- Yep, we like her. A lot.
You probably know I’m a huge Taylor Swift fan. No apologies. I loved her self-titled debut the first time I heard it in 2006, and 2008’s Fearless was one of my favorite albums of the year.
But she has a little trouble singing onstage. Swift’s first appearance on Saturday Night Live last year was terrible, marred by her flat, off-key voice (and a douchebag band member who bounced around like he was auditioning for Korn). She doesn’t have a big voice, and she caught a lot of shit for that after Sunday’s Grammy performance.
I’ve been defending Swift against these attacks for months. But it’s not about how big or technically “on” she is. There’s an aching vulnerability in her voice that fully complements her songs. She’s still in that awkward stage of life — not a little girl anymore and not yet a woman. Her songs reflect this. And so does her voice.
So it kinda sucks that the president of Swift’s record label had to come to her defense. Scott Borchetta told The Tennessean:
“The facts say she is the undisputed best communicator that we’ve got. So when she says something or feels something it affects more people than anybody else. Maybe she’s not the best technical singer, but she is the best emotional singer. Everybody gets up there and is technically perfect people don’t seem to want more of it. There’s not an artist in any other format that people want more of than they want of Taylor. I think (the critics) are missing the whole voice of a generation that is happening right in front of them. Maybe they are jealous or can’t understand that. But obviously the people that she talks to are engaged with her. No one is perfect on any given day. Maybe in that moment we didn’t have the best night, but in the same breath, maybe we did.”
Borchetta didn’t need to say what Swift’s fans already know (and for the record, I am not a 15-year-old girl but an adult male who regularly praises Animal Collective records): She’s one of the era’s best singer-songwriters, as honest as they come.
It’s the same argument that’s plagued Bob Dylan for years: He can’t sing. So fucking what? He doesn’t sound like Sam Cooke, but he’s a great rock ‘n’ roll singer. You know Celine Dion? Technically, she’s pretty good. But you know what? Her songs suck. She has no emotional connection to the songs she sings. Dylan does. And so does Swift.
Besides, performing live is overrated. Twenty years from now, what’s going to matter? Fearless or some concerts where she tore through a 90-minute set of songs that were hammered to perfection over many months in the studio? Go back and listen to her records and you’ll hear a great pop singer — one who’s aching with very real hopes and fears. —Michael Gallucci
This article appears in Feb 3-9, 2010.
In his prime Bob Dylan could sing Taylor Swift under the table. Let’s not lump him in with Swift’s complete lack of pitch sense. More important Dylan KNEW how to use his voice – he knew his limitations and he wrote his songs around them. Taylor Swift doesn’t. Also Dylan knew how to deliver a lyric. Watch (or cringe) as Taylor Swift smiles her way through a typically off key version of Brenda Lee’s ‘I’m Sorry’ and you’ll realize that Swift isn’t paying attention to the actual words.
One of this era’s best singer-songwriters? Only if you ignore the fact that many of her songs steal/borrow hooks from recent pop hits. ‘Change’ has the EXACT same chorus as The Last Goodnight’s hit ‘Pictures Of You’. The verses of ‘You’re Not Sorry’ sounds an awful lot like ‘Apologize’ by OneRepublic. ‘You Belong With Me’ is the not as well sung younger sister of ‘Since U Been Gone’ and the lyrics rip off Saving Jane’s ‘Girl Next Door’. Speaking of Saving Jane’s ‘Girl Next Door’, Taylor ripped off that song’s chorus for ‘I’d Lie’ and she ripped off Evan & Jaron’s ‘Crazy For This Girl’ for the verses of that song.
For somebody whose appeal you say is in her realness it’s ironic that she can’t actually produce her songs in a live setting without electronic manipulation. That’s neither real nor authentic.
ha. bob dylan. that’s funny. and if swift’s talent at song writing can be compared to dylan’s…well I guess that oscars should be awarded to hallmark movies. they’re sweet and sincere too. The fact that she’s part girl part woman was what helped britney’s career for a while. but once she’s a full woman and still can’t sing on stage (what?) and writes dull song with the help of a studio…
what then?
You’ve got to be kidding right? To defend Swift and at the same time compare her with an artist such as Bob Dylan and his songwriting and then cite as an example her “aching vulnerability” as a reason she’s worthy of these accolades is insulting not only to Dylan but to genuine songwriters everywhere. The only thing vulnerable about her is her lack of actual singing talent. If it isn’t obvious that she is a complete and utter studio creation that is being saturated in a marketing campaign of staggering proportions to the female tween population then the Grammys overlooked Paula Abdul’s last album. We now have proof that the Grammys stopped being about real music years ago and have devolved into a pop-culture promotional tool for the record industry. Taylor Swift isn’t to blame. She’s just the latest “icon” that is being shoved down our throats ad nauseam while underpromoted and undermarketed genuine singer-songwriters are toiling away in obscurity because they aren’t marketable enough to be sold to the masses.
