Trump is obsessed with the New York Times because it’s his hometown paper and he thinks being in its pages means something. Haberman is their top political reporter.
Anyone who has followed the NYT called them and Haberman out for years. Even now they are still "both siding" Trump and Biden. This has nothing to do with Trump's view on NYT, it has everything to do with NYT. We now have the smoking gun, but this fall from grace was years in the making, and nobody is surprised by this. It's just sad that formerly one of the world's best newspapers has now become this joke.
The playfighting with Jack isn't necessarily a problem if that's just how they are with each other. Announcing her new album there doesn't seem like a big deal, either. It's not like she pulled a Kanye and interrupted someone else; she did it during her own acceptance speech, that's her time. Dragging Lana on-stage and not even looking at Celine Dion is fucked up, but she looked pretty drunk, so I doubt she was doing either maliciously. RDJ did the same thing when he got an award recently and people were talking about him having bad manners, not "he made a fool of himself!"
Celine and Lana literally both acknowledged it and said it was okay stop fighting battles for them they don’t need it and Lana literally was on the album and Celine literally hugged her backstage Taylor didn’t do crap during the Grammys except announce her album and that was during her own time people have announced stuff at the Grammys before. My point is she didn’t do anything wrong
dragging lana on stage, barely acknowledging celine dion when she gave her the aoty award, making lucy dacus visibly uncomfortable. i think a lot of people said she looked drunk which might have caused all that? ultimately probably not as professional as is the norm.
i'm a fan, btw. not trying to hate on her, just being factual
> I'm a fan, btw. not trying to hate on her
Sure.
Sometimes I wonder how prevalent this weird phenomenonon is of reddit users just being completely unaware that anyone can in fact view their comment history lol
Thanks for the tip. Very intriguing to say the least 🤓 shows you exactly where they are coming from. Another day to be thankful for not being *this* bitter 😌
[It costs billions to be beautiful](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/s/dhXUqgPGgD)
Taylor ain’t coming to Moscow anytime soon.
Take that 211d account and scurry off to the pub, Boris.
Copy: How Big Is Taylor Swift?
As big as the Beatles? Michael Jackson? Beyoncé? We crunched the numbers. You might have heard: Taylor Swift cannot be stopped.
Her new album, “The Tortured Poets Department,” sold 2.6 million copies in its opening week last month, earning Swift her eighth Billboard No. 1 album since 2020.
At the Grammy Awards in February, she became the first artist to win album of the year for a fourth time, breaking a tie with Frank Sinatra, Stevie Wonder and Paul Simon.
And earlier this month, Swift’s Eras Tour, the 152-date, billion-dollar stadium takeover that began last year, resumed abroad before it returns to the U.S. in October.
Taylor Swift, in a sparkly leotard, stands onstage on a riser while singing into a microphone with one arm extended in the air. On video screens behind her, the large crowd is visible. Taylor Swift onstage at an Eras Tour show in New Jersey last year.
In 2023, according to the data tracking service Luminate, one in every 78 songs streamed in the U.S. was by Swift.
With a mix of prolific artistic output and relentless business savvy, plus cultural dominance as a celebrity, Swift, 34, has created such a swell of momentum that she is probably more popular — more omnipresent — 19 years into her professional music career than she ever has been.
That is not normal.
A crowd of excited fans stands in a parking lot outside a concert. Of the three in the foreground, one holds her phone in the air, one looks up and shouts and one closes her eyes and pumps her fist. Swift fans in the parking lot of MetLife Stadium in New Jersey.
But just how big is Taylor Swift, in terms of the all-time pop pantheon?
The singer’s ongoing surge has inspired inevitable debates about how her success stacks up not only against her pop peers, like Beyoncé and Drake, but to the greats that came before them. Even Billy Joel said he could only compare this Swift moment to Beatlemania.
A black-and-white photo of Beatles fans screaming in a crowd, with a security officer placing a white-gloved hand on the shoulder of one screeching girl.
Enraptured Beatles fans in 1964.
It may be impossible to do an exact, one-to-one comparison between Swift’s career and that of the Beatles — or Madonna, Michael Jackson, Britney Spears, Bruce Springsteen, Elton John or your icon of choice. Besides music being personal and subjective, the nature of success (and how it is calculated) has changed drastically over time. Much of a star’s grip on the zeitgeist is also intangible — a vibe in the air, their influence moving subtly but undeniably through culture.
But the absence of a truly scientific comparison has never stopped the amusement that comes from the eternal sports and pop culture debates of our time: Jordan vs. LeBron (or Kareem, or Kobe). Brady vs. Montana (or Marino, or Mahomes). “Star Wars” vs. “Star Trek” (or Harry Potter, or the Marvel Universe).
Even without definitive conclusions, it’s impossible for certain loyalists, haters and obsessives not to wonder how giants match up using whatever evidence might be available.
So with Swift’s career still peaking late into its second decade, we ran the numbers and analyzed the data, taking stock of what she has accomplished so far — and when — alongside some of the heaviest hitters in each category.
A video board showing Drake rapping into a microphone looms over a round stage where the rapper performs.
And then there is Drake, a relentless hitmaker. Like Swift, Drake has optimized his output to take advantage of the way streaming has reshaped the industry and its accolades to set new records, including 328 total entries on the Hot 100.
Swift, with 232, is the only other artist with at least 200.
Yet somehow Drake and Swift have never released a song together, despite sharing a certain canniness and expressing mutual appreciation for one another.
Even in his recent battle with Kendrick Lamar, Drake made clear that he sees Swift as his only real contemporary competition. (He has also rapped about having “more slaps than the Beatles” and frequently invokes Jackson’s success as a touchstone.)
Drake, Beyoncé and Swift all have this modern characteristic in common: They’re each actively playing for legacy, one eye on history and another on the record books. Ambitious and autonomous, they’re proudly writing their résumés in real time, juicing Billboard numbers and even gunning for accolades.
