this song immediately following "The Song Remains the Same", presenting the songs in the same order as they appeared on the album. They organized their setlist in this manner because Page used a Gibson EDS-1275 double-necked guitar for both songs: the top, 12-string neck for "The Song Remains the Same" and then switching to the bottom, 6-string neck for "The Rain Song". The song was dropped from the 1977 U.S. tour, but returned for Led Zeppelin's 1979 concerts in Copenhagen, Denmark and at the Knebworth Music Festival, as well as their European tour in 1980.[1] "The Rain Song" was the only song from Houses of the Holy performed on the 1980 European tour. In this incarnation, Page again utilized the double-neck, the only known time he used that guitar solely for the 6-string portion without using the 12-string portion on a preceding song. For all live versions of the song, the orchestral string sounds were played by Jones on either the mellotron (1972-1975) or a Yamaha synthesizer (1979-1980), as Led Zeppelin never utilised a string section on-stage.
When played live, Page used the 6-string neck of the EDS-1275 for "The Rain Song" in order to have two different tunings on the same guitar. The 12-string neck was tuned to Standard tuning (E-A-D-G-B-E) for his use on "The Song Remains the Same". The alternate tuning used for "The Rain Song" on the 6-string neck was Asus4 (E-A-D-A-D-E) - a step higher than the album cut, which is the "Open page" alternative guitar tuning (D-G-C-G-C-D). This is quite an uncommon modal tuning and makes for a very rich sounding accompaniment, led by John Paul Jones. The likely reason the alternate tuning was used in live performances is that while it required Plant to sing in a higher key, it necessitated a tuning change of only two strings (the B and G) on the EDS-1275, whereas the song's original key would have required the tuning of five strings. As this same guitar would later be used in the show for "Stairway to Heaven", the six-string neck would then need to be returned to standard tuning-the alternate "Rain Song" tuning allowed this to be achieved with relative ease.
Page and Plant recorded a version of the song in 1994 but it was not originally released on their album No Quarter: Jimmy Page and Robert Plant Unledded. It was, however, released on the special tenth anniversary reissue of that album in 2004.'


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

opium said:


> I could be wrong but I thought it was D-G-C-G-C-D ?


This is correct - my mistake.


----------



## Philip (Mar 22, 2011)

I think tunings are very underutilized in the classical guitar repertoire. They make the instrument sound from another world when used more extensively than the usual drop D, take Koyunbaba for example...


----------



## kv466 (May 18, 2011)

Stairway's one of the first songs I learned how to play...it's definitely overrated but that doesn't mean that it is one of the best rock songs ever written.


----------



## regressivetransphobe (May 16, 2011)

It's just proof that the mainstream is really easy to impress.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

regressivetransphobe said:


> It's just proof that the mainstream is really easy to impress.


----------



## misterjones (Oct 9, 2007)

Ironically, the often goofy and frivolously scatalogiocal Zappa is one of the most fascinating and erudite interviewees I've ever seen. I recall his 1980 interview with the terminally pompous Dick Cavett as being very entertaining. The interview is in three parts on Youtube:

Part 1 



Part 2 



Part 3


----------



## opium (Dec 15, 2011)

Not long ago I watched Frank Zappa at the PMRC Senate Hearing and he spoke more sense than all the senators there.


----------



## elgar's ghost (Aug 8, 2010)

opium said:


> Not long ago I watched Frank Zappa at the PMRC Senate Hearing and he spoke more sense than all the senators there.


President Zappa - that would have sounded good had fate not intervened. Well, if an ex-actor can get the gig etc....


----------



## misterjones (Oct 9, 2007)

Zappa sounds like he was (or was close to being) a libertarian. So if you like Zappa's political views, I guess Ron Paul is your man.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

Ron Paul and Frank Zappa shared a common characteristic. Both straightforward, honest men who would never make it to the White House. All presidents tell lies constantly, and Ron & Frank would have none of that.


----------



## elgar's ghost (Aug 8, 2010)

starthrower said:


> Ron Paul and Frank Zappa shared a common characteristic. Both straightforward, honest men who would never make it to the White House. All presidents tell lies constantly, and Ron & Frank would have none of that.


Good point. For me Uncle Frank will always be The Central Scrutinizer.


----------



## Iforgotmypassword (May 16, 2011)

I love Led Zeppelin, but I feel like that particular song is highly over-rated. Besides, I never look at songs seperately but as a full album. That particular album is excellent though.


----------



## misterjones (Oct 9, 2007)

starthrower said:


> Ron Paul and Frank Zappa shared a common characteristic. Both straightforward, honest men who would never make it to the White House. All presidents tell lies constantly, and Ron & Frank would have none of that.


I like Zappa a lot, but I do not consider him to have been remarkably straighforward and/or honest, at least when it came to his own business/personal affairs. Neither do I consider Paul remarkably honest, though his political views seem consistently libertarian. Zappa, I think, was like Paul in that his political and social beliefs were basically disciplined and consistently libertarian. But libertarianism was and is a selfish* philosophy that suits the lifestyle of a successful avant-garde artist rather well, and it isn't surprising Zappa adopted it.
__________
* Of course, "selfish" has a negative connotation in today's world of wealth redistribution and government hand-outs, but a libertarian might beg to differ regarding such negativity (see Ayn Rand's "Virtue of Selfishness" in this regard).


----------



## Iforgotmypassword (May 16, 2011)

starthrower said:


> Ron Paul and Frank Zappa shared a common characteristic. Both straightforward, honest men who would never make it to the White House. All presidents tell lies constantly, and Ron & Frank would have none of that.


Well while this might seem to be a realistic view that I might have shared a while back, I would now say that it falls more on the side of pessimism and ends up being self-defeating. What candidate has a better chance? The one who has enthusiastic hopeful fans or the ones who don't believe that he can make it? That said, I do understand where you're coming from... but anyways....

Ron Paul 2012! Wooo!


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

If you listen to some of the video interviews of Zappa on Libertarian candidates, you'll see that he did not adopt or endorse their politics wholeheartedly. He was a democrat. He liked Mario Cuomo.


----------



## smoledman (Feb 6, 2012)

The song is overrated, but I definitely love the part when the drums come 4 minutes in. Must have been unprecedented to have that in 1971.


----------



## childed (Jul 15, 2017)

what do you think about the lawsuit to LZ?

https://musictales.club/article/celtic-baroque-roots-stairway-heaven


----------



## SONNET CLV (May 31, 2014)

There are different ways to categorize a "great" song.

When you hear a song for the first time, and it grabs you like few others have, you may well be in the presence of a great song.

When you hear a song for the hundredth time and it still seems interesting and fresh, you may well be in the presence of a great song.

When you come to realize that songs sounded different before the arrival on the scene of a certain song, or that after the arrival of a certain song songs sound different than previously, you may be in the presence of a great song.

A great song tends to have strong "cover" life, is capable of many versions, a variety of arrangements, an array of singers and players.

Then there is a great performance. Even a less than great, lasting, moving song can be the feature of a great performance, one that is unique to a place and time and arrangement. Such performance pieces often do not make for strong "cover" life. New versions, arrangements, transformations may seem lame or uninspired, and when such is undertaken, the listener often finds himself comparing the original favorably to the cover; or, the cover performer so duplicates the original that the cover is redundant. Some of the great performance pieces are known only in their one version. These pieces exist as unique works of art of their own, in a world that is actually beyond the single definition of "great song". I think immediately of the Iron Butterfly's "In A Gadda Da Vida", of Chicago's "25 Or 6 To 4", of the Beatles' "A Day In The Life". These works of art are like Mona Lisas in their own way; we don't need other versions of them, or they don't support other versions well. But to denigrate them as less than "great" is in some way very unfair. It's good they exist, like it is good the Mona Lisa exists. But do we need dozens of alternative versions of that painting? (Other than in parody, and parody marks the quality of a work, for no one bothers to parody insignificant works.)

So, this is where I place "Stairway to Heaven." It remains a unique work of musical art because of its performance, and we really needn't debate whether it is a "great song" as compared to songs which have hundreds of cover versions: "Body and Soul," "My Funny Valentine," "The Girl From Ipanema" and "Yesterday", to name a few.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

^^^^A Fine Post, SONNET CLV! :tiphat:


----------



## Room2201974 (Jan 23, 2018)

childed said:


> what do you think about the lawsuit to LZ?
> 
> https://musictales.club/article/celtic-baroque-roots-stairway-heaven


Far be it from me to be a defender of LZ. If _Led Zeppelin I _would have been recorded just a little bit later one could make a case for it being a violation of the RICO Act*. However, once again the article talked about a harmonic progression similarity. Big deal, harmonic progressions are not copyrightable as any contrafact fan will tell you.

*Ladies and Gents, school yourself on RICO - it's the next two years of history!!!!!!!!!


----------



## SONNET CLV (May 31, 2014)

Strange Magic said:


> ^^^^A Fine Post, SONNET CLV! :tiphat:


Thanks.

As I contemplate "Stairway to Heaven" today (a song that has been in my consciousness since its initial release, and as a guitarist I've worked on learning it), on what is the 48th anniversary since the song's debut (March 5, 1971 at Belfast's iconic Ulster Hall), I realize I have long considered Led Zeppelin one of rock-n-roll's most over-rated talents. Still, part of rock-n-roll history is the notion that the over-rated remain much a part of it. Rock is a business, afterall, and sometimes seems more a business (a money making venture) than a musical pursuit. To survive in the rock business one needs a gimmick, generally -- which can be looks, or antics, or attire … but need not necessarily be musical ability. Still, if you are just looking to have some fun listening to sounds, rock fits the bill. And Zeppelin does this better than most others out there. When I contend that the band is over-rated, I am suggesting that all of rock music is over-rated. But then, that's prejudice that comes from one who prefers classical and jazz, both of which I see generally as more complex and interesting (harmonically, melodically, musically) than the majority of rock.

That said, rock-n-roll produces its share of works of art. Most are miniatures, akin perhaps to haiku poems in the literary sense, or small water-color paintings in the graphic-arts sense. Perhaps it proves more accurate to compare rock literarily to greeting card verse (and there are good ones -- mostly sentimental and true in expression! [Of course, Oscar Wilde famously said: "All bad poetry is sincere." Actually, though, the quote is less famously but more truly "All bad poetry springs from genuine feeling."] In other words, rock music like greeting card verse is utilitarian and springs from genuine feeling, but does not tap much into ironies -- though, of course, some of the better song-writers do touch on irony as a major force in their art: Leonard Cohen, Carole King, Bob Dylan, Joni Mitchell come to mind.)

Great rock songs are not necessarily great musical works. But then again, one might suggest this about songs in general. Schubert wrote a lot of songs; sometimes the lyric is less inspiring than the tune, sometimes the tune falls a bit short, and then with Schubert one must also consider the arrangement or accompaniment. Song is at its base a melody and a lyric. How those two things are "dressed" makes for the presentation. Often it is the presentation we admire more than the melody or lyric. Rock strikes me as being much this, a presentation of a melody and lyric. If the presentation is catchy, we call it a good song. But can one really cite the tune or the lyrics of, say, "Wooly Bully" as masterworks? Still, "Wooly Bully" was a hit song. Go figure!

We can certainly philosophize about rock music, rock songs, music in general, whatever. But in the end a lot bubbles down simply to what we enjoy hearing, listening to, playing and singing for ourselves. It's subjective judgment. It matters not how great critics say the Bach B-minor Mass is if you hate listening to it. Right?

I enjoy listening to "Stairway to Heaven", and of strumming it on the ol' guitar on occasion. It is to me one of the more enjoyable songs from Led Zeppelin, and I do have all of their albums, on both vinyl and CD. I don't listen to them often, but when I do it is usually one of the first three albums, and then usually ZoSo. And that's fine with me.