Michael wasn’t comparing Taylor’s artistic accomplishments to those of Dylan (only the most important songwriter of the last 50 years). Even as a singer, Bob’s unique style has been enormous; his progeny are everywhere. But when Bob first came to national attention, most music buyers hated his voice (out of tune or not), describing it as chicken squawks or “sandpaper on a rusty barbed wire”. And there ARE very legitimate points of similarity between Taylor and Dylan: 1. Both seemed BORN with an intuitive sense that they were MEANT to write and play music, with enormous energy and drive fueling that determination. 2. Both are far more interested in connecting their message to their audience — with passion and honesty — than being known for how “pur-ty” they sound doing it. 3. Both are prolific writers with a love of wordplay, and a talent for song construction and what makes songs memorable. 4. Both became spokesmen for their audience — they put the words to things everyone else was feeling. 5. Both can sound a little strident when they sing — even IN tune — but they use that edgy style to generate passion, tension and release. 6. Both started out one place (folk for Bob, Country for Taylor), aggravated their fans by expanding to a larger audience, got verbally assaulted for it, did it anyway. True, Dylan seems more edgy and respectable for “real men” because his “audience” was a generation at a time of incredible and important change; Taylor’s primary audience are the regular girls next door growing into women (ewww!) — a group largely IGNORED through 60 years of rock and rap. If all those hand-bangin’ grungies, metalheads, rappers n’ ho’s, and pretty boy-bands couldn’t care less about what hormonal, insecure and fragile females really felt, well Taylor knew and expressed it like nobody ever did before. And quite the OPPOSITE of being a marketing phenom force-fed to the public, Taylor is a totally self-made artist, rising up through the Simon Cowell dungheap of cardboard icons. is a fad?
Let’s cut to the chase here. Obviously the argument can be made that anyone who comes out critical of Taylor Swift’s live performances is going to be called a “hater” and someone who just doesn’t get it. By the same token, Gallucci and to a lesser extent D Trotter come off as apologists for Swift’s mediocre or downright bad live performances. But these live performances contrary to Gallucci’s views are important. What did musicians and singers do prior to the invention of the recording studio? What exactly do these aspiring performers (key word there) do outside of the recording studio??? Performance is integral to any musician/singer and what better indication of talent than being able to do it live without the aid of studio mixing, effects and trickery? William Hung can be made to sound like Dean Martin in a recording studio. And let’s be clear – Bob Dylan’s singing being in tune was never the issue. His style was what made people either love him or hate him. Oh and for the record… as far as Swift being the opposite of a marketing phenom, check out TV Guide’s list of her television credits over the last 4 years (http://www.tvguide.com/celebrities/taylor-…) over 81 appearances and that in conjunction with her appearance in the new movie Valentine’s Day (apparently she’s also now an actress) and her addition to the video game Band Hero and the television commercial supporting the game is more than enough evidence that she is being marketed pretty heavily. To suggest that she is completely self-made is pure rubbish and naive. She’s been the recipient of as much or more publicity from her record label, her agent and the media as any new artist which in and of itself is completely acceptable but let’s stop pretending she isn’t being hyped a la Hannah Montan/Miley Cyrus. The last point I’ll make is that if I’m paying my hard earned money ($50 or more) for a concert ticket, I expect the artist/band to be able to perform live without lip-singing or overdubbing etc. I’m not accusing Swift of this, but if she can’t sing her songs live then the fans are the ones who are cheated. Unless of course Taylor Swift fans’ expectations are just that low.
“Seriously”, Who called anyone a “hater”? And why am I an “apologist” for pointing out the positives about a 20-year-old who has been the top-selling billboard artist in the US for the last 2 years, who set all kinds of chart and digital records, who wrote every song on her first 2 albums, who sold out massive arenas in minutes for her live shows, and who won just about every music award worth winning last year? As for Taylor being self-made, she sure is. She didn’t jump off any Disney TV show. She isn’t some carefully-packaged creation of American Idol, all hyped-up and pre-sold. At 11 years old she walked into every studio in Nashville and gave them her self-made tape. At 14 she got an after-school job as the youngest songwriter songwriter ever to work for Sony; also signed a development deal with RCA, the largest recording studio in Nashville. When RCA wouldn’t let her record her own songs she walked away and signed with a guy who was starting his own label but didn’t have a place or any staff yet. She made a record, but they couldn’t get anyone to play it because they had little PR money, no clout, no other artists on the label, no American Idol pre-publicity. So Taylor and a few staff hand-packaged demo mailers and sent them out; Taylor built a My Space following and went to fairs and radio stations, and whenever she could she pulled out her acoustic and played solo … and guess what! Taylor sounded just like her records, stripped of production. The girl is no Susan Boyle — nor did she ever want to be — but she CAN sing. And slowly her debut single got airplay. Her debut album didn’t set sales records, like American Idol ones do, but it just kept on selling … and selling …on the way to to 5x’s Platinum. Finally, Taylor has the final say of EVERYTHING in her career — the arrangements, sets, videos, business decisions, studio production, you name it. The very epitome of a self-made artist! NOW, suddenly everyone wants her on their show or record — but that’s BECAUSE of her success, not vice-versa. You have it backward. She did it the old-fashioned way — she worked for it! You should research your subject more before making up stories.