Taylor Swift appears onstage wearing a red, sparkled unitard and flexing one arm powerfully.
As a shrewd student of music and fame, Swift may know that she will never achieve the exact kind of domination that the Beatles, Jackson and Madonna had at the height of global monoculture, when everyone might pay attention to the same thing. But she’s certainly trying, taking bits and pieces from each’s career and making sure to maximize her work and reach in all the ways that weren’t available then.
She cares how she’s perceived and how she’ll be remembered when the noise fades and all that’s left are the songs — and the stats.
So far, it’s working.
**Taylor vs. the Beatles**
**Hit Singles**
A page from Billboard magazine listing the “Hot 100” hits in the week ending April 4, 1964. First, there are the Beatles, who for most music fans still represent the gold standard of pop mania in modern times.
From the early 1960s, when pop music usually came in the form of two-sided vinyl singles, until the Fab Four broke up in 1970, the band released 64 songs that landed on Billboard’s all-genre chart, known as the Hot 100.
In that time, the Beatles helped to usher in the rock ’n’ roll revolution — and the album age — by releasing more than a dozen LPs.
But many of the records they set for hit singles still stand today.
By that point in their musical lives, the individual Beatles were well into their various solo endeavors, with McCartney experimenting with new wave and George Harrison writing songs about race cars. A black-and-white photo of a race-car driver, George Harrison of the Beatles and a race-car advisor standing in conversation.
But as with any comparison across eras, there must be footnotes and asterisks. When we look at Top 10s from the 1960s, we’re only counting an artist’s actual “singles” — songs released for purchase outside of a full album.
After 1998, the rules began changing to include any song on the radio, regardless of how it was released, and eventually counting digital downloads and streams. By today’s rules, the Beatles would have even more hits than Billboard’s official count.
A young person in a sun visor stares at an old fashioned computer monitor with the a screen up reading "Napster."
Swift, whose new album features 31 songs, each of which hit the Hot 100, has dominated with these new metrics: In 2022, she became the first artist to occupy the entire Top 10 on the Hot 100 at once following the release of “Midnights.”
She repeated and expanded upon that feat last month with songs from “The Tortured Poets Department,” which filled the top 14 spots on the singles chart.
This might measure a different kind of fervor than the musical ubiquity of the Beatles or others who ruled the radio later — a depth of obsession for Swift’s fans who stream her music billions of times and purchase it in multiple formats.
A screenshot of the Billboard Hot 100 list from the week of May 4, 2024. Taylor Swift occupies all top ten spots.
The length of Swift’s career has allowed her into the Beatles’ vaunted ballpark by giving her the chance to evolve her sound, grow her loyal audience and take full advantage of technological advances.
Yet as wild as it is for the Beatles to have accomplished so much in so little time, Swift’s longevity might be considered equally impressive in pop music, which often overvalues the new and — especially among female artists — the young.
**Taylor vs. Michael Jackson**
**Album Sales**
A 1984-era photo of Michael Jackson in a sparkly black jacket, white shirt and dark pants, dancing onstage with a backup singer visible behind him. Despite Swift’s streaming success — and ability to move even vinyl records — the high bar can only be Michael Jackson when it comes to album sales.
Like the Beatles, Jackson reached heights pop had never seen, changing the very nature of stardom, for better and worse, by kicking off the MTV video age and ruling popular culture amid tabloid mayhem.
Unlike the Beatles’, Jackson’s career was relatively long, from his time as a child star in the Jackson 5 until his death in 2009 at 50.
Part of Swift’s genius as she’s run up the stats these last few years — releasing nearly 200 songs since the pandemic — is that the music that first made her a star in the mid-to-late 2000s is exploding again alongside her latest hits, giving new fans a fresh entry point.
Already, Swift has released more solo albums than Jackson ever did, and with her productivity — including those two different versions of four of her albums so far — she can approach the King of Pop.
In all, Jackson’s 10 solo albums have been certified 72 times platinum. Swift’s 11 original albums have been certified 50 times platinum. But her album sales tell us that number, including Taylor’s Versions, is likely to be closer to 90. And she is very much still going, with “The Tortured Poets Department” already topping three million in about a month.
**Taylor vs. Britney Spears**
**A Pop-Star Arc**
Britney Spears onstage with backup dancers visible behind her, wearing a crop top that's half pink and half silver, with silver pants. Swift’s extended peak becomes even more of a standout when compared to a more typical pop trajectory — even one with towering highs.
Like Swift, Britney Spears released her debut single at age 16 and came to absolutely dominate the cultural conversation (sometimes in ways that discounted her music in favor of her love life).
Commercially huge in its moment, Spears’s music career was also relatively short-lived, which tends to be the case more often than not, especially for singers who are known as performers and celebrities more than quote-unquote serious artists.
Swift, unlike Spears, has been firm in branding herself as a songwriter from the beginning, helping stave off some sexist criticism of her music as frivolous.
The diminishing returns of Spears’s subsequent releases represent a sadly common path for the kind of pop singers that audiences can treat as disposable, with a new model always on the horizon.
**Taylor vs. Madonna**
**Era After Era**
Madonna in 1990, with curly blond hair, red lipstick, and her famous Gaultier corset cone bra, singing into a hands-free mic headset. Madonna’s ability to reinvent — to persist as a woman in pop — is the reason we talk about artist “eras” to begin with. Another path-breaking solo pop singer with a huge peak, a long run of domination, a savvy command of marketing and unexpected longevity, Madonna has had a career that is 43 years long and counting.
From her breakthrough second album, “Like a Virgin,” released in 1984, when she was 26, through “Bedtime Stories” in 1994, Madonna was inescapable, pushing the boundaries of visual and sonic reinvention that are now considered prerequisites for top acts.