Here's a link you "Staircase" fans will want to see:

https://www.hotpress.com/music/day-1971-led-zeppelin-debuted-stairway-heaven-ulster-hall-22768182


----------



## philoctetes (Jun 15, 2017)

Meet Francis Mallofly - People Laughed When This Philly Lawyer Sued Led Zeppelin. Nobody's Laughing Now.

https://www.phillymag.com/news/2019/02/11/francis-malofiy-led-zeppelin/

While the article makes Mallofly sound like he has a case, it sure doesn't give Spirit much credit as a band. Randy California was very much on my turntable back then and is a guitar legend now. To say another band like T Rex is "long-forgotten" would be equivalent.


----------



## philoctetes (Jun 15, 2017)

It's also indicative that LZ would be called a "cover band" - and it's useful to see their evolution as a slow stubborn reform from kleptomania... with the ripoffs they also had decent originals on I and II in the mixed acoustic / electric format. III would introduce the Hammer of the Gods style with Immigrant Song, of which there was nothing like before, but it also stole from Leadbelly etc. The Hammer branched into pop and rock songs like Black Dog, Misty Mountain Hop, Dancing Days, Houses of The Holy, and so on, until they finally, nearly forgot about the blues. From III on, if they returned to blues, they typically added something rather than stealing. But I always thought Tea for One was just a weak remake of Since I've Been Loving You.

But in a way, Stairway was a revisit to the softer songs that had appeared before. When you think of what other bands were doing at the time, it was a Bolero (Beck, Airplane) type crescendo with John Barleycorn (Traffic, Spirit) type balladry. And it's not just the first chord progressions that are similar to Taurus, but the way those chords are arpeggiated with particular touches is nearly identical.


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

Yeah, I'm like many here... Overfamiliarity breeds contempt. It is a great song but I rarely play it. Funnily enough I made a Zep compilation for the car and didn't put it on. I'm also with Starthrower on Black Dog. Still a wonderful song and gets me singing along (badly) every time I hear it. I really should learn to play it on the guitar but I can't be bothered.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

I've expressed my views on Zep many times here before. I continue to regard them as one of the most consistently musically rewarding groups in the history of rock; the complex and often constantly-varying textures within which the lyrics are embedded are not matched by any group of comparable popularity and adulation. This is a key point, as many cultists and devotees of esoterica have their very own fave artists whose work is too sophisticated for the _hoi polloi_, belying the whole concept of Rock as a Popular Music. By contrast, "everybody" liked Led Zeppelin; I surely did, and do.

The plagiarism issue repeatedly turns up in these discussions. And my reply, always, is that Zep lifted often unremarkable music of others onto a higher plane of both artistry and of recognition. They surely sinned, and maybe should pay (the courts will decide), but the results sing for themselves.


----------



## Torkelburger (Jan 14, 2014)

_"Here's to my Sweet Satan!"_:devil:


----------



## Red Terror (Dec 10, 2018)

The results _sing_ for themselves? Plant can't sing-he wails like an infernal banshee.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Red Terror said:


> The results _sing_ for themselves? Plant can't sing-he wails like an infernal banshee.


You're right. Dylan can't sing either, and he got a Nobel Prize!


----------



## philoctetes (Jun 15, 2017)

I think Plant's wailing is what ages the music the most. Yet I think he has great pipes and they sound best in Physical Graffiti, perhaps my favorite album in the long run, and his later work has shown what he can do when he lays back a bit. 

LZ is definitely about texture, or timbre, for me And the arrangements and production that illuminate those textures. The Johns Brothers were partly responsible for that sound. Jimmy Page probably owns a thousand vintage amps and knows what each of them can or can't do. I love Wire, a much different band, for similar reasons, their obsession with timbre. But Wire is musically more like Pink Floyd meets the Beach Boys, using vocals more like a pop band.


----------



## Red Terror (Dec 10, 2018)

Strange Magic said:


> You're right. Dylan can't sing either, and he got a Nobel Prize!


I think even Dylan knows the Nobel is now worthless. Frankly I am surprised the Kardashians haven't yet been awarded one.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

For all its overexposition it's still a very good song and probably the first solo I learned by ear on the guitar (altough the live version on The songs remain the same is much better than the studio version). It's not one of the greatest rock songs ever to me in any case (and in the LZ repertory I definitely prefer other songs like Achilles, No quarter or Kashmir) but definitely a good one.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

Strange Magic said:


> And my reply, always, is that Zep lifted often unremarkable music of others onto a higher plane of both artistry and of recognition. They surely sinned, and maybe should pay (the courts will decide), but the results sing for themselves.


I think I agree, altough definitely not always. For instance White summer doesn't reach the heights of She moved through the bizarre in my opinion.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Red Terror said:


> I think even Dylan knows the Nobel is now worthless. Frankly I am surprised the Kardashians haven't yet been awarded one.


When did the Nobel Prize become worthless? Why was I (and the rest of the world) not informed?

We did have a lot of fun discussing Dylan's getting the Prize back when. 

https://www.talkclassical.com/45784-bob-dylan-wins-nobel.html?highlight=Bob+Dylan


----------



## philoctetes (Jun 15, 2017)

"When did the Nobel Prize become worthless?"

When Facebook conquered the information universe..


----------



## Room2201974 (Jan 23, 2018)

https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-news/led-zeppelins-10-boldest-rip-offs-223419/

This "pattern of deception" of copyright infringement easily meets the standards of a RICO case. There's an old saying that "honest folk don't need lawyers." Too bad LZ never found a lawyer who could double on bass.

Tell you what: Let's start a band. We'll go into the studio and record the musical ideas of others. We'll claim the ideas as ours, collect our copyright monies and live high on the hog of success. Meanwhile, if we've stolen your idea we'll make you take us to court, incur court and legal fees, and IF we are found guilty, only then will we share the money and credit with the rightful authors. Seems legit to me.

"Justice delayed is justice denied."


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Bob Dylan's been stealing stuff since he was in diapers. This is from a review of Harvard classics professor Richard F. Thomas' recent book on Dylan, _Why Bob Dylan Matters_. A good book and look at Dylan as successful thief; almost as thorough as Howard Vincent's study of Melville's borrowings, _The Trying-Out of Moby Dick._

"As a Virgil scholar, Thomas knows his way around poetic geniuses who are as good at stealing a well-turned phrase as creating one, given Virgil's hefty borrowings for the "Aeneid" from Homer's "Iliad" and "Odyssey." The strongest elements of Why Bob Dylan Matters are Thomas's careful parsings of Dylan's literary thefts-including a surprising number from Ovid. Other primary sources are the obscure Civil War poet Henry Timrod, Woody Guthrie, Alan Lomax, the Japanese author Junichi Saga, countless Scottish folk ballads, the aforementioned Rimbaud and Virgil, too. Thomas does a fair amount of intertextual analysis to draw out these voices, but his favorites are clearly the classical references. "Bob Dylan, the supreme artist of the English language of my time," suffers from nostalgia (like Odysseus?), Thomas suggests. He "has been on that same trail, going back to ancient times to mine material for his work, and making it about the here and now."

I know, I know: Led Zeppelin's case is different, like Pete Seeger's stealing of _Wimoweh_. The workings of Art and artists are sometimes unorthodox and also cruel.


----------



## philoctetes (Jun 15, 2017)

Room2201974 said:


> https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-news/led-zeppelins-10-boldest-rip-offs-223419/
> 
> This "pattern of deception" of copyright infringement easily meets the standards of a RICO case. There's an old saying that "honest folk don't need lawyers." Too bad LZ never found a lawyer who could double on bass.
> 
> ...


If I was the judge, I would say it makes not one overtone of difference that Zepp had a guitar- bass - drum sound of their own when we ask if the songs were theirs or not.


----------



## SONNET CLV (May 31, 2014)

Strange Magic said:


> You're right. Dylan can't sing either, and he got a Nobel Prize!





Red Terror said:


> I think even Dylan knows the Nobel is now worthless. Frankly I am surprised the Kardashians haven't yet been awarded one.


Of course, Dylan did not receive the Prize for his singing. It was rewarded for his writing. The Nobel Prize for Literature. I strongly suspect that many if not most of the former winners of this award were less than stellar singers. Mo Yan, Tomas Tranströmer, Mario Vargas Llosa, Günter Grass, William Faulkner, Winston Churchill!? ... et. al.

If you want rewards for singing, perhaps you must look at the winners of the Grammy Award. Bob Dylan was nominated 38 times, and won 10. But sharing that _same_ distinction is Justin Timberlake! And Taylor Swift won 10 Grammy's after only 31 nominations! So, can we trust the Grammy? (By the way, Frank Sinatra, no back-water voice there, ties Ringo Starr with 9 Grammys; Frank was nominated 31 times, Ringo 27. Which says something, I'm sure. But I don't really want to think about it. I like Ringo. Heck! He was one of the Beatles! And I have all his albums!)


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

SONNET, you understand that neither Red Terror nor I nor anyone else actually believes Dylan won the Nobel for his singing . I, for one, was and remain a staunch defender of Dylan's being given the prize--his is a unique talent.


----------



## philoctetes (Jun 15, 2017)

He won it for his philanthropy, right?

:lol:

Critical Thinking 101: You have no talent, but know it when you see it. Now you will learn to write about this process.


----------



## Simon Moon (Oct 10, 2013)

Even when I used to be a LZ fan, I only considered StH to be an ok song. 

I used to wonder why it was so revered. 

Now, it sounds like a joke to me. I am unable to enjoy it on any level.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

SONNET CLV said:


> Of course, Dylan did not receive the Prize for his singing. It was rewarded for his writing. The Nobel Prize for Literature. I strongly suspect that many if not most of the former winners of this award were less than stellar singers. Mo Yan, Tomas Tranströmer, Mario Vargas Llosa, Günter Grass, William Faulkner, Winston Churchill!? ... et. al.
> 
> If you want rewards for singing, perhaps you must look at the winners of the Grammy Award. Bob Dylan was nominated 38 times, and won 10. But sharing that _same_ distinction is Justin Timberlake! And Taylor Swift won 10 Grammy's after only 31 nominations! So, can we trust the Grammy? (By the way, Frank Sinatra, no back-water voice there, ties Ringo Starr with 9 Grammys; Frank was nominated 31 times, Ringo 27. Which says something, I'm sure. But I don't really want to think about it. I like Ringo. Heck! He was one of the Beatles! And I have all his albums!)


The Grammy's are not musical talent awards. They are music industry awards. And my opinion is that both Plant and Dylan can sing, and probably don't use pitch correctness tools in the studio. But that jackass Kanye West can't sing, that's for sure.


----------



## Red Terror (Dec 10, 2018)

SONNET CLV said:


> Of course, Dylan did not receive the Prize for his singing. It was rewarded for his writing. The Nobel Prize for Literature. I strongly suspect that many if not most of the former winners of this award were less than stellar singers. Mo Yan, Tomas Tranströmer, Mario Vargas Llosa, Günter Grass, William Faulkner, Winston Churchill!? ... et. al.
> 
> If you want rewards for singing, perhaps you must look at the winners of the Grammy Award. Bob Dylan was nominated 38 times, and won 10. But sharing that _same_ distinction is Justin Timberlake! And Taylor Swift won 10 Grammy's after only 31 nominations! So, can we trust the Grammy? (By the way, Frank Sinatra, no back-water voice there, ties Ringo Starr with 9 Grammys; Frank was nominated 31 times, Ringo 27. Which says something, I'm sure. But I don't really want to think about it. I like Ringo. Heck! He was one of the Beatles! And I have all his albums!)


I am aware.

Had he won for overall artistic contribution, it would have been slightly less ridiculous, but to award him the prize for literature? Llosa, Grass, and Faulkner must be glad they're dead. The clown who authored Fifty Shades of Grey should also get one. Oh, and let's not forget Kanye!

How the ***** was Robert Frost passed over? Jokes, man.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

Yes Zeppelin ripped off some stuff, but most of their music is original and as noted above they are not the only famous artists guilty of some plagiarism.

