On Sunday, Salon.com released a guest piece by Mark Guarino, Christian Science Monitor staff writer and renowned Taylor Swift expert, analyzing the root of Taylor Swift’s commercial success and why we should be wary.
According to his lengthy explanation, all of Taylor Swift’s likeable qualities are a result of what Americans came to expect following the economic downturn in 2008: restraint, modesty and austerity. Swift’s music, as Guarino points out, is characterized by “demure thoughtfulness,” not the “tacky opulence” of shiny SUVs, fistfuls of cash and writhing, bare bodies characteristic of music from the ‘00s.
Guarino laments the lack of raw nerve and deep pain in Swift’s music as a result of her neutrality. He complains that Swift has been conveniently (and undeservingly) grouped with Joni Mitchell and Carly Simon. Swift’s music, Guarino says, lacks the deep pain and raw nerve of female confessional singers of yore.
Although he is not wrong, is it fair to blame Swift for not being “raw” enough? The singers he cites rose to fame while in their late 20s; Swift began writing and producing music at 16. The heartbreak and emotions of a 16-year-old woman are vastly different than those of a 22-year-old woman. Do all women under the age of 25 look the same to Mark Guarino?
Also, a huge difference in demographic is at play here. Do the same people who listen to Amy Winehouse and Aretha Franklin also listen to Taylor Swift? Probably not. Nobody is forcing anybody else to appreciate Swift’s music, and furthermore, she does a fine job of covering her demographic. When my 13-year-old neighbor found out her crush liked another girl, she listened to the “Fearless” album on repeat so loudly I could sing the songs in my sleep. The people who listen to Swift’s music, the heartbroken tweens of the world, are not concerned with Swift’s tendency to “play it safe.” So why are this guy’s jimmies rustled?
Guarino even suggests that Swift’s impact is so powerful, Kanye West’s career was killed after the 2009 MTV Video Music Awards incident.
“That image — her mute, him blabbering — illustrated the quiet tidal shift taking place and it’s not inconsequential that West, once one of the most respected figures of conscious hip-hop, is now is relegated to the sidelines as a celebrity windbag,” Guarino writes.
Oh, brother; Cue Liz Lemon’s over dramatic eye roll here. I’m not a Kanye West expert, but I’m pretty sure a then-19-year-old white girl didn’t soil his career. I doubt the guy is crying himself to sleep at night—the short film he directed was shown at the 2012 Cannes Film Festival, his last album debuted at number two on U.S. Billboard 200 and he’s dating Kim Kardashian. Oh, how the mighty fall.
In Mark Guarino’s old-man opinion, Taylor Swift is just too boring and contrived.
“Even when Swift tries to be her most natural, the calculation shows,” he writes. “Instead of singers who might leave our scars exposed, we cling to the ones who are CoverGirl-ready and know how to touch them up.”
The biggest problem I have with this piece is Guarino’s determination to lump Swift with adult contemporary artists. Just as it wouldn’t be fair to compare Judy Blume to David Foster Wallace or Selena Gomez to Meryl Streep, it’s not fair to compare Taylor Swift to drug-addled soul singers who turned their pain into music.
Swift’s emotional capacity hasn’t expanded that far yet, but the emotion she’s translated into music until now is successful because she targets the young adult demographic—a demographic notorious for its available funds to spend on things like iTunes downloads and Abercrombie & Fitch sweatshirts.
Whether anyone chooses to listen to Swift or not listen to Swift is his or her prerogative. However, it’s problematic to compare two entirely different musical aesthetics and blame the demise of pop music on the economy. Swift happened to be in the right place at the right time with the right songs in 2008. You don’t have to like her, but the girl is a powerhouse. No amount of fiery blog posts will change that.