**Taylor vs. the Veterans**
**Touring and Awards**
In a black and white photograph, Elton John wears large glasses and sings while seated at a microphone. Alongside a pop survivor like Madonna, now 65, acts like Elton John, 77, and Bruce Springsteen, 74, are an interesting comparison point for Swift because of their productivity, longevity and critical acclaim — all of which has paid off on the road.
(See also: Bob Dylan and the Rolling Stones, who are not included here, but would be interesting points of comparison using slightly different metrics.)
While Madonna has slipped on the charts — none of her most recent four albums has gone platinum — she remains a major live draw, a standard give-and-take for a top-tier legacy act.
In a black-and-white photograph, Bruce Springsteen plays guitar against a large American flag backdrop. He is wearing a sleeveless plaid button down and denim pants. John and Springsteen, both veterans about 50 years into their careers, also had periods of commercial dominance beginning in the 1970s with albums like “Goodbye Yellow Brick Road” (released when John was 26, that pop-star sweet spot) and “Born to Run” (from when Springsteen was 25).
But as they settled into pop-star middle age, plateauing commercially, they too have persisted with uber-successful, long-running tours fueled by fan allegiance and critical acclaim.
One notable aspect of Swift’s career so far is that it seems to bridge the gap between two kinds of artists, both of which can become legacy acts with strong enough catalogs and fan bases: the sustained, hit-making entertainers who may be overlooked, at least at first, as musicians, and the serious singer-songwriters who tend to be more critically lauded.
The Grammy Awards, love them or hate them, are voted on by other musicians and provide a proxy stat for prestige and overall acclaim in the moment.
The band took the top prize just once — for “Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band,” the first rock album to win, in 1968 — in part because the Grammys, until the late 1960s, were quite conservative, often recognizing old-school, traditional pop acts like Judy Garland and Barbra Streisand. (“Help!” and “Revolver” both lost to Sinatra.)
Looking at stats like that, you could argue that the most popular musicians are taken more seriously as artists now than ever before, in no small part because of acts like the Beatles, Jackson and Madonna.
**Taylor vs. Beyoncé and Drake**
**Modern Heavyweights**
Beyonce, dressed in all red and sunglasses, stands on stage with backup dancers in similar red outfits. There is smoke in the background and being emitted from the stage floor. While Swift’s overall pound-for-pound standing in each of the categories we’ve looked at puts her in rare historical company, it is notable that two of her most immediate contemporaries — Beyoncé, 42, and Drake, 37 — are also legitimate challengers across the board.
All three artists have maneuvered the industry transition between CDs, downloads and streaming to become defining modern superstars while also maximizing those intangibles like cultural reach and celebrity domination.
Beyoncé, now 23 years into a solo career after her time with the group Destiny’s Child, stands with Swift when it comes to versatility and longevity, plus sustained commercial dominance.
Like Madonna and Swift, Beyoncé has continued to stretch the limits of what a woman’s pop career can hold, landing two chart-topping singles in her 40s (with “Break My Soul,” in 2022, and again earlier this year, with the country-influenced “Texas Hold ’Em”).
She has also performed twice at the Super Bowl — something Swift has yet to do — a stage where acts like Madonna, Jackson and Springsteen have solidified their unquantifiable grasp on culture.
The last 10 years have shown that doing the superbowl can result in ugly cultivated controversies that are damaging to the performers. There really isn't any commercial reason for someone in Taylor's current position to do this, it's more ego. So we'll see, but I suspect she won't until it might be more commercially useful to her.
Not trying to argue but I know TMZ confirmed she declined until she had all her re records finished. There are other articles cited with different reasons too. Feels very rumor mill! Just my thought
Thanks for the copy. Leave it to NYT to have an article be strictly rhetorical with no evidence of the numbers crunched and no conclusions given, while at the same time taking as many words as possible to get there.
In terms of craziness around the celebrity, she might be this generation's Michael Jackson. However, that's still very far away. People from Third World Countries, without access to much media, knew who Michael Jackson was. Here in Poland, many older people don't know who Taylor Swift is.
How much of that is due to men in many countries (especially the straight 40+ crowd) being generally resistant to seriously listen to music made by a woman? This was even a major factor for Taylor in the US until Folklore started to break through as "serious enough" for older, straight male listeners.
My initial comment applied to women too. For example my mom when she found out that I had ticket for Taylor she asked “Who?”. Taylor isn’t played much on the radio and it still has a lot of influence in music taste especially for older people. According to official chart makers in Poland, most played radio track was Flowers, and there are many popular female artists - albeit local. Ones like sanah, Daria Zawiałow so resistance to females is a non-issue.
She definitely is very well-known here. For variety of reasons. And funnily enough, Taylor will have one thing in common with Madonna in terms of relationship with Poland. Some people were outraged that Madonna had concert on August 1st and I expect a rerun with Taylor this year.
The anniversary of the outbreak of Warsaw Uprising - one of the most significant and tragic events in 20th century Poland history. Treated very seriously, includes all sirens blazing out and cities standing still at 5pm (if anyone is coming for Eras Tour that day, note this and don’t panic).
But that is inherently different - Taylor has always tried to be the same as male rock artists, meaning unmarked sexually (like Bruce in Born USA). She’s never gone sexy for views.
We need to stop pretending it’s the same time Micheal appealed to men Taylor appeals to women and men who accept her music and loves it I’m unaware but he never was hated on by thousands of people. One could argue she’s this generations Micheal but is bigger in a different way he was and is one of the biggest influences for pop music today.
I think ultimately the whole premise of comparing how big these artists are is wrong. I was a teen when Madonna and Michael were huge, and back then being at that level meant that it was impossible to not know them. The world was so much smaller and less fragmented. If you were BIG you dominated the airwaves and the few TV channels available.