Another example - I've been listening to Bartók's solo piano music lately and recently discovered Emerson, Lake and Palmer ripped off Bartók's _Allegro Barbaro_ and used it on their album _Barbarian_ without giving the composer credit.

As far as _Stairway to Heaven_ the vaguely similar guitar riff is not an example of plagiarism.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

tdc said:


> Yes Zeppelin ripped off some stuff, but most of their music is original and as noted above they are not the only famous artists guilty of some plagiarism.
> 
> Another example - I've been listening to Bartók's solo piano music lately and recently discovered Emerson, Lake and Palmer ripped off Bartók's _Allegro Barbaro_ and used it on their album _Barbarian_ without giving the composer credit.


That's changed. The newer CD editions give credit to Bartok, and Janacek for Knife Edge.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

starthrower said:


> That's changed. The newer CD editions give credit to Bartok, and Janacek for Knife Edge.


Yes, this was changed after they were caught, and Bartok's widow apparently personally phoned them.

Some other examples off the top of my head of well known bands plagiarising:

The Beach Boys ripped off Chuck Berry's _Sweet Little Sixteen_, for their song _Surfin' USA_.

The song that made Radiohead famous _Creep_, was initially credited to Radiohead, but now the songwriting credits have been changed after legal action was threatened by Albert Hammond and Mike Hazlewood, who use strikingly similar melodic material in their 1972 song _The Air That I Breathe_.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Simon Moon said:


> Even when I used to be a LZ fan, I only considered StH to be an ok song.
> 
> I used to wonder why it was so revered.
> 
> Now, it sounds like a joke to me. I am unable to enjoy it on any level.


Can you get help?


----------



## senza sordino (Oct 20, 2013)

My two cents: (In Canadian this is about 1.6 US cents)

I think Stairway to Heaven is a good song, how it is layered, how it builds, how texture is added. I know this isn't unique or groundbreaking. But it is effective. I have long thought of Stairway to Heaven as a Chaconne. Variation, or in this case adding layers, on top of a simple harmonic progression, in this case a descending scale. First in Am, then in C major and then back to Am. If you listen very hard the tune will come to you at last. But alas, this song has suffered from overexposure. I rarely listen to any Led Zeppelin now. I listened to all of their studio songs last fall to celebrate their 50th anniversary, but not since. And I hadn't listened for a few years prior. 

As for suing Led Zeppelin. Yes, the song does sound a bit like Spirit's tune. In defence of LZ: Can a descending scale be copywritten? In defence of Spirit: The song has the same atmosphere, the same sound world. But why wait 48 years to sue? At what point in time does the statue of limitations occur? When does copywrite run out?


----------



## elgar's ghost (Aug 8, 2010)

Much has been made of the Spirit/Zep affair but there have been more glaring examples where a plagiarism suit could have arisen. One that immediately springs to mind is Motörhead's _No Class_ from their 1979 Overkill album - great track, but the riff is a total steal from ZZ Top's _Tush_. Slade then went and nicked the same riff for _Dizzy Mama_ in 1981.


----------



## Red Terror (Dec 10, 2018)

‘Stairway’ is a good HS prom song. I prefer ‘Starless’ by KC.


----------



## SONNET CLV (May 31, 2014)

Red Terror said:


> How the ***** was Robert Frost passed over? Jokes, man.


As a former instructor in Literature, I hold some fondness for several Frost poems. As a former instructor in Literature, I hold back on nominating Frost for the Nobel Prize in Literature. In my opinion, his work is simply not strong enough to support such an accolade. Sure, Frost is popular and clever and often thought provoking and deserves to be read more ironically than he usually is, but until Hart Crane receives a Nobel, I'll hold back Frost.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

I think in the case of the Nobel for literature, we--sadly or not--probably should defer to the "wisdom" of the Nobel Committee. Everybody has their own hobby-horse favorites to win the prize, and will groan with displeasure at any choice other than their favorites--popularity is never part of such an equation. The same--to a degree--has plagued the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame nominations, in that cult artists beloved by the Powers That Be have often been inducted while artists/groups that have delighted tens of millions have languished for years--though an effort has been made to somewhat correct the situation. Still, no Kate Bush.

But if the Nobel Committee were to consider broad popularity--I say, IF--then we might have seen JRR Tolkien Nobeled, or John LeCarre, or Patrick O'Brian..... Maybe even John Grisham.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

tdc said:


> Yes, this was changed after they were caught, and Bartok's widow apparently personally phoned them.


I don't know the details, and who was at fault? Management, publisher, record company, musicians? But they made some pretty cool arrangements of these classical pieces. Of course they got permission from Ginastera because he was still alive at the time.


----------



## Red Terror (Dec 10, 2018)

SONNET CLV said:


> As a former instructor in Literature, I hold some fondness for several Frost poems. As a former instructor in Literature, I hold back on nominating Frost for the Nobel Prize in Literature. In my opinion, his work is simply not strong enough to support such an accolade. Sure, Frost is popular and clever and often thought provoking and deserves to be read more ironically than he usually is, but until Hart Crane receives a Nobel, I'll hold back Frost.


Hart Crane was a first rate drunkard ... the end.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Red Terror said:


> Hart Crane was a first rate drunkard ... the end.


I hope so. Soon.


----------



## smoledman (Feb 6, 2012)

Honestly the only impressive part is that transition piece at 5:35 when Jimmy Page breaks out his guitar orchestra leading to his famous solo.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

smoledman said:


> The song is overrated, but I definitely love the part when the drums come 4 minutes in. Must have been unprecedented to have that in 1971.


You should confer with your clone, as you disagree as to where and when the best part begins. Honestly.


----------



## smoledman (Feb 6, 2012)

First I don't remember I had commented before on this. Second, I still always thought the guitar orchestra bit was the most impressive part of the song. To think of doing that in 1971 with analog technology, it's amazing.

Also the 2nd half of the song is where the action is at. A blistering 2-part solo followed by what is probably Robert Plant's tour de force "as we wind on down the road..." part combined with Page's ongoing guitar orchestra. At the time I first heard it, mid 1990s it blew me away.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

I don't hear a guitar orchestra in this song. I hear Page switching back and forth from 6 to 12 string guitars. I hear a lot more guitar tracks on Queen songs.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

I love the whole song, but part of its appeal is the Boléro-like increase in anticipation as the song evolves. It is certainly less regular than Boléro but the method and effect are similar.


----------



## philoctetes (Jun 15, 2017)

Ha, the topic is Led Zeppelin, that lofty realm where drunk poets are below the bar. Who knew?


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

This is the definitive version


----------



## philoctetes (Jun 15, 2017)

Another contender


----------



## Room2201974 (Jan 23, 2018)

Noisrev etirovaf ym:


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

SONNET CLV said:


> If you want rewards for singing, perhaps you must look at the winners of the Grammy Award. Bob Dylan was nominated 38 times, and won 10. But sharing that _same_ distinction is Justin Timberlake! And Taylor Swift won 10 Grammy's after only 31 nominations! So, can we trust the Grammy? (By the way, Frank Sinatra, no back-water voice there, ties Ringo Starr with 9 Grammys; Frank was nominated 31 times, Ringo 27. Which says something, I'm sure. But I don't really want to think about it. I like Ringo. Heck! He was one of the Beatles! And I have all his albums!)


The Grammy's aren't even to be trusted when it comes to Dylan! The greatest monument to his artistic genius remains his 60s work where he went from the greatest folk artist of his generation to one of the greatest rock artists of his generation; yet nothing from Freewheelin', Bringing it All Back Home, Highway 61, or Blonde on Blonde received nominations, and neither did Blood on the Tracks or anything from The Basement Tapes, which pretty much invented the Americana genre. Now, while I do think Time Out of Mind and Love & Theft deserved their acclaim--as much for their surprising greatness than anything; Dylan had been pretty awful for over a decade before releasing them!--most of what he actually won Grammys and was nominated for was pretty ridiculous! Much like The Oscars, the Grammys are often quite "late" to catch on to great artists, and then start rewarding them it's long after their best years are behind them... if they ever get rewarded at all.

All that said, I wouldn't denigrate either Timberlake or Swift. They're both probably the best male and female pop artists of the 21st century, and the latter may be the best songwriter of this century, period. Neither get enough credit among "serious" music fans because of their reputation for appealing to teenage girls; but once upon a time the primary audience for The Beatles consisted of that same demographic. Sometimes teenage girls know stuff before the rest of catch on. I lament that it took me so long to appreciate how good Taylor Swift was, especially.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

Red Terror said:


> I am aware.
> 
> Had he won for overall artistic contribution, it would have been slightly less ridiculous, but to award him the prize for literature? Llosa, Grass, and Faulkner must be glad they're dead. The clown who authored Fifty Shades of Grey should also get one. Oh, and let's not forget Kanye!
> 
> How the ***** was Robert Frost passed over? Jokes, man.


Dylan deserved his Nobel Prize. It's just a sad fact that there's no Nobel for music, but arguably Dylan's greatest contribution to music was an unparalleled and unprecedented (especially for his time) lyrical substance and intelligence, so a Nobel Prize for Literature made sense. He's also quite well-respected among many literary professors. Arguably one of the 2 or 3 best poetry academics/critics of our age is Christopher Ricks, and he wrote an entire book analyzing Dylan's lyrics.

As for Frost, while I count myself a fan I'd have a hard time arguing that he was deserving of a Nobel. Frost is unusual in that he seems overrated by the general public, but underrated by academics. Both tend to underrate how subtle, cynical, ironic, and subversive he was. However, it's very true that Frost was a very provincial poet that didn't really speak to many large issues. Perhaps the largest his mind got was addressing vaguely religious, metaphysical, and scientific subjects. A poem like Design is a subtly terrifying view of both evolution and creation.

Still, Frost would've been far down my list of Nobel candidates that never won. Foremost of the 20th century I think Wallace Stevens, James Merrill, John Ashbery, and Geoffrey Hill deserved it. All four were much greater visionaries than Frost. Merrill was even Frost's superior when it came to technical proficiency, and he wrote the greatest epic of the century in The Changing Light at Sandover. Ashbery was arguably the most influential poet of the second half of the 20th century and will be the subject of intense study for the next century to come. Stevens and Hill meanwhile left behind the richest, most philosophically dense poetry of the century and will similarly reward much in-depth study (Stevens already has).


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

Eva Yojimbo said:


> All that said, I wouldn't denigrate either Timberlake or Swift. They're both probably the best male and female pop artists of the 21st century, and the latter may be the best songwriter of this century, period.


if after a century where great songwriter meant George Gerswhin, Cole Porter, Hoagy Carmichael, Alec Wilder, Brian Wilson, Jobim, Atahualpa Yupanqui, Neil Young, Joni Mitchell, Stevie Wonder, Donald Fagen etc we are at the point that Taylor Swift is the best songwriter of the last twenty years this century sucks big time so far. I mean, she has some catchy tunes (if something that screams capitalism on every second it's your thing), but "greatest songwriter of the century"?


----------



## Simon Moon (Oct 10, 2013)

Strange Magic said:


> Can you get help?


What part of my opinion requires my seeking help?

That I used to like other LZ songs more? That I wondered why LZ fans rated it higher than other LZ songs, Achilles Last Stand, for example? Or that it sounds like an overplayed, overhyped joke to me now (my tastes changed over the years, what a concept)?


----------



## StrangeHocusPocus (Mar 8, 2019)

I for one much prefer Spirit's original version of the song


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Simon Moon said:


> What part of my opinion requires my seeking help?
> 
> That I used to like other LZ songs more? That I wondered why LZ fans rated it higher than other LZ songs, Achilles Last Stand, for example? Or that it sounds like an overplayed, overhyped joke to me now (my tastes changed over the years, what a concept)?


