So by now I'm sure you've ALL heard about that whole Taylor Swift pitch issue, when she was onstage with musical great Stevie Nicks and basically botched her song as well as Stevie's classic song. I didn't watch the Grammys, but my voice teacher convinced me to YouTube the performance (he seems to think it's a conspiracy, TS winning 4 awards despite barely being able to carry a tune).
Anyway, I'm not here to Taylor-hate. She's actually a fascinating character, and her winning big at the awards, coupled with the few performances I've seen of hers (all of which, I'm sad to say, were less than stellar) has me mulling over what the hype around her is all about. She may have played her "damsel in distress" card a few too many times, with the whole Kanye thing, the jilted-lover lyrics in all her songs, and now people coming to her defense about the whole Grammy incident...but... people are still going to buy her records, and be astounded that she writes her own songs (even though Lady Gaga does too, and - even if I don't always like her - she can actually carry a tune...not to mention, if you're looking for a 20-year-old who writes her own phenomenal songs, try Laura Marling instead!), and come to her defense after every painful performance. And I think it's simply because she captures our imagination.
Live performer, she is not. And I am in the camp that believes those rewarded with a Grammy should be real performers - in the studio and onstage - but, I'll admit, she strategizes her pop persona well. I don't particularly think she's very sincere onstage (she was still outshone by a motionless Stevie Nicks, in my opinion, even with as much flair and big hand motions she put into her presence), the signs of insecurity with her voice are all there... but her songs are about love, heartbreak, pining for the football captain - all things that a certain demographic can totally get with. Put that together with super-polished music videos that present her as the dolled-up damsel-in-distress, or the pained high school geek; make the viewers see themselves in the character she plays and voila...it's a formula for longevity, at least in the fickle teen market.
It definitely helps that she looks a certain way. I'm sad to say that her big win shows just how far a pretty face will really get you. Lady Gaga, who I don't think is very pretty but have more musical respect for, definitely deserved Album of the Year, considering all the hits she had out of that CD. But alas, this is why the Grammys has lost so much credibility with other musicians in recent years.
Just saw this post. It may be my bias towards songwriting here, but I've always been willing to give Taylor Swift's terrible live vocals a pass because she writes her own stuff--and quite catchy stuff at that. Sure, her appearance definitely helps, but if her songs were forgettable pieces of junk it wouldn't matter how she looked.
ReplyDeleteI think my feelings on this matter stem from a respect for the fact that by writing her own songs she controls her own destiny. A pop star's success is largely determined by how good their songwriters are, so when Taylor Swift wins a Grammy, it doesn't feel as manufactured to me, vocal warts notwithstanding.
I only agree to a certain extent, I think. She may write her own songs, but as mentioned in the post, there are other 20-somethings who write their own songs that I believe are far and away better and more substantial (my example was Laura Marling). So why shouldn't they get a Grammy too? Ya know? Even if TS writes her stuff, it still comes down to the star-maker machinery.
ReplyDelete