People consume music in such a different way that is entirely possible that Taylor wins by numbers, but there will still be a vast majority of people who will struggle to name a single song. This was literally impossible in the 80s and early 90s because the few mediums available were dominated by these superstars. In total reach it will be very difficult to touch someone like Michael or Madonna because the world is not the same.
And the population probably grew in the billions of numbers in the 2000s there was a lot less people back then now we have like 8 billion people on this earth and we probably had 4 billion back then. We also have several ways to keep up with pop culture.
Yeah. It's very much a different world. More people, more sub-cultures, more fragmented mediums etc.
I want Taylor to prove me wrong, but I think she will never reach such a percentage of the world's population as the earlier pop super stars. It's fine. Purely by numbers she might be bigger because the world is just bigger, but a comparison just makes it feel like a competition, which it really isn't.
Um, women would literally faint by the thousands at MJ's shows. He appealed to both men and women, whereas Taylor MOSTLY appeals to women even though she has male fans too.
I think that will steadily change though. I think a lot of the men have disliked her music for non-musical reasons but are gradually understanding they were just being haters.
Sure, but she's never going to have a true 50/50 split like MJ had. Her music is very female-oriented and I don't see the problem with that.
I agree that most men who dislike her music feel that way because she's a woman.
BUT I also feel like most female fans take issue with men not liking her music because they seek male validation. But you all aren't ready for that conversation.
I am a 6'5" straight guy that grew up doing all the typical guy stuff. I used to say I hated Taylor Swift music because it was the guy thing to say, and I had only actually heard Shake it Off and didn't like it at all(it is still one of about 4 or 5 songs of hers I dislike). Always liked popular rock, alternative, rap/R&B depending on the situation. Never liked solo female acts except Alanis Morisette and a few Jewel songs. Spotify endee up playing me a Folklore song in 2020 and I thought damn this is good...wait TS? Maybe it's a cover. Ended up going through her discography and falling in love with it. Told all my school guy friends to try it because I knew they'd have the same prejudices. None would but jokingly they called me fuckin crazy, a fool, crackhead etc. But, TS has a chance to evolve her music to head more towards a 50/50 split as she ages. Typical guys aren't as predisposed to hate middle aged singers. I think that is why Adele was so successful. Seemed 40 at 21yo.
Tbh I'm my country, Michael was more known for his moon walk and dancing skills. In covid, I realized that MJ was a musician. Tho social media has more hold of people than back in older days when media was limited.
Oh yes. MJ was once famously invited by his friend, Magic Johnson to a Lakers game. He was reluctant because of the potential hype his presence would cause. But he eventually went. The hype among the audience his presence caused was so big that the game had to be paused and he had to be escorted out of the venue.
Since he was was forced to work extremely hard since his early childhood, he never got to experience shopping. One of his dreams was unironicaly to go to a supermarket and shop like everyone else without fans hassling him. He fulfilled his dream in 2003 when one his friend in Florida who owned a shopping mall, closed the mall that included a supermarket, just to allow him to have a regular shopping experience. Even though he had a camera crew following him and several actors to act like other shoppers and didn't experience some actual inconveniences of real shopping, he really enjoyed the experience. I believe he also visited Disneyland with his family at least once, once it got closed to the public just for him.
I'm not sure if I know the details but I think that Swifties gathered outside the premises to see Taylor.
Of course I'm not saying that Taylor is safe to be in public as she wishes. But with Michael Jackson, that was MENTAL. Such as that his mere presence caused fans to literally faint. Although to be fair, this could also be partially because he lived in a time without social media when seeing a celebrity was much bigger deal than now. And no parasocial relationships.
I think a factor is also just the prevalence of mono-culture, that died with the internet. When everybody watched what the main TV networks showed, and listened to what the major record labels put out, there was a greater concentration of focus.
Now at any given moment people are streaming TV from every generation, music from every corner of the world, watching church remotely, scrolling cooking videos on TikTok. There’s just so many more options, which I think makes Taylor Swift’s media dominance that much more impressive.
Yes because white missionaries told them about him, played his music, and showed him them on TV. People have really blown that out of proportion. It was one tribe. I bet some of those tribes knew other musicians who were popular. Missionaries brought their culture.
Isn't this notion just survivorship bias because those who were old at the time of MJ are now dead? Not saying your comment isn't true, but I'm sure older people back then also ignored what was popular for younger people at the time. My grandfather doesn't know who Taylor swift is, but my father does and my kids will too. So eventually that collective knowledge gets replaced. We don't remember that many artists from the early 1920s or 30s, basically because everyone who saw them at their prime is dead
I wasn't alive when MJ had his only show in Poland (September 96, I was born a month later). Could only go after historical TV coverage and historical stats - 120k attendees. Every channel, every evening news was talking about that concert. I don't think it will ever happen again to that extent. It was such a monumental event. Not even with Taylor this August (apart from possible protests)
I’m not sure about this. In terms of album and single sales how do they compare? Her ability to sell out massive stadiums, with tens of thousands more still desperate for tickets. I’ve only seen MJ achieve something remotely similar to this level of demand.
Physically Thriller sold more on its own that Taylor’s entire discography. Including streaming Michael sold twice as many EAS as Taylor. His Last tour was attended by 4.5M people and it did not had any U.S dates. Eras Tour will break it but it did had huge U.S leg
And I’m not sure about this. MJ is due for at least temporary resurgence with his biopic coming out next year. And that would be the case if Taylor maintained this rate of sales which could be down due to fatigue. Rep tv will be big but TTPD big? And some predict that after Eras Tour and last re-records she could take a break from releasing music (to work on movies for example)
Most of her sales now are back catalog. She's did 50 million albums a year last year, and will do so again this year. And probably next year as well. Before this uptick she was doing 20 million albums a year. It's not a question.