I don't know--your post read like a _cri de cœur_; that you were suffering and couldn't understand what had happened. I find my tastes don't change, or don't change much--if I liked something then, there's a very strong possibility I like it now, There are certain exceptions, mostly CM, that I've heard too often. But rock classics? They stick with me over the decades.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

philoctetes said:


> Another contender


Thats good but this is better


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

norman bates said:


> if after a century where great songwriter meant George Gerswhin, Cole Porter, Hoagy Carmichael, Alec Wilder, Brian Wilson, Jobim, Atahualpa Yupanqui, Neil Young, Joni Mitchell, Stevie Wonder, Donald Fagen etc we are at the point that Taylor Swift is the best songwriter of the last twenty years this century sucks big time so far. I mean, she has some catchy tunes (if something that screams capitalism on every second it's your thing), but "greatest songwriter of the century"?


One really needs to split the 20th century up into the pre and post-rock eras, as pre-rock the songwriters rarely performed their own material so the quality could vary greatly between different performances, and many of the best performances weren't "sung" at all (as in instrumental jazz). Of the post-rock era, I'm quite familiar with most of the names you listed--Wilson, Young, Mitchell, Wonder, Fagen--and rate all of them quite highly, but Swift is not embarrassed by their company.

First, I wouldn't be quick to dismiss anyone as a writer of "catchy tunes." Take away the "catchy tunes" from many of the artists you mentioned and you impoverish them greatly. Writing "catchy tunes"--ie, strong melodies with memorable rhythm--is one of the key hallmarks of great songwriting. I defy you name me a great song from any era that doesn't feature first-and-foremost a "catchy tune." In terms of the post-rock era, I'd argue Paul McCartney was the finest "writer of catchy tunes" we had, and, yes, Swift is a similarly gifted melodist.

Second, another hallmark is the combination of lyrics and performance, music, and sound, so that the later enhance the story and drama of the former. This is an area that Swift excels in, as did the likes of Young, Mitchell, Dylan, et al. before her. If you've only heard the singles you've only heard a small part of her work, and as with any great pop artist, the singles will only ever tell a small part of the story. In most weaker pop, the singles are often the only highlights of any album's worth of material, and most artists show no real attention to care or detail in terms of musical drama, in large part because most modern pop stars have very little creative control over their own material.

Finally, I have no idea what you mean by "screams capitalism on every second." I assume you mean something like "screams commercialism" since "screaming capitalism" would be something like anti-socialist/communist propaganda music. If that's what you mean, then I don't really agree. On the one hand, yes, Swift is commercial; but how many pop artists in history haven't been? It's quite difficult to be pop while writing music that's far outside mainstream tastes. Yet Swift is also one of the few pop stars of this century who's shown a Dylan/Bowie-esque penchant for experimenting with her sound, style, and image. If she wanted, she could've easily stayed in the pop-country niche of Fearless and kept selling millions, but she experimented with new genres a lot on Speak Now and Red, and changed styles entirely on 1989, and image/personas entirely on Reputation. One of my few criticisms of her is that I want to see her push this further, past the point where she even risks being anti-commercial, the same way The Beatles did when they got into psychedelia.


----------



## Red Terror (Dec 10, 2018)

norman bates said:


> if after a century where great songwriter meant George Gerswhin, Cole Porter, Hoagy Carmichael, Alec Wilder, Brian Wilson, Jobim, Atahualpa Yupanqui, Neil Young, Joni Mitchell, Stevie Wonder, Donald Fagen etc we are at the point that Taylor Swift is the best songwriter of the last twenty years this century sucks big time so far. I mean, she has some catchy tunes (if something that screams capitalism on every second it's your thing), but "greatest songwriter of the century"?


Bates, you and I must be the only ones here who even know who Atahualpa Yupanqui is.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

Eva Yojimbo said:


> One really needs to split the 20th century up into the pre and post-rock eras, as pre-rock the songwriters rarely performed their own material so the quality could vary greatly between different performances, and many of the best performances weren't "sung" at all (as in instrumental jazz). Of the post-rock era, I'm quite familiar with most of the names you listed--Wilson, Young, Mitchell, Wonder, Fagen--and rate all of them quite highly, but Swift is not embarrassed by their company.
> 
> First, I wouldn't be quick to dismiss anyone as a writer of "catchy tunes." Take away the "catchy tunes" from many of the artists you mentioned and you impoverish them greatly. Writing "catchy tunes"--ie, strong melodies with memorable rhythm--is one of the key hallmarks of great songwriting.


Memorability is certainly something that helps the music to be... memorable, but in itself it's not a sign of quality. Actually Gangnam style is more catchy than most of the masterpieces produced in classical music in the twentieth century. 
And the simple reason is that it's much more easy to memorize a simple melody or motif than a complex one (I'm not saying in any case that a simple melody can't be beautiful obviously, but that's another and different story).

So it's not that simple. And while in the other musicians I've mentioned I see a lot of qualities besides the memorability of their music, I don't see that in her music. Sophistication, lyricism, interesting harmonies, originality. I can't say that for anything I've heard from her. Sure, well crafted stuff (duh), but I could say that also for some of the worst hollywood blockbusters.
And that's what Taylor Swift's music is to my ears. And I've nothing against pop mainstream (I mean, it's impossibile to find something more popular than Michael Jackson's Thriller but it's a great pop album).
But what I hear in her music is a perfectly crafted mass product, shiny and plasticky and catchy.
To be in the company of the best songwriters of the last century one has to do much more than that.
And to my ears the quality of her music is definitely very far from the musicians I've mentioned.



Eva Yojimbo said:


> Finally, I have no idea what you mean by "screams capitalism on every second." I assume you mean something like "screams commercialism" since "screaming capitalism" would be something like anti-socialist/communist propaganda music. If that's what you mean, then I don't really agree. On the one hand, yes, Swift is commercial; but how many pop artists in history haven't been? It's quite difficult to be pop while writing music that's far outside mainstream tastes. Yet Swift is also one of the few pop stars of this century who's shown a Dylan/Bowie-esque penchant for experimenting with her sound, style, and image. If she wanted, she could've easily stayed in the pop-country niche of Fearless and kept selling millions, but she experimented with new genres a lot on Speak Now and Red, and changed styles entirely on 1989, and image/personas entirely on Reputation. One of my few criticisms of her is that I want to see her push this further, past the point where she even risks being anti-commercial, the same way The Beatles did when they got into psychedelia.


No, I meant capitalism. Of course a lot of pop musicians are greedy ******** who are "only in it for the money" to quote Frank Zappa. But even without thinking of her commercial moves (like horrible things like this: https://pop.inquirer.net/40260/taylor-swift-greedy-capitalist-scammer-wants-money?utm_expid=.XqNwTug2W6nwDVUSgFJXed.1) I've never experienced a more blatant celebration of capitalism than in her music, that is quite a feat.
Under the mask of pretty blonde girl with sexy legs there's a perfect machine for money.
And I've thought that from the very first time I've heard her, before knowing anything about her, just listening her songs.


----------



## LezLee (Feb 21, 2014)

Wrong thread, sorry!


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

Red Terror said:


> Bates, you and I must be the only ones here who even know who Atahualpa Yupanqui is.


There are some other persons here who know him, but sure, he's not very well known here.
But he's still a legend.
And (but maybe it's just me) when I talk of greatness I refer to the quality of the work of a musician, I don't care if they are popular or not. Songwriters like Valzinho or Alec Wilder were some of the best ever, even if very little known.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

norman bates said:


> Memorability is certainly something that helps the music to be... memorable, but in itself it's not a sign of quality. Actually Gangnam style is more catchy than most of the masterpieces produced in classical music in the twentieth century.
> And the simple reason is that it's much more easy to memorize a simple melody or motif than a complex one (I'm not saying in any case that a simple melody can't be beautiful obviously, but that's another and different story).
> 
> So it's not that simple. And while in the other musicians I've mentioned I see a lot of qualities besides the memorability of their music, I don't see that in her music. Sophistication, lyricism, interesting harmonies, originality. I can't say that for anything I've heard from her. Sure, well crafted stuff (duh), but I could say that also for some of the worst hollywood blockbusters.
> ...


Memorability is one (I'd argue key) ingredient that goes into defining quality. In pop a gift for hooks is a must for a basic entry point. The best seem to have an endless supply of them. Yes, it's possible for any random artist--like Psy--to strike one-hit-wonder gold with a hook that hits at the perfect time, but it's another thing to do so song-after-song, album-after-album.

Your adjectives are rather broad, but let me quickly run through them. In songwriting I'd say the primary mark of sophistication is in intelligently matching music/sound to lyrics. Swift does this in spades. I've spoken elsewhere of the word-painting in the chorus of _Mean_, or the key-change at the end of _Love Story_ that coincides with the lyrical change in perspective, or how she adopts various musical genres for specific songs to evoke their feeling--U2 for _State of Grace_, Paramore for _Better Than Revenge_, EDM/hip-hop for ._..Ready for It?_--The examples are numerous. Lyricism is easy: listen to _All Too Well_ and if you don't appreciate the lyricism in that, you and I have very different ideas of what counts as great lyrics. I will give you that Taylor Swift is harmonically unadventurous; most all of her songs revolve around variations of the I-V-vi-IV progression. That's definitely one area where she could improve. Originality I'll sort-of give you. Only sort-of because I think she belongs to the tradition of artists (the likes of which would include Dylan and Young) who, rather than innovate, adopt different styles from the past when they think it fits what they're doing now, whether that's for a song or an entire album. Many of my favorite musical artists have been these "magpie/chameleon" types.

Again, if all you've heard sounds like a "perfectly crafted mass product, shiny, and plasticky" then you haven't heard enough. For one, it's hard to imagine how songs written when she was 15 and released on an indie label with not much of a budget (her first album) could ever be a "shiny, plasticky, mass product." What I suspect you're hearing is less Swift and more the production of Max Martin/Shellback with whom she's worked extensively with on her last three albums. Their production is ubiquitous in modern pop music and does have a certain "shiny" quality to it; but it's pure surface. There's still plenty of Swift's substantial songwriting craft underlying most of it. Most of the Martin/Shellback co-written singles she's released have also been of the more fun, superficial variety--Shake It Off, We Are Never Ever Getting Back Together, etc. They're fine in-and-of-themselves, but they don't portray the breadth of her work or the depth of her best.



norman bates said:


> No, I meant capitalism. Of course a lot of pop musicians are greedy ******** who are "only in it for the money" to quote Frank Zappa. But even without thinking of her commercial moves (like horrible things like this: https://pop.inquirer.net/40260/taylor-swift-greedy-capitalist-scammer-wants-money?utm_expid=.XqNwTug2W6nwDVUSgFJXed.1) I've never experienced a more blatant celebration of capitalism than in her music, that is quite a feat.
> Under the mask of pretty blonde girl with sexy legs there's a perfect machine for money.
> And I've thought that from the very first time I've heard her, before knowing anything about her, just listening her songs.


Well this sounds like nothing more than weird paranoia on your part. I have no idea how to respond because I don't hear it all and you've given no examples.

There's millions of "pretty blonde girls" out there, most of them with far more sex appeal than Swift (she's homely without makeup, and hardly a model with it). Her path to stardom was 100% homegrown: started playing guitar and writing songs as a kid, spent most of her time doing nothing else but that, bugged her parents to move to Nashville as a teen, hounded record execs for a deal, released a debut album with little budget and no fanfare, and just happen to immediately strike radio gold because people actually liked the songs. There was no billion-dollar team of people working to turn Swift into a superstar when she started, and she's been in complete control the entire way (wrote her entire third album completely solo; IMO, it's still her best). Without the appeal of the songs there is no "machine for money" as nobody would care. The contrast between her and a similar modern pop star like Katy Perry is pretty stark when you compare them.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

I realize I'm side-tracking this thread and haven't actually discussed the thread's main subject. Well, here's my $0.02:

I was lucky enough to not hear much classic rock radio growing up. My dad played drums to rock radio but it was mostly 80s and early 90s stuff. If I ever heard a Zeppelin song growing up, I don't remember it. So my first memory of hearing Stairway to Heaven was actually buying the album (IV) and listening to it when I was about 13-14. The whole album turned me into a massive Zeppelin fan, which I remain to this day. I've always thought Stairway was a great, great song, and one that was (thankfully) never spoiled for me by overexposure. Still, it wasn't even my favorite from that album. I preferred the groovy blues-rock of Black Dog and When the Levee Breaks. I also think Zeppelin had better "epic" songs that came later, like In My Time of Dying, Achilles' Last Stand, and the gorgeous The Rain Song. Really, the band was so great that we're spoiled for choices in regards to their best.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

Eva Yojimbo said:


> Memorability is one (I'd argue key) ingredient that goes into defining quality. In pop a gift for hooks is a must for a basic entry point. The best seem to have an endless supply of them. Yes, it's possible for any random artist--like Psy--to strike one-hit-wonder gold with a hook that hits at the perfect time, but it's another thing to do so song-after-song, album-after-album.