Guess you haven’t heard of what Scott Swift (Taylor Swift’s father) spent to get her foot in the door huh? The stories are out there and Bob Lefsetz among others confirmed them.
Swift’s initial breakthrough may have come through social networking but the awards and the hype are definitely done by machine and let’s not forget that her sophomore album has been marketed and distributed by the major label Universal Republic in partnership with Big Machine.
As for the live performances, see Taylor Swift isn’t doing mostly acoustic numbers in concert. She’s doing full on big production pop rock numbers that she can’t sing live without backup singers to cover for her and, if industry whispers are to be believed, live Auto-Tune or backing tracks.
I think the “machine” isn’t infallible – it was a mistake to pair her with Nicks. Nicks built her career on a distinctive voice (like Dylan) they weren’t a duet made in heaven. She did perform better than on SNL – she needed to someone who complimented her if she was to be paired. What would have been interesting and more topical would have been her and Miley Cyrus (though somewhat off them) – the two teenies of the last couple of years. Cyrus was frozen out of the whole thing and it would have been a better choice. I can’t stomach how this country builds people up just to cut them down. She is still a kid and I agree with the author – she does convey something very vulnerable – I will probably never buy one of her albums but I’m glad to see her in the musical landscape for years to come. Definitely better than the slew of Kanye Wests and Lady Gagas that are out there.
Seriously? I’m making up stories? Apparently the only story here is your “Love Story” with Taylor Swift and the fact that it has rendered you incapable of addressing valid and factual arguments made regarding her voice – that is her live singing voice hence the purpose of this blog. I defy you (presumably a mature and intelligent individual) to actually deny that Swift’s live singing is mediocre or average or even sometimes severely out of tune. The whole premise of this discussion is whether or not people agree with the EVIDENCE that is out there (not made up) that she can’t perform well live. Sure she sounds like an angel on her CDs but that’s obviously and sadly a result of studio enhancements. Her live performances are the “dead giveaway” of that fact. The proof is in the pudding. Citing her many accomplishments such as sending out mailers of her demo tape and walking from recording studios door to door and pulling out her guitar and performing live prove what? That she did what every other aspiring singer/songwriter has done before her? You can accuse the American Idol performers of having the huge PR and marketing forces behind them after they’ve made it on the show and actually peformed live (in front of millions of people) and either sang well – in tune or not but they got there by doing the same exact things Swift did. There are thousands of these artists singing in clubs, coffee houses and on street corners writing original songs, posting flyers, sending demo tapes to studios, travelling in their own vehicles from venue to venue for a few bucks just so they can be heard. So please don’t preach to us how it’s so amazing or rare Taylor Swift worked as hard as any dedicated girl scout selling cookies. She made her own MySpace page? Really? Wow, that’s something. This isn’t Swift-bashing but an honest and candid observation that while she is obviously a talented 17 yr old who has written her own songs and has the “right stuff” to make her a huge star she isn’t a complete package. If she could sing live this would be moot. Now for the remedial portion of this response. No one accused anyone of calling anyone a hater (please read thoroughly before inserting foot in mouth) rather it was said that an argument could be made… Next, you are the definition of an apologist (according to Webster’s :one who speaks or writes in defense of someone or something) by the very nature of your post to this blog. You are defending Taylor Swift – not her live singing which is the specific issue but her, either as an artist or personally which does not address the point but deflects and defends her rather than addressing the point with actual examples or counter-arguments as to why you believe she does sing well live. Please point out where other than my opinion (which should be obvious to most) I cited something specific like providing a website address or numbers that can be verified, I made up stories. Just because you don’t like or agree with what someone says, doesn’t make it untrue. But please – feel free to post a link of a live performance where you think Swift sang well or cite some specific examples that you believe make her a good live singer (not performer but actual singer) or something…anything that you believe refutes not only my argument but many other’s as well. Opinions are completely subjective and open to disagreement but her live performances are objective and either you hear the wrong notes and out of tune vocals or you don’t. If you don’t… then perhaps you are tone deaf or in denial. Take your pick but I’m done with you. Go back to Swift’s MySpace page for the lovefest.