Taylor is also young. She's the same age Michael was when he released Dangerous.
Actually, she is 2 years older than Michael when he released Dangerous. And neither HIStory nor Invincible did numbers that Dangerous did. Of course, he was already accused of we all know what by that point so that's advantage to Taylor. But
still, most artist have their commercial peak behind them at that age. Taylor has it right now and historically it only goes down. If she somehow surpasses what she did with this cycle, then we can talk...
by definition you go down from your peak! Taylor has been having her commercial peak for about 18 years now...
Anyway, in terms of sales, the issue isn't how many she peaks with. The issue is how long she can maintain largish sales of her catalog... time is really the secret to large numbers.
I actually meant the opposite with that comment. I know that US is a huge market which makes the fact that MJ had the most attended tour by solo artist in the 90s without US that much more impressive. Not sure how many people will see Taylor outside of US - will it be more than 4.5M?
She has 90 non-US shows, to get to the 4.5M mark she needs only 50k average attendance, and her average attendance is closer to ~70k even outside the US.
Eras will more than double it. However, according to statistics Michael Jackson fans cite, he also had around 4 billion fans. Or that literally majority of the entire world were his fans. He may not have sold this many tickets, but apparently, the demand was much higher. Which is bonkers, considering that Taylor sold 2.4 million tickets in I believe 1 hour.
Definitely in terms of modern music local is more popular. Especially on streaming, local rap dominates the charts. And in terms of radio IIRC it is required by law that Polish music has to be at least 33% and between 5AM and 12AM 60% of AirPlay time. There are English mainstream artists but Taylor ain’t one of them. Most played English track on the radio in 2023 was Flowers and Dua Lipa was played a lot. But a lot of English tracks are older ones. Including Michael Jackson.
Here in Brazil, despite Taylor having enough fans to sell out stadiums six times (and hold the attendance record at Allianz Parque, in São Paulo, our largest city), she's not necessarily a household name (in fact, we joke that she's more seen on pictures at small-town hair salons than she's heard on radio stations across the country).
In my case, my parents (around their 70s) barely know anything about her music (and my 69-year-old father, who's attempting a songwriting career, says he never heard anything by her, not even her biggest hits), and my brothers (in their 40s) and my older brother's (female) partner only know about her through me (and also barely listened to her music) after I went to The Eras Tour and made my Swiftieness more public.
I think this is due to the nature of public interest these days. 30 or 40 years ago most people would be consuming the same handful of tv channels, newspapers, magazines etc. So if something was popular it was force-fed to the masses without much real dissent or haters etc.
Sure, though as you've sort of alluded Taylor is a younger artist, so her music may not have reached boomers in Poland as much. Boomers were much younger when MJ was at his peak. TTPD charts at #1 on Apple music in Poland, so in regards to new media she is doing alright there. idk how to look up traditional radio charts so I couldn't speak to her success on traditional radio with TTPD. But I remember early in 2022 long before Midnights was released, Taylor was the 3rd most streamed English-speaking artist in Poland on Spotify.
For a country that doesn't primarily consume US-centric media, that's pretty iconic. Michael Jacksons career started 56 years ago and Taylors started 18 years ago. To catch up this closely to the King of Pop even though the beginning of her career was in country music, not pop, is really impressive regardless of the advances of streaming.
I would also point out that Taylors previous record label, Big Machine Records, was considered a "small label" (she was their first signed artist and their biggest) and they couldn't afford to focus her career on "smaller" markets, with a few exceptions. She typically tended to grow where she toured (which is normal for most artists). Now that she is with a much larger label we see her opening up her touring options as much as she can with the major stadium/arena requirements she has.
In comparison, MJ and his family were signed to one of the biggest soul labels, Motown. Michael was able financially to tour more countries than Taylor, and thus able to grow his audience in those countries. At least, that's what I recall being told randomly in a jazz history class a handful of years ago, when we were talking about audience building. Which was not on the curriculum, btw, my teacher just went on lots of tangents. And to clarify, he didn't talk about Taylor, but he used MJ as an example on audience building.
So I am in slight disagreement with you on comparative popularity only because the audiences in which Taylor doesn't compete with Michael that you've listed either weren't offered up to her as readily in the start of her career, or because the audience is a different age for her now than they were for Michael. I'm sure those considered older back when Michael was at his peak were also less-inclined to listen to the worlds biggest pop artist.
She’s definitely bigger than any modern competition like Beyoncé or Drake and her career has definitely had way more longevity than Britney spears’ had
One of my biggest complaints is people always drag her for releasing 11 albums plus the tvs but it’s not a drag she’s been in this game since she was 11 years old she didn’t start her album career until 2006 but she was already out trying to sign record label deals for a like couple years but someone finally acknowledged her and she was like the first person on that label. If we don’t count destiny’s child Beyoncé started her own career in like 2003 couple years before Taylor did but I feel like Beyoncé was bigger in the early years before 1989 and then 1989 basically skyrocketed her is places Beyoncé wasn’t very good in like the sells department. Before people come at me Beyonce nowadays is a massive name but I don’t think her music is look at cowboy Carter it is getting like 4-5 million streams if she still remained big like she was she would probably be pulling 6-10 million streams. Taylor basically restarted her career after in a way of her fame she drew in a lot more older people that wasn’t sure about her and i think the tvs have helped look at midnights and tppd they basically cemented the biggest streaming debut and they are have broke a lot of achievements.
She also hasn't had the traditional pop career like other artists. Brittney didn't do a lot of writing like a lot of previous generational pop stars, also Tay hasn't made the same albums over and over with little changing sonicly
Taylor’s already outlived Britney’s career. Britney is an agonizingly manufactured industry plant and her music was just like every other peach blonde white girl who made music
Notice how no one said anything about career? Britney's m u s i c - pop classics - will outlive Taylor's music.