I probably forgot to mention that I consider that a truly awful song, and that tons of truly awful songs are memorable. That was the point of what I was saying. So there are a lot of pop artists who have made a lot of catchy tunes that I consider terrible even if catchy.



Eva Yojimbo said:


> Lyricism is easy: listen to _All Too Well_ and if you don't appreciate the lyricism in that, you and I have very different ideas of what counts as great lyrics.


sorry but english is not my first language (I know, it's not hard to guess), but with lyricism I don't mean good lyrics but the ability of being lyrical. There's not even need for words for that.
Anyway I'll try to listen the songs you have mentioned but now I've listened to this one and it's onestly what I've said. To me it's the kind of "blockbuster emotion" I was talking about. It sounds artificial, the music is banal and formulaic, the melody does not have any interest in terms of intervals, I don't hear real tenderness, it sounds... fake. Maybe I'm a rockist? I don't know, but I know I like a lot of successful pop music, but when I listen to her what I hear is someone whose only intent is to sell a product made to sell the largest number of copies possible.
Again, I'll try to listen the other songs you've mentioned, but that one is the same thing I was saying I dislike.



Eva Yojimbo said:


> Well this sounds like nothing more than weird paranoia on your part. I have no idea how to respond because I don't hear it all and you've given no examples.
> 
> There's millions of "pretty blonde girls" out there, most of them with far more sex appeal than Swift (she's homely without makeup, and hardly a model with it). Her path to stardom was 100% homegrown: started playing guitar and writing songs as a kid, spent most of her time doing nothing else but that, bugged her parents to move to Nashville as a teen, hounded record execs for a deal, released a debut album with little budget and no fanfare, and just happen to immediately strike radio gold because people actually liked the songs. There was no billion-dollar team of people working to turn Swift into a superstar when she started, and she's been in complete control the entire way (wrote her entire third album completely solo; IMO, it's still her best). Without the appeal of the songs there is no "machine for money" as nobody would care. The contrast between her and a similar modern pop star like Katy Perry is pretty stark when you compare them.


I don't know how she looks without make up but she's certainly a very beautiful woman (who could pass for Scarlett Johansson doppelganger), so don't say she's the average girl next door because she's definitely not. If she was ugly very likely she would not have the kind of success she has.
About what you call my paranoia I don't know what to say, it's the whole package that gives me the impression. The music, formulaic as it gets, the voice, the arrangements, the videos... everything sounds so fake to me that I when I listen to her usually I can't help but think if it's a strange joke that I don't get.

edit: I kind of liked some of the lyrics of Mean, especially "You pointing out my flaws like i dont already see them" (even if it's hard for me to believe that said by her). But the music again, ruins it to me. It's a song about vulnerability that does not truly sounds believable. It sounds like she was already big and in the old city she's talking about.
It kinds of remind me of those movies where there's a clearly beautiful girl who is presented like she's a loser and ugly just because she wears big glasses, but then when she put her glasses away everybody realizes she's gorgeous. That kind of thing.


----------



## Room2201974 (Jan 23, 2018)

LZ: No other band can be so defined as by the three lists of "their" best songs:

The Fans List
The Rolling Stone Magazine List
The list as defined by the courts!


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)




----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)




----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

Grunge tomorrow


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

but swing this time


----------



## Red Terror (Dec 10, 2018)

norman bates said:


> There are some other persons here who know him, but sure, he's not very well known here.
> But he's still a legend.
> And (but maybe it's just me) when I talk of greatness I refer to the quality of the work of a musician, I don't care if they are popular or not. Songwriters like Valzinho or Alec Wilder were some of the best ever, even if very little known.


Agreed. Atahualpa is my favorite folk songwriter.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

now Opera Stairway


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)




----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

norman bates said:


> I probably forgot to mention that I consider that a truly awful song, and that tons of truly awful songs are memorable. That was the point of what I was saying. So there are a lot of pop artists who have made a lot of catchy tunes that I consider terrible even if catchy.


Honestly, I don't think I've even actually heard all of Gangnum Style, just bits and pieces on TV. It never actually struck me as all that memorable or appealing anyway, much like Despacito.



norman bates said:


> sorry but english is not my first language (I know, it's not hard to guess), but with lyricism I don't mean good lyrics but the ability of being lyrical. There's not even need for words for that.


Perhaps you mean something closer to "poetic?" Curiously, I've often thought of films as poetic, but never really music since music seems so close to poetry (to me) to begin with.



norman bates said:


> Anyway I'll try to listen the songs you have mentioned but now I've listened to this one and it's onestly what I've said. To me it's the kind of "blockbuster emotion" I was talking about. It sounds artificial, the music is banal and formulaic, the melody does not have any interest in terms of intervals, I don't hear real tenderness, it sounds... fake. Maybe I'm a rockist? I don't know, but I know I like a lot of successful pop music, but when I listen to her what I hear is someone whose only intent is to sell a product made to sell the largest number of copies possible.
> Again, I'll try to listen the other songs you've mentioned, but that one is the same thing I was saying I dislike.


We may be close to reaching an "agree to disagree" point. I hear plenty of "Blockbuster emotion" pop songs-a good example would be Katy Perry's _Thinking of You_-and _All Too Well_ has always struck me as 100% genuine. I hear nothing banal and formulaic in it (again, besides the chord progression). There are no unusual melodic intervals, but Swift is careful about when she reaches for certain ones. EG, she doesn't hit the higher 5th until the phrase "long (gone)," and that 5th gives that phrase a much sadder potency than it would otherwise have. She's also careful about introducing new instrumental elments: when the drums start hitting the crash, when the electric guitar starts playing heavy chords. It builds beautifully, and she also completely changes vocal style during the climax, which sells the sadness, desperation, and loss.

Again, if all Swift was interested in was selling a lot of music then she never would've changed styles and personas like she has. When you're selling millions of albums you always risk alienating your fans when you change, and she's changed multiple times. Even All Too Well is pretty anti-commercial given its length and the fact that it doesn't have a proper chorus.



norman bates said:


> I don't know how she looks without make up but she's certainly a very beautiful woman (who could pass for Scarlett Johansson doppelganger), so don't say she's the average girl next door because she's definitely not. If she was ugly very likely she would not have the kind of success she has.
> About what you call my paranoia I don't know what to say, it's the whole package that gives me the impression. The music, formulaic as it gets, the voice, the arrangements, the videos... everything sounds so fake to me that I when I listen to her usually I can't help but think if it's a strange joke that I don't get.


Just as music is subjective I guess beauty is too! I honestly do not find Swift beautiful at all. She is very much my idea of the kinda-cute-in-the-right-light girl-next-door. You can see her without makeup at the beginning of this video here: 



 It's pretty clear to me she's a case of "makeup works wonders."

I simply don't know how to respond to your accusations of "fakeness" because we're just not hearing the same things at all. In general, I don't like calling any artists "fakes" or "artificial" or whatever else because it tends to imply things about them and their motivations that we simply don't have access to, and I don't think you can infer from any negative feelings that you have about it that they must be fake.



norman bates said:


> edit: I kind of liked some of the lyrics of Mean, especially "You pointing out my flaws like i dont already see them" (even if it's hard for me to believe that said by her). But the music again, ruins it to me. It's a song about vulnerability that does not truly sounds believable. It sounds like she was already big and in the old city she's talking about.
> It kinds of remind me of those movies where there's a clearly beautiful girl who is presented like she's a loser and ugly just because she wears big glasses, but then when she put her glasses away everybody realizes she's gorgeous. That kind of thing.


Again, I can't really respond to "doesn't sound believable," because it sounds believable to me, and to the Grammys, and to Rolling Stone (who ranked Mean as #24 greatest country song of all time-the highest position for any 21st century artist). She most certainly wasn't "already big in the old city" when she wrote that. That was for her second album, and her first album, while successful, had not made her a superstar.

I think we may just have to chalk this up to there being something about you which her songs don't speak to. There's nothing wrong with that, but these accusations of fakeness and banality and formulaic and capitalistic seem factually false to me, as if you're looking for reasons to justify your negative feelings towards her music. Sometimes, reacting negatively to music says more about you (not necessarily anything negative) than the actual music.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

Eva Yojimbo said:


> Honestly, I don't think I've even actually heard all of Gangnum Style, just bits and pieces on TV. It never actually struck me as all that memorable or appealing anyway, much like Despacito.


appealing and memorable are two different things. I don't find those songs appealing at all (and as I've said, I thing that Gangnam style is truly horrible), but everybody remembers the melodic line of Despacito.
Orare you so lucky to remember only songs you like?



Eva Yojimbo said:


> Perhaps you mean something closer to "poetic?" Curiously, I've often thought of films as poetic, but never really music since music seems so close to poetry (to me) to begin with.


I'm tempted to say yes, but poetry is not necessarily lyrical.
Something like this is lyrical






or this to make an example of a voice







Eva Yojimbo said:


> Just as music is subjective I guess beauty is too! I honestly do not find Swift beautiful at all. She is very much my idea of the kinda-cute-in-the-right-light girl-next-door. You can see her without makeup at the beginning of this video here:
> 
> 
> 
> It's pretty clear to me she's a case of "makeup works wonders."


well, just look at her boyfriends. Jake Gillenhal, John Mayer, Harry Styles... I'm not very into gossips or stuff like that, but I'm not sure any average looking girl (even successful ones) could say to date only handsome guys like her.



Eva Yojimbo said:


> I simply don't know how to respond to your accusations of "fakeness" because we're just not hearing the same things at all. In general, I don't like calling any artists "fakes" or "artificial" or whatever else because it tends to imply things about them and their motivations that we simply don't have access to, and I don't think you can infer from any negative feelings that you have about it that they must be fake.
> 
> Again, I can't really respond to "doesn't sound believable," because it sounds believable to me, and to the Grammys, and to Rolling Stone (who ranked Mean as #24 greatest country song of all time-the highest position for any 21st century artist). She most certainly wasn't "already big in the old city" when she wrote that. That was for her second album, and her first album, while successful, had not made her a superstar.
> 
> I think we may just have to chalk this up to there being something about you which her songs don't speak to. There's nothing wrong with that, but these accusations of fakeness and banality and formulaic and capitalistic seem factually false to me, as if you're looking for reasons to justify your negative feelings towards her music. Sometimes, reacting negatively to music says more about you (not necessarily anything negative) than the actual music.


Also reacting positively to music says something about you. It's true both ways.
I don't have particular reasons to dislike her music more than say, Michael Jackson. Or any other artist. I simply say what I feel.
You've said

"I hear nothing banal and formulaic in it (again, *besides the chord progression*). There* are no unusual melodic intervals*, but Swift is careful about when she reaches for certain ones. EG, she doesn't hit the higher 5th until the phrase "long (gone)," and that 5th gives that phrase a much sadder potency than it would otherwise have. She's also careful about introducing new instrumental elments: when the drums start hitting the crash, when the electric guitar starts playing heavy chords. It builds beautifully, and she also completely changes vocal style during the climax, which sells the sadness, desperation, and loss. "

So you agree that the chord progression is banal, there are no unusual melodic intervals. The fact that she's careful about introducing new elements in the arrangement: fair enough, but I've already said that her music is well crafted, but there's no element of surprise or originality. 
Nothing that I haven't heard thousand of times. That's what I mean with formulaic. I can't find elements of interest in the harmony, in the melody or in the arrangement.