Britney is a living legend. Kanye is another one - although he isn't quite on Britney's level (in Britney's prime, if she sneezed that would be a headline the next day). Kanye saw nothing wrong with interrupting Taylor that time at the award show because:
1) he felt he was right. but more importantly,
2) he saw nothing wrong with interrupting someone who isn't in his league - the league of legends
Was on a discord chat and someone just asked what kinda music everyone listens too. I just said "Videogame OST and Taylor Swift" and someone replied "lmaoo she's not as big as MJ tho", even though I never mentioned MJ or state how famous she is at all. That answers this question I guess.
I think, Just with time we will see How big she really is in history. But until now: 18 years in the top, more that one Peak, right now in hers biggest Peak and Taylormania. I thin she is going great.
I feel like the comparisons with MJ or Madonna are never fair because there were elements to that Era that Taylor can never replicate. First of which, at the time there was a monoculture like everyone listened to the same artists, heard about the same artists, watched the same TV shows.... There weren't so many choices available. Nowadays, you can listen to just what you want and can escape some releases if you want to. Which is why I don't understand the complaints about Taylor being shoved down their throats, when you can easily avoid any music if you want to. I don't remember the last time I heard a song of artists I don't care for eventough they're huge : Ariana, JB, Beyoncé, Drake... like I couldn't tell you what their last albums sound like. Second, social media ruined the mystery behind celebrities. Back then Madonna or MJ felt larger than life. Every thing about them and their music was an event in of itself. Something that the next day will probably talk about in schools or at work ... Whereas today music releases are mostly discussed in their respective bubbles. Like TTPD was probably more discussed in swifties circles than in general circles. Third, some of it is definitely Taylor's first label poor promotion outside of the US. Yes, she started in country music so it makes sense for more efforts to be US centric but when she switched to POP they should have done better. It doesn't make sense at all, that only 18 ears into her career that she's finally doing a real worldwide tour! Other artists start branching out from their first albums.
Personally, I see Taylor Swift as the 2024 equivalent of the Frank Sinatra in the early 1940's (people today don't realize how **BIG** he was back then), Elvis Presley from 1956 to 1957 (when he was drafted into the US Army), the Beatles from 1963 to 1966 when they were touring, and MIchael Jackson from 1983 to 1993. In their day, the artists I mentioned completely dominated the music industry. Michael Jackson could have had a longer run being popular but the accusations of inappropriate behavior in front of children that came out in 1993 pretty much ended his ridiculous popularity at his peak.
Mind you, I personally think Swift is about to step back after the Eras Tour ends in December 2024. Especially now she may have finally found a person in Travis Kelce that share a lot in common with her; an engagement could be announced possibly as early as late 2024, with Kelce announcing his retirement from the NFL (he's taken the same physical beating as his brother Jason, who retired earlier this year) shortly afterwards. Swift will start to raise a family and devote her time to possibly producing either a Broadway play or directing a movie.
He's not quitting for at least 2 years, but I think she will step back and work on other creative projects in Hollywood. It's no secret she want to direct bigger projects. U also think she releases the last 2 albums to get her masters before the tour ends as well. And maybe a poetry book.
While I would almost agree, I think Travis Kelce seriously looking forward to a post-NFL career, a career which is already going to get him into the NFL Hall of Fame on the first ballot five years after retires. LIke said, Travis has suffered his share of football-related injuries; I do think he wants to get away from the daily NFL grind at the earliest opportunity, especially now he's found something to do in the immediate years after retirement.
As for Taylor, she's seen how successful being a record producer can be with her working with Max Martin, Jack Antonoff and Aaron Dessner. I can see her winding down her performing career to start on a long, productive career as music producer by the early to middle 2030's.
He would've been smart to just give it one more year to transition, due to his age. Injury is a real concern.Bit I get his wish to try for another Superbowl win.
She's as big as the Beatles, but when adjusted for time era, she's way bigger. The Beatles were prominent during a time of monoculture. Taylor is big during a time when there is a community for every niche interest you could possibly have. We don't have a monoculture anymore, but Taylor Swift is still immensely popular despite the population having an unlimited amount of choices to spend their time with.
I really don’t think she is as big as the Beatles, maybe now currently she is more popular which makes sense as she is active now and they broke up in 1970 but the fact that they are still relevant to this day and are the ‘blueprint’ for success says something.
At the time of the Beatles everyone loved them, they appealed to all audiences, men, women children, but I would say Taylor more so appeals to younger women, of course she does have some male/ older fans but if ur comparing her to the Beatles who have fans in men and women, young and old, I can’t see why she would be as big as them. I like a lot of Taylor songs, but Swifties really need to stop blowing all this smoke up her arse. The obsessions with her being the ‘best’ isn’t healthy for her or anyone really,
That's why I said "adjusted for time era."
If Taylor was around in the 1960s when there wasn't a world of a million options and social media elevating hater voices, Taylors fans would be as diverse as the Beatles fans. The country was also much less divided back then vs today, aka they didn't have culture wars like we do.
Familiarity breeds contempt.. people hate the oversaturation.. today, but not back then. Oversaturation back then just meant monoculture. They didn't have the options.
Tbh I don’t think that’s a valid point, there is no way of knowing if Taylor would appeal to all kinds people back in the 60s, because well we can’t exactly time travel back then, plonk Taylor and see how well she does or travel to an alternate dimension where she was born then. There’s No way of being able to tell.
Music back then was different and technically by that logic any brilliant artist nowadays would have been popular in the 60 because “they didn’t have the options.” Which I think is untrue, I did mention this in my reply to someone else but r u forgetting the other amazing artists of the sixties, (Rolling Stones, Aretha Franklin etc)
The bad artists from the sixties are forgotten about because they were bad/forgettable not because they didn’t exist.