Than of course, I could say that also for a lot of Bob Dylan (and Joni Mitchell sait it exactly about him) and other musicians I like. But to the things above I can say that I don't like like she sings it. Voice is another important element and her delivery it's not convincing to me. The sound is perfect and polished. Too perfect for a song that it's supposed to convey frailty. The atmosphere of the song is even epic. That's another element that I find out of place. That's what I mean when I think it sounds fake to me. She's trying to say that she feels miserable, but she's saying like she knows perfectly that she's big and rich and successful. So while (I guess) the effect of the song should be cathartic I have before my eyes the picture of a already pretty and successful woman trying to make me believe that she feels miserable because her ex treats her badly, over music that I find bland and uninteresting.


----------



## Red Terror (Dec 10, 2018)

Someone should talk Taylor Swift into giving a concert on Mars ... and leave her there.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

norman bates said:


> appealing and memorable are two different things. I don't find those songs appealing at all (and as I've said, I thing that Gangnam style is truly horrible), but everybody remembers the melodic line of Despacito.
> Orare you so lucky to remember only songs you like?


In most cases I find memorability an appealing quality that I can enjoy, so if I don't find a song appealing its lack of memorability will usually be one reason. So, no, I don't find Gangnam Style or Despacito that memorable. There are some exceptions. Justin Bieber's Baby is pretty memorable, but I find it rather annoying (that line where memorability crosses into monotony).



norman bates said:


> I'm tempted to say yes, but poetry is not necessarily lyrical.
> Something like this is lyrical
> 
> or this to make an example of a voice


I love and am quite familiar with the Coltrane. I can understand calling it lyrical because his playing has a very cantabile style on that song (and much of that album). I wasn't familiar with the Hardin, but am listening now. Other than the fact that it's actually sung, I'm not sure what's more lyrical about that than Swift's All Too Well, though it's certainly pleasant enough.



norman bates said:


> well, just look at her boyfriends. Jake Gillenhal, John Mayer, Harry Styles... I'm not very into gossips or stuff like that, but I'm not sure any average looking girl (even successful ones) could say to date only handsome guys like her.


Like I said, makeup (and success!) works wonders.



norman bates said:


> Also reacting positively to music says something about you. It's true both ways.
> I don't have particular reasons to dislike her music more than say, Michael Jackson.


In a sense yes, but I find the things we hate and try to exclude from our lives (in general) do tend to say more about us than the things we do like. For those of us with extremely broad tastes--of which I'd like to think includes myself--it's hard for everything you like to say something meaningful about you... but if you pick from the few things you don't like, that probably does.



norman bates said:


> So you agree that the chord progression is banal, there are no unusual melodic intervals. The fact that she's careful about introducing new elements in the arrangement: fair enough, but I've already said that her music is well crafted, but there's no element of surprise or originality.
> Nothing that I haven't heard thousand of times. That's what I mean with formulaic. I can't find elements of interest in the harmony, in the melody or in the arrangement.


To me, saying there's common chord progression and intervals is about as meaningful as saying about a film that it has a common plot and story. In most of the best films, it's not the plot or story that's unique, but the combination of craft and themes behind it. With few exceptions, Hitchock's plots and stories are quite standard, yet he's often remembered as the best filmmaker ever. Why? Because he was a master craftsman, and behind the "banality" of his plots/stories lies a lot of substance, partially created by how the craft illuminates them.

Yes, I will grant the criticism of Swift that there's rarely any big surprises, and that's one thing that prevents me from ranking her higher than I do. Ideally, I would want to hear her try something as "out there" as The Beatles did during their psychedelic/pre-prog phase. I think her change from country to synth-pop to electronic was a step in that direction, but I don't know how far she'll push it. Still, many of my musical favorites have been of the "consummate/pristine craftsmen" type. Andy Partridge is an example who spent the best part of his career with XTC doing the best Beatles impression since The Beatles. Skylarking isn't a terribly original album, but it's still one of my absolute favorites.

While I do value surprise and originality as well, I actually think craftsmen at the level of Swift or Partridge are just as rare (in their own way) and just as valuable. To me, the best artists tend to be those that combine the two. But there's plenty of awful "unique" music out there; I don't know of many who willingly listen to Lou Reed's Metal Machine Music.



norman bates said:


> Than of course, I could say that also for a lot of Bob Dylan (and Joni Mitchell sait it exactly about him) and other musicians I like. But to the things above I can say that I don't like like she sings it. Voice is another important element and her delivery it's not convincing to me. The sound is perfect and polished. Too perfect for a song that it's supposed to convey frailty. The atmosphere of the song is even epic. That's another element that I find out of place. That's what I mean when I think it sounds fake to me. She's trying to say that she feels miserable, but she's saying like she knows perfectly that she's big and rich and successful. So while (I guess) the effect of the song should be cathartic I have before my eyes the picture of a already pretty and successful woman trying to make me believe that she feels miserable because her ex treats her badly, over music that I find bland and uninteresting.


Swift's actual voice is rather limited, but I've actually thought her best vocal feature is her ability to "sell" whatever she sings (in a manner similar to Dylan), and her ability to use small alterations in singing style to fit whatever she's singing. So, once again, we must agree to disagree. Similar on it sounding "epic." That's never the word I would use to describe _Mean_. To me, I think the tone of the song is more supposed to be bittersweet than really cathartic or miserable or raw. That bittersweetness--the pairing of happy, effervescent music to sad, dark lyrics--is one tone I love in music as it's rarely utilized. Swift is good friend's with Hayley Williams from Paramore and Paramore is another band that's really good at that bittersweet combination. Example: 




A song about "hard times" that makes you want to dance and smile! One of the commenters on that YouTube page (May Lane) gets what I'm saying.

FWIW, Swift has done some more stripped back stuff, like with _New Year's Day_: 




I wouldn't mind seeing her doing more stuff like that as well.

That actual performance is a testament to her lack of "fakeness." Her appearance on Fallon was not planned. Fallon's mother had just died. Swift was in town and Fallon called and asked her if she would perform New Year's Day in her memory, and she agreed. Notice the hug she gives him at the end.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

Is this even legal.................


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

Eva Yojimbo said:


> In most cases I find memorability an appealing quality that I can enjoy, so if I don't find a song appealing its lack of memorability will usually be one reason. So, no, I don't find Gangnam Style or Despacito that memorable. There are some exceptions. Justin Bieber's Baby is pretty memorable, but I find it rather annoying (that line where memorability crosses into monotony).


I suppose you should really hate anything from Webern, Schoenberg, Ligeti, Xenakis or anyone who does not have a easily memorable hook then. In any case you could be an exception, since Gangnam style and Despacito are two of the most listened songs ever, that says a lot about the catchiness of those songs.



Eva Yojimbo said:


> I love and am quite familiar with the Coltrane. I can understand calling it lyrical because his playing has a very cantabile style on that song (and much of that album). I wasn't familiar with the Hardin, but am listening now. Other than the fact that it's actually sung, I'm not sure what's more lyrical about that than Swift's All Too Well, though it's certainly pleasant enough.


To me in the Tim Hardin song (a guy who Bob Dylan considered the best songwriter alive) I see a real vulnerability, something that makes the song (that is actually a very simple song) very touching and delicate in a way that I don't hear in the "I wanna be rich and famous so you could not hurt me anymore" song.



Eva Yojimbo said:


> Like I said, makeup (and success!) works wonders.


Sure, tell that to Susan Boyle. 
Swift is a beautiful woman also without makeup (a lot of the most admired women in the world lose something without makeup, it doesn't mean anything).



Eva Yojimbo said:


> In a sense yes, but I find the things we hate and try to exclude from our lives (in general) do tend to say more about us than the things we do like. For those of us with extremely broad tastes--of which I'd like to think includes myself--it's hard for everything you like to say something meaningful about you... but if you pick from the few things you don't like, that probably does.


nah, both things say something about us.



Eva Yojimbo said:


> To me, saying there's common chord progression and intervals is about as meaningful as saying about a film that it has a common plot and story. In most of the best films, it's not the plot or story that's unique, but the combination of craft and themes behind it. With few exceptions, Hitchock's plots and stories are quite standard, yet he's often remembered as the best filmmaker ever. Why? Because he was a master craftsman, and behind the "banality" of his plots/stories lies a lot of substance, partially created by how the craft illuminates them.
> 
> Yes, I will grant the criticism of Swift that there's rarely any big surprises, and that's one thing that prevents me from ranking her higher than I do. Ideally, I would want to hear her try something as "out there" as The Beatles did during their psychedelic/pre-prog phase. I think her change from country to synth-pop to electronic was a step in that direction, but I don't know how far she'll push it. Still, many of my musical favorites have been of the "consummate/pristine craftsmen" type. Andy Partridge is an example who spent the best part of his career with XTC doing the best Beatles impression since The Beatles. Skylarking isn't a terribly original album, but it's still one of my absolute favorites.


Well I think that the ability of both Hitchcock and XTC are light years ahead of what Swift can do (at least considering what I've heard so far). 
There's much more than a basic use of arrangement in XTC, they are creative using harmony, rhyhtms, sounds. They wrote powerful lyrics as Dear God and amazing guitar parts as English Roundabout. I still have to listen something even remotely close by Swift.



Eva Yojimbo said:


> Swift's actual voice is rather limited, but I've actually thought her best vocal feature is her ability to "sell" whatever she sings (in a manner similar to Dylan), and her ability to use small alterations in singing style to fit whatever she's singing. So, once again, we must agree to disagree. Similar on it sounding "epic." That's never the word I would use to describe _Mean_. To me, I think the tone of the song is more supposed to be bittersweet than really cathartic or miserable or raw. That bittersweetness--the pairing of happy, effervescent music to sad, dark lyrics--is one tone I love in music as it's rarely utilized. Swift is good friend's with Hayley Williams from Paramore and Paramore is another band that's really good at that bittersweet combination. Example:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I don't care if her music is stripped back, I actually MUCH prefer a song like Shake it off, that at least is a enthralling pop tune to this last one you've posted, that to me sounds extremely unimaginative and repetitive.
Well, as you say, we agree to disagree. 
I think that Dylan is with his very ugly voice a great singer for his vibrant interpretations. I could say the same for Billie Holiday (though I'm not a big fan of her). I don't have this impression at all listening to Taylor Swift.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

How long are you two going argue about your personal tastes? People like what they like. Just go with it.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

This thread shows the futility and the sterility of launching a frontal attack upon the specific artistic tastes and choices of another. Aesthetics--as I have stated _ad nauseum_--is both strictly personal and purely subjective. To tell another that they like the wrong music is to invite immediate and universally experienced opposition, as the biter bitten surely understands as soon as the roles are reversed. Far better (and more accurate) is to say that one is not the audience for whom the work was intended; to claim an inherent inability to understand what it is in the work that so attracts others. Of course, if one enjoys denouncing others' tastes in art, then there may be emotional/psychological/personality issues at play.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

Strange Magic said:


> This thread shows the futility and the sterility of launching a frontal attack upon the specific artistic tastes and choices of another. Aesthetics--as I have stated _ad nauseum_--is both strictly personal and purely subjective. To tell another that they like the wrong music is to invite immediate and universally experienced opposition, as the biter bitten surely understands as soon as the roles are reversed. Far better (and more accurate) is to say that one is not the audience for whom the work was intended; to claim an inherent inability to understand what it is in the work that so attracts others. Of course, if one enjoys denouncing others' tastes in art, then there may be emotional/psychological/personality issues at play.