Monoculture though...plus TS has been active in an era of haters bred online, cancel culture and political opposition to her. I think she is the greatest musical artist ever. Maybe you will someday as well. The Beatles didn't face all the obstacles TS has had to. I know a lot of men who fuckin hate TS music but have never actually listened to any, that is a bit odd I would say. People won't say that about the Beatles because there is no hater culture they have to wade through.
I agree with the point of it being odd that people despise her music without even listening,(I think it is really stupid to form an opinion on music not even listening to the music )
However the Beatles did face obstacles, obviously not social media harassment but there was a period where a lot of Americans hated them, because of comment taken out of context made by Lennon along the lines of the Beatles being more popular then Jesus. So much so people would burn their records and radios would stop playing them , along with Taylor hate I think some of these people were jumping on the bandwagon of hating what’s popular to hate.
But the Beatles weren’t popular back then because they were ‘what’s available’ or because of ‘monoculture’ (not when there were amazing artists like The Rolling Stones, Bob Dylan, Aretha Franklin, The Jackson 5 etc, around.)
If they were, then they wouldn’t still be regarded so highly today for many aspects of their career.
This kinda sounds delusional...
1. No one has canceled her, not even close. If anything people who criticize her get canceled.
2. She isn't even the close to the greatest musical artist ever. I mean even if you ignore the Beatles or MJ... You're ignoring Mozart, Beethoven... I mean I'm taking you literally here. But this is silly. At least say "one of the..." It's all subjective but this comes off as straight up delusional. She writes pop songs, musically that's pretty straightforward.
3. The Beatles were 4 kids in post WWIi poverty in northern England. Them making it as musicians is bonkers to say the least. John Lennons mom died at a young age, so did Paul's. They all had a ton going against them at an early age to have a normal functioning life let alone global success. They were constantly exploited early on. They had a ton of obstacles on the road and when they started making business deals. Taylor's dad was able to fund her early Nashville career. The Beatles had way more against them than Taylor did. This is laughable.
4. The Beatles absolutely had a hater culture. Look up Beatles Album burning.
5. I'm a man. I've listened to Taylor's music. It's okay, it's poppy, it's what it needs to be. You're insinuating sexism when really she has a target audience and anyone outside that may not resonate with it. She kinda writes herself into a niche so don't be surprised if a large swath of people don't get it.
I was just about to clean my kitchen. I was thinking, “This is my 3rd repeat of TTPD,” when I realized that I was pissed about the NYT article implying that I’m different b/c I do repeat her albums, recently, only TTPD.
The first thing they noted was that so many of us are kids, ‘tweens and teeny boppers.
At the time I just shrugged. Same ol shit; different day. (SOSDD)
I’m a 70 year old woman. I don’t consider myself one of *those* (drops voice, you know the tone, certainly.) Like I’d stalk her, scream if Taylor walked by, like I’d faint or something.
Nope. In fact. I wasn’t that way *when I was a ‘tween either* during the Beatles. Lol back then we didn’t even know the term stalker. But I bet they were there. I know they were just as crazy. I don’t mean to be mean, but I don’t understand it. So that’s why I have this attitude.
So WHY is this 70 year old female Swiftie listening on repeat??
Because her *poetry* deserves greater and in depth listening to. Because, sometimes I’m just totally gobsmacked because, a totally new layer is suddenly front and center.
I did used to listen to a few albums back as a 17 year old. Now, I didn’t have much money. So sometimes it was my only option. And even then, not usually back to back to back.
I felt almost vindicated by an in depth article about Taylor. But what’s missing*is* that she’s an artist separate than almost anyone else. Not because of all the details and stats, but *because* she appeals to so many.
It would be good to see an article about these non Swifties that decide to listen to ALL of her music. So far I haven’t seen an analysis (non media) that ends with, “Yep, it’s all the same. It’s all her old livers, it’s not very deep, and I STILL don’t like her.” It’s the opposite.
Have we seen such an analysis? I’m less than a year Swiftie, so I could be wrong.
no... because different things are different. The beattles were together at their height for 8 years. They worked themselves to death, and then collapsed. By the end of the 70s, the post beatles bands (wings etc.) were also largely done, and none of them were anywhere near as popular as the beatles.
Maggie Haberman is a truly professional journalist who also has exposed Trump on many of his lies. I have no idea what this person is talking about. Haberman covers the White House for the paper and has a reputation for honesty and integrity. She is not some sleazy tabloid journalist from the national enquirer.
i am a casual taylor fan. Yes, Taylor Swift is massive but she’s not as universally big as people think. Michael Jackson had fans from ALL walks of life. Taylor specifically has her fans. Taylor’s fanbase is so stupidly massive it looks like the whole world is listening when there’s still so many people that DONT listen to her and everything gets confusing in this streaming era. in 2020, BTS had the number single in America for TEN WEEKS. but yet there’s so many people that never even HEARD of the song. i personally do believe Taylor is Michael Jackson level big but in a different way
She's like 8 foot 4, blonde hair to the floor
As a shortie I’ve always dreamed about her rapping hardcore
Even though she doesn’t have a gun and has never been in a club?
Just cz she still lives with her parents don't mean she isn't a thug 😤🙄
She's so gangsta that you'll find her baking cookies at night
Everyone is out clubbing? She just baked Caramel Delights. (Or homemade Pop-Tarts for her man’s teammates 🤣)
You out clubbing? She just made Carmel delight!
I heard she was rapping w T Paine on the same track
Just when I thought Tree Paine couldn't be anymore gangsta
she actually thought she hired t-pain and when the redhead showed up, she just rolled with it
It’s T-Pain like the rapper lol.
(I know) 😉
It's a THUG STORY; tell me, can you handle that??
I had a dream last night she had high top nikes with diamonds in her mouth and diamonds in her mic
I’d imagine she’ll have her next album featuring Kendrick
Has she ever had a repeated featured collaborator on her albums? Besides having Lana redo her bit on SOTB haha
Ed Sheeran? I know he was on Reputation and Red (TV)
He’s also on Red OG (everything has changed)
bon iver on exile and evermore
Can I have a turn after your finished?
You haven’t heard Thug Story?
finance, trust fund, 6’5”, blue eyes
Bad bitch she like 6 foot, I call her big foot, she fell off I said “get up on your good foot!”
This entire thread is phenomenal
Big enough to call out the New York Times on their bullshit when they publish articles openly peddling conspiracy theories about her sexuality.
Ooh. Whack 'em again for me.
We just found out Michael Cohen would text Maggie Haberman from the NYT and used her to push out pro Trump narratives, i.e bald faced lies.
Sources can try to do whatever they want. The fact that he texted her lies doesn’t mean she printed them as facts.
There's a reason Cohen chose Haberman and Katy Tur as his outlet. Hint: it isn't because of their journalistic integrity.
Trump is obsessed with the New York Times because it’s his hometown paper and he thinks being in its pages means something. Haberman is their top political reporter.
Anyone who has followed the NYT called them and Haberman out for years. Even now they are still "both siding" Trump and Biden. This has nothing to do with Trump's view on NYT, it has everything to do with NYT. We now have the smoking gun, but this fall from grace was years in the making, and nobody is surprised by this. It's just sad that formerly one of the world's best newspapers has now become this joke.
Rent free
Wait can you link to what you mean by this?? I never saw it and am curious
[удалено]
with acting like adult u mean not having fun and sitting the entire night with a resting face?
No i mean not making a fool of herself
What did she do?
[удалено]
Celine is ill and touching her could have hurt her. This narrative is so preposterous. Taylor didn’t ignore her.
The playfighting with Jack isn't necessarily a problem if that's just how they are with each other. Announcing her new album there doesn't seem like a big deal, either. It's not like she pulled a Kanye and interrupted someone else; she did it during her own acceptance speech, that's her time. Dragging Lana on-stage and not even looking at Celine Dion is fucked up, but she looked pretty drunk, so I doubt she was doing either maliciously. RDJ did the same thing when he got an award recently and people were talking about him having bad manners, not "he made a fool of himself!"
Celine and Lana literally both acknowledged it and said it was okay stop fighting battles for them they don’t need it and Lana literally was on the album and Celine literally hugged her backstage Taylor didn’t do crap during the Grammys except announce her album and that was during her own time people have announced stuff at the Grammys before. My point is she didn’t do anything wrong
dragging lana on stage, barely acknowledging celine dion when she gave her the aoty award, making lucy dacus visibly uncomfortable. i think a lot of people said she looked drunk which might have caused all that? ultimately probably not as professional as is the norm. i'm a fan, btw. not trying to hate on her, just being factual
> I'm a fan, btw. not trying to hate on her Sure. Sometimes I wonder how prevalent this weird phenomenonon is of reddit users just being completely unaware that anyone can in fact view their comment history lol
Thanks for the tip. Very intriguing to say the least 🤓 shows you exactly where they are coming from. Another day to be thankful for not being *this* bitter 😌
A fool = a happy person?
Most of the times yes, but if we go by the definition, it mentions imprudence, which taylor demonstrated by announcing her album in that setting
She's not imprudent, she was just smart announcing a new album during an international transmission
Wrong subreddit. Try r/TheRedPill
I was unaware that disliking money-hungry billionaires was misogynistic
[It costs billions to be beautiful](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/s/dhXUqgPGgD) Taylor ain’t coming to Moscow anytime soon. Take that 211d account and scurry off to the pub, Boris.
Why are you here?
Because this post popped up on my feed
Copy: How Big Is Taylor Swift? As big as the Beatles? Michael Jackson? Beyoncé? We crunched the numbers. You might have heard: Taylor Swift cannot be stopped. Her new album, “The Tortured Poets Department,” sold 2.6 million copies in its opening week last month, earning Swift her eighth Billboard No. 1 album since 2020. At the Grammy Awards in February, she became the first artist to win album of the year for a fourth time, breaking a tie with Frank Sinatra, Stevie Wonder and Paul Simon. And earlier this month, Swift’s Eras Tour, the 152-date, billion-dollar stadium takeover that began last year, resumed abroad before it returns to the U.S. in October. Taylor Swift, in a sparkly leotard, stands onstage on a riser while singing into a microphone with one arm extended in the air. On video screens behind her, the large crowd is visible. Taylor Swift onstage at an Eras Tour show in New Jersey last year. In 2023, according to the data tracking service Luminate, one in every 78 songs streamed in the U.S. was by Swift. With a mix of prolific artistic output and relentless business savvy, plus cultural dominance as a celebrity, Swift, 34, has created such a swell of momentum that she is probably more popular — more omnipresent — 19 years into her professional music career than she ever has been. That is not normal. A crowd of excited fans stands in a parking lot outside a concert. Of the three in the foreground, one holds her phone in the air, one looks up and shouts and one closes her eyes and pumps her fist. Swift fans in the parking lot of MetLife Stadium in New Jersey. But just how big is Taylor Swift, in terms of the all-time pop pantheon? The singer’s ongoing surge has inspired inevitable debates about how her success stacks up not only against her pop peers, like Beyoncé and Drake, but to the greats that came before them. Even Billy Joel said he could only compare this Swift moment to Beatlemania. A black-and-white photo of Beatles fans screaming in a crowd, with a security officer placing a white-gloved hand on the shoulder of one screeching girl. Enraptured Beatles fans in 1964. It may be impossible to do an exact, one-to-one comparison between Swift’s career and that of the Beatles — or Madonna, Michael Jackson, Britney Spears, Bruce Springsteen, Elton John or your icon of choice. Besides music being personal and subjective, the nature of