Absolute subjectivity in music doesn't exist as absolute objectivity.
We all have bias, there's a margin of subjectivity but there's also a common ground. Otherwise no one would be on this board (why are you here in the first place, if you think that perception from a person to another is simply completely different with no possibility of communication?)
When one is playing pool in different breaks it's impossible to put the balls in exactly the same place. That doesn't mean that physics doesn't work, but simply that it's a complex system with a lot of variables. Same for music, different tastes and ideas don't mean that everybody perceives differently and there's no possibility to talk in a meaningful sense about music.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

norman bates said:


> Absolute subjectivity in music doesn't exist as absolute objectivity.
> We all have bias, there's a margin of subjectivity but there's also a common ground. Otherwise no one would be on this board (why are you here in the first place, if you think that perception from a person to another is simply completely different with no possibility of communication?)
> When one is playing pool in different breaks it's impossible to put the balls in exactly the same place. That doesn't mean that physics doesn't work, but simply that it's a complex system with a lot of variables. Same for music, different tastes and ideas don't mean that everybody perceives differently and there's no possibility to talk in a meaningful sense about music.


How does any of the above address what I posted? No possibility of communication? No possibility to talk in a meaningful sense about music? You infer what is not there. We're talking here about Popular Music, not the fate of the world. I repeat: to argue with somebody over their taste in art is actually to affirm/confess that you cannot see/hear/understand what is inherent in the work that the other sees/hears/understands. Better to approach with the intention of receiving instruction or gaining insight than to say (you do not say this, but others do) "I Hate Stairway to Heaven!", or "I Hate Led Zeppelin!". The best reply is "So What!". No, what works better IMO is to dialog and bond with others over shared positive tastes, not agreed loathings; one also learns more in the long run.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

Strange Magic said:


> How does any of the above address what I posted? No possibility of communication? No possibility to talk in a meaningful sense about music? You infer what is not there. We're talking here about Popular Music, not the fate of the world. I repeat: to argue with somebody over their taste in art is actually to affirm/confess that you cannot see/hear/understand what is inherent in the work that the other sees/hears/understands. Better to approach with the intention of receiving instruction or gaining insight than to say (you do not say this, but others do) "I Hate Stairway to Heaven!", or "I Hate Led Zeppelin!". The best reply is "So What!". No, what works better IMO is to dialog and bond with others over shared positive tastes, not agreed loathings; one also learns more in the long run.


I was replying to this especially


> Aesthetics--as I have stated ad nauseum--is both strictly personal and purely subjective


To me it's simply not true, for the reasons I've stated above.
And there's nothing wrong in saying that one can't understand the tastes of another person. That's why discussions about taste are exactly useful. It's possible to understand something about others and (to me) my own biases.
Even if I know that this last discussion between me and Eva is quite off topic.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

norman bates said:


> I was replying to this especially
> 
> To me it's simply not true, for the reasons I've stated above.
> And there's nothing wrong in saying that one can't understand the tastes of another person. That's why discussions about taste are exactly useful. It's possible to understand something about others and (to me) my own biases.
> Even if I know that this last discussion between me and Eva is quite off topic.


I agree that there is nothing wrong in saying that one can't understand the tastes of another person--that is at the core of what I am saying: it's not that the other person is wrong, or has bad taste--it's that the onus is on you: you do not understand. I freely affirm that I do not have the eyes to see, the ears to hear, so much of what appeals to others. This applies to everyone, truth be told. That's easily distinguished from what we see so often here--You're Wrong; I'm Right. No such thing in aesthetics (despite our heartfelt desire that there is Right and Wrong clearly discernible therein). A chorus of Dave Mason is in order now.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

Strange Magic said:


> I agree that there is nothing wrong in saying that one can't understand the tastes of another person--that is at the core of what I am saying: it's not that the other person is wrong, or has bad taste--it's that the onus is on you: you do not understand. I freely affirm that I do not have the eyes to see, the ears to hear, so much of what appeals to others. This applies to everyone, truth be told. That's easily distinguished from what we see so often here--You're Wrong; I'm Right. No such thing in aesthetics (despite our heartfelt desire that there is Right and Wrong clearly discernible therein). A chorus of Dave Mason is in order now.


well to me both can be possible, it's perfectly possible that a person is wrong about a thing. I could say that about me in the first place (I know how many times I was wrong about genres, artists or pieces of music I disliked or... I liked), and I'm talking about music obviously. There are no just different tastes. There are also biases, lack of comprehension (for many reasons), superficiality. I don't think that opinions have always the same weight and everybody is right.
While it's easy to like some music, it's not easy to understand all music, it's something that is possible to learn with time, dedication and also discussions.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

Only you know that I know that we just disagree.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

norman bates said:


> well to me both can be possible, it's perfectly possible that a person is wrong about a thing. I could say that about me in the first place (I know how many times I was wrong about genres, artists or pieces of music I disliked or... I liked), and I'm talking about music obviously. There are no just different tastes. There are also biases, lack of comprehension (for many reasons), superficiality. I don't think that opinions have always the same weight and everybody is right.
> While it's easy to like some music, it's not easy to understand all music, it's something that is possible to learn with time, dedication and also discussions.


I totally agree that people can be wrong about fact things regarding music and art: who created it; when; what size, shape, length, color, key; genre; anything that can be measured. Lack of comprehension we've discussed; bias?--not sure how to deal with bias; I'm biased toward the music of Brahms and Prokofiev, cante flamenco, Gharnati, and Led Zeppelin. That's a fact, but not the sort of measurable fact where people can be right or wrong. Superficiality? Treat the same as bias. In aesthetics, everybody is right--the question is with whom one feels more comfortable agreeing (shared taste).


----------



## philoctetes (Jun 15, 2017)

I can easily avoid pop music since I rarely go anywhere but concerts of my choice. I got an earful with a former GF who had teenage daughters but that is thankfully over. There is a lot of garbage out there but I like to watch the Grammys as my way of "keeping up" with music I can't stand. After all you get the occasional surprise and for me TS was one of them a few years ago. But I had to imagine myself in the mindset of a middle-class high school girl to do this. I was also able to imagine the potential she could have in the future as a songwriter and performer. I haven't followed her since then but now suspect that she might not be able to get out of that growing-up rut for a while...


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

Strange Magic said:


> I totally agree that people can be wrong about fact things regarding music and art: who created it; when; what size, shape, length, color, key; genre; anything that can be measured. Lack of comprehension we've discussed; bias?--not sure how to deal with bias; I'm biased toward the music of Brahms and Prokofiev, cante flamenco, Gharnati, and Led Zeppelin. That's a fact, but not the sort of measurable fact where people can be right or wrong. Superficiality? Treat the same as bias. In aesthetics, everybody is right--the question is with whom one feels more comfortable agreeing (shared taste).


so you think that you can't learn anything with experience or by anyone than yourself? You haven't never changed your ideas about nothing, thought "I was so wrong about this"?
Personally I think that talking of music my tastes have changed and improved a lot with time, experience and exposition to music and genres I wasn't familiar witht (I'm obviously still a huge ignorant and I don't understand a lot of things). Even because I'm definitely not the same person I was when I was thirteen or fifteen.
So talking of "in aesthetics, everybody is right" I disagree: I don't think that if I was I was wrong about a thing I was at the same time right about it. In aesthetics there's a personal taste of course, but there are also right and wrong opinions.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

norman bates said:


> *so you think that you can't learn anything with experience or by anyone than yourself? You haven't never changed your ideas about nothing, thought "I was so wrong about this"?*
> Personally I think that talking of music my tastes have changed and improved a lot with time, experience and exposition to music and genres I wasn't familiar witht (I'm obviously still a huge ignorant and I don't understand a lot of things). Even because I'm definitely not the same person I was when I was thirteen or fifteen.
> So talking of "in aesthetics, everybody is right" I disagree: I don't think that if I was I was wrong about a thing I was at the same time right about it. In aesthetics there's a personal taste of course, but there are also right and wrong opinions.


I don't know where the bolded material came from. Not from me. And I agree with just about everything else you posted here, with the note that my tastes change also, but almost invariably through expansion rather than through indoctrinization; not sure my taste is better, but sure it's different. And how are we to tell a right opinion in art, if and when we are presented with one? Ask somebody?


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

Strange Magic said:


> I don't know where the bolded material came from. Not from me. And I agree with just about everything else you posted here, with the note that my tastes change also, but almost invariably through expansion rather than through indoctrinization; not sure my taste is better, but sure it's different. And how are we to tell a right opinion in art, if and when we are presented with one? Ask somebody?


You can recognize it with your own taste, but I think that if a person knows that his previous opinion about a thing was wrong for some reason the idea that "in aesthetics everybody is right" does not prove to be true... since other persons can have the same opinion (or prejudices, for instance) you had and that now you know it's wrong.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

IN aesthetics, everybody is right. And if an individual changes her/his mind, they're still right. You can't be "wrong" in what you like in music and art; you can only be different (or the same) as yourself or others.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

Strange Magic said:


> IN aesthetics, everybody is right. And if an individual changes her/his mind, they're still right. You can't be "wrong" in what you like in music and art; you can only be different (or the same) as yourself or others.


This seems a self justification and it basically translates in "you can't learn", because you're basically saying that wrong doesn't exist, so learning is just adding more material, new material that for some mysterious reasons can't give you different perspectives and therefore making revaluating your previous knowledge. I completely disagree obviously. If a person changes his mind, it's because he has learned more things to prove that the previous view wasn't correct.


----------



## Red Terror (Dec 10, 2018)

Strange Magic said:


> IN aesthetics, everybody is right. And if an individual changes her/his mind, they're still right. You can't be "wrong" in what you like in music and art; you can only be different (or the same) as yourself or others.


Magic, we all know there are standards of excellence in the arts, therefore the field isn't a 'free-for-all'. Contrary to the fashionable relativistic worldview, we know that all human activity is governed by the principles of objective truth.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

norman bates said:


> This seems a self justification and it basically translates in "you can't learn", because you're basically saying that wrong doesn't exist, so learning is just adding more material, new material that for some mysterious reasons can't give you different perspectives and therefore making revaluating your previous knowledge. I completely disagree obviously. If a person changes his mind, it's because he has learned more things to prove that the previous view wasn't correct.


What you say would be totally true--is totally true--if we are talking about fact-based, "objective" data-points in the arts. One can learn all the time, correct personal errors (ascribing wrong key, wrong date, wrong genre, wrong composer, etc.) and change one's tastes whenever, as some works become more "right" for you, at that time. It is strictly personal in that one's previous view may not be correct now, as one has learned new things, but one has not objectively moved to some universal, shared higher plane of objective aesthetic rightness; we've just changed our minds. In a crude sense, the evolution of our personal (the only kind) aesthetics is analogous to the "progress" of biological evolution--we change our tastes to fit the changing physiochemical environment in our heads, to fit the new music we are exposed to, to replace old things that we've heard enough of. But there is no progress in biological evolution; there is only adaptation to a changing environment.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

I disagree again, because music, or any form of artistic communication would not even exist in the first place, if a certain degree of common ground (meaning things that could be understood from the person who makes a piece of music, or a painting or other artistic objects) would not be there. But the truth is that an INCREDIBLE amount of times, it's possible to see people talking of a piece of music describing it in exactly the same way, or in very similar ways. And that's the proof that that common ground exist. 
If it's just cultural it's debatable. There are studies about it, showing that there are signs indicating that there are not just cultural aspects.
And I could even make personal examples about this, saying that for instance I remember perfectly the first time my mother made me listen the toccata and fugue in B minor and thinking it was a quite scary music. I was like four year old, my mother didn't tell me anything about it, I had never talked about music, I wasn't probably even able to read. 
And still I thought what other millions of people think about it, and that it's a scary piece (a superficial analysys, but my point obviously is not to make a review of the piece right now).
We can definitely see a lot of aspects of music the same way. That's why music exist, that's why critics exist, that's why this board exist. We can share a similar experience listening to the same thing. That doesn't mean that I believe that there's no space for personal taste, but that personal taste is not everything that is. There's space for right and wrong and the common ground I was talking above.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

There is nothing in your above post with which I disagree. But it bypasses completely the issue of whether some art/music is "better" than others, as opposed to whether you or I or X or 10,000 Ys like it or don't. Aesthetics is personal opinion. If shared by a group, then it's the group's opinion, in the sense that it's everyone in the group's personal opinion. More people prefer vanilla ice cream to pistachio. Is it better than pistachio? I prefer vanilla, except for those times when I'm in the mood for pistachio. Many TCers hate my ice cream metaphor, but it has the power of great clarity.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

norman bates said:


> I suppose you should really hate anything from Webern, Schoenberg, Ligeti, Xenakis or anyone who does not have a easily memorable hook then. In any case you could be an exception, since Gangnam style and Despacito are two of the most listened songs ever, that says a lot about the catchiness of those songs.


I do rather hate Webern, but like a lot of Schoenberg, and most of the Ligeti and Xenakis that I've heard. It's not that I can't enjoy music without hooks--otherwise I wouldn't claim Miles Davis's In a Silent Way and Jack Johnson among my favorite albums!--it's merely that if a song does have what I consider to be a memorable hook, then I'll probably like it, unless it annoys me for some reason. I realize I'm in the minority in not hearing "it" in either Gangnam Style or Despacito, but that's subjectivity for ya.



norman bates said:


> To me in the Tim Hardin song (a guy who Bob Dylan considered the best songwriter alive) I see a real vulnerability, something that makes the song (that is actually a very simple song) very touching and delicate in a way that I don't hear in the "I wanna be rich and famous so you could not hurt me anymore" song.


I just don't think they're doing the same thing. In the Hardin he's playing up the vulnerability in numerous ways, especially vocally; perhaps the easiest point to illustrate this is the inflection he puts on the word "cry" at 1:05, which has a slight "cracked" sound, as if he was about to cry just saying the word. The overall delivery is rather hushed, low-key, and spoken, which also gives off that impression of vulnerability (it's not over-sung, and there's no "big" moments or distractions from the delivery). This isn't what Swift is going for on Mean. She's not playing up the vulnerability vocally or musically, she's playing up the brightness and sweetness of the music so that the darkness of the lyrics stands as more an ironic counterpoint/contrast. It's, to me, what makes the line "some day I'll be big enough so you can't hit me," so heartbreaking, because it's being delivered by this voice that sounds very innocent, pure, and naive. I'll also quote what Theon Weber said about it in a fine article years ago that essentially addressed Taylor Swift's approach to songwriting as dramatic rather than confessional (which I happen to agree with): "These lines are from the chorus, which is in the future tense. The abuse, thorough and quiet, is in the present, and the narrator's future is in doubt, and the word "mean" is a juvenile understatement-a trivial word, used because the narrator is imagining a future where the abuser will be trivial, too. Except, in a different vernacular, the word's huge and contemptuous, and means "impoverished": The guy in the song is mean of spirit, of soul, of manhood. In this sense, there's no judgment more total than "all you are is mean," which means that behind every cheerful repetition of the song's title is a second voice, wise and compassionate, whispering like a ghost. So regardless of whether the girl escapes, she's redeemed: She's been observed, and her tormentor judged."

I mean, both approaches are fine and do what they're meant to do well. I actually think Swift's approach, though, is more atypical, and I generally appreciate that bittersweet mode more on a subjective level.



norman bates said:


> Well I think that the ability of both Hitchcock and XTC are light years ahead of what Swift can do (at least considering what I've heard so far).
> There's much more than a basic use of arrangement in XTC, they are creative using harmony, rhyhtms, sounds. They wrote powerful lyrics as Dear God and amazing guitar parts as English Roundabout. I still have to listen something even remotely close by Swift.


I wouldn't say "light years," but I agree they're both better: Hitchcock is my favorite filmmaker, and XTC are in my top 10 pop bands/artists, while Swift only makes my top 40. The things you mention about XTC--the creative use of harmony, rhythm, guitar, etc.--are also reasons I have them above Swift. They have the melodicism AND the musical chops. Still, I can't think of many instances in their music where I "feel" the lyrics in the same way I do with Swift. Even Dear God, which I think is a pretty good song overall, sounds strained for them and really doesn't fit well in the sequencing of Skylarking, in its move from summer-to-winter, from sex/birth to death.



norman bates said:


> I don't care if her music is stripped back, I actually MUCH prefer a song like Shake it off, that at least is a enthralling pop tune to this last one you've posted, that to me sounds extremely unimaginative and repetitive.
> Well, as you say, we agree to disagree.
> I think that Dylan is with his very ugly voice a great singer for his vibrant interpretations. I could say the same for Billie Holiday (though I'm not a big fan of her). I don't have this impression at all listening to Taylor Swift.


I think it sounds incredibly poignant, enough that it made Jimmie cry remembering his mother. As for repetitive... do you think that Hardin song is varied? Take the rather tacky strings away and there's just a few chords over a melody that's as simple and repetitive as anything Swift has written, including New Year's Day.

Yeah, I get you don't get that impression listening to Swift, but the same style and talent is very much there. No, it's not to the level of Dylan or Holiday, but clearly it's there enough for many (including myself) to be quite moved by it, and I've analyzed it before using the same techniques I've used with Dylan, or the Hardin above. They're not terribly different.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

starthrower said:


> How long are you two going argue about your personal tastes? People like what they like. Just go with it.


Argue? I'd say this has been a perfectly civil discussion that I've very much enjoyed, despite our disagreements. I hope norman bates feels the same.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

Strange Magic said:


> This thread shows the futility and the sterility of launching a frontal attack upon the specific artistic tastes and choices of another. Aesthetics--as I have stated _ad nauseum_--is both strictly personal and purely subjective. To tell another that they like the wrong music is to invite immediate and universally experienced opposition, as the biter bitten surely understands as soon as the roles are reversed. Far better (and more accurate) is to say that one is not the audience for whom the work was intended; to claim an inherent inability to understand what it is in the work that so attracts others. Of course, if one enjoys denouncing others' tastes in art, then there may be emotional/psychological/personality issues at play.


Personally, I haven't felt "bitten" at all. I enjoy disagreements like this as long as they don't get hostile. For one, they often help me clarify my own thoughts on the matter, provoking me to dig into why I like/dislike something, which is a process I always enjoy even when I don't think the answers I come up with are fully satisfactory ("we inevitably remain an enigma to ourselves"). I also enjoy hearing counter points-of-view in an attempt to sympathize with and understand why others feel differently. I don't think I'm under any delusions about both the merits and shortcomings of Swift; most if it comes down to how much you value her melodicism, and how much (if at all) you value her attempts at making the lyrics meaningful through the music; because I would agree that anyone who prefers interesting or complex harmony, rhythm, musicianship, structure, or adventurous sonic explorations won't find it in her. norman bates and I do have some points where we simply hear things differently, and that's fine too. I look at stuff like that as more annoying because it reminds me that there will always be aspects of our subjective responses that are very difficult, if not impossible, to parse.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

FWIW, I'm completely on Strange Magic's side in regards to aesthetics. I think the thing that trips people up about this subjective/objective discussion is that there are two very different meanings of subjective: 

1. Related to things only existing in the mind - This is the more strictly philosophical sense that contrasts with "objective" meaning "things external to the mind." Though a complex subject, the basic distinguishing feature between the two is that objective things are either observed via the senses, could theoretically be observed ("does life exist elsewhere in the universe?" is a question about an objective fact we just can't confirm or deny), or could be tested via empiricism (as in scientific theories). In this sense, taste or standards in music are 100% subjective. In terms of just being an object, music is just arrangements of sound, and it absolutely requires a mind to consider some arrangements "good" or "bad." 

2. Related to the individual - This is, I think, the sense that a lot of people who come down on the "objective" side mean it in. They observe that we have created communal standards in, say, the arts, and argue that art isn't "subjective" because most all of us share some of these communal values and standards about art. This argument doesn't hold up well under scrutiny, because the moment you notice that such communal standards have been created, you must also recognize that thousands, if not millions, of different standards have been created over time, and there's no reference by which to argue which standards we OUGHT to adopt by any appeals to objective fact. To quote Hume, you can't get an OUGHT from an IS. Further, even when standards are shared, we differ in the value we place on different aspects within those standards. We see this in the recent debate about Schubert, with some arguing that he was poor at counterpoint and thus should be penalized as not being among the best composers, while others saying his melodicism makes up for that deficiency. There's no way to declare which of these perspectives is "right." 

Communal standards in the arts is a bit like the rules of sports. Once you create them, you do have a standard by which to judge things by, and though there will be some subjective aspects--Is Michael Jordan or LeBron James better?--we still generally have a better grounding on which to make judgments. However, problems arise when we start trying to declare that it's "wrong" to like basketball and "right" to like football, that the latter is objectively a better sport. Well, just like with sports, different musical genres are like different "rules" that create their own standard within their own communities who value the things that genre does; and there is no objective way to argue which standards are better, or which we should adopt, without some reference to standards or values which in themselves will always, inevitably, be subjective in the first sense.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

philoctetes said:


> I can easily avoid pop music since I rarely go anywhere but concerts of my choice. I got an earful with a former GF who had teenage daughters but that is thankfully over. There is a lot of garbage out there but I like to watch the Grammys as my way of "keeping up" with music I can't stand. After all you get the occasional surprise and for me TS was one of them a few years ago. *But I had to imagine myself in the mindset of a middle-class high school girl to do this. *I was also able to imagine the potential she could have in the future as a songwriter and performer. I haven't followed her since then but now suspect that she might not be able to get out of that growing-up rut for a while...


The bolded bit strikes me as odd for a few reasons. One, it seems a peculiar feature of music (pop especially) that people are asked to identify with a certain demographic in order to enjoy it. We don't demand such things of, say, films or literature, despite the fact that both often tell actual stories about being young, or old, or a certain race or gender or nationality that's different from ours. Two, it also seems that most pop music of the past, despite almost always appealing to the teen demographic when it was released, are usually, later, enjoyed unironically by adults who may have been teens at the time. The early music of The Beatles, despite appealing to the same demographic in the early 60s as TS, and despite being subject to roughly the same potential praise and criticism, is no longer thought of as been "teen" music. Now, there's an interesting neurological reason for why this is, but not a rational one.

Anyway, that's rather OT to your general point, I just used it as a springboard to muse. As for Swift growing up, I'd say she definitely has. The love stories and fairy tales she wrote about early on have mostly been replaced by much more adult perspectives on love, relationships, and an often rather bitter irony and humorous perspective; though early on she had some nods towards such disillusionment as well (I think of White Horse as the most obvious example).


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

Strange Magic said:


> There is nothing in your above post with which I disagree. But it bypasses completely the issue of whether some art/music is "better" than others, as opposed to whether you or I or X or 10,000 Ys like it or don't. Aesthetics is personal opinion. If shared by a group, then it's the group's opinion, in the sense that it's everyone in the group's personal opinion. More people prefer vanilla ice cream to pistachio. Is it better than pistachio? I prefer vanilla, except for those times when I'm in the mood for pistachio. Many TCers hate my ice cream metaphor, but it has the power of great clarity.


That's the space for personal taste of course. And there's a lot of space for different preferences.
If somebody would say that asbestos tastes better than vanilla for an Ice cream I suppose you would think that there's something wrong with his tongue (or that the brain of that person has probably some kind of neurological problem).


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

Eva Yojimbo said:


> Argue? I'd say this has been a perfectly civil discussion that I've very much enjoyed, despite our disagreements. I hope norman bates feels the same.


yes, absolutely.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

norman bates said:


> That's the space for personal taste of course. And there's a lot of space for different preferences.
> If somebody would say that asbestos tastes better than vanilla for an Ice cream I suppose you would think that there's something wrong with his tongue (or that the brain of that person has probably some kind of neurological problem).


I agree that The Herd would indeed think that someone's preference for a non-standard ice cream flavor would, if deemed too extreme, too far beyond the group norm, seem evidence of pathology.


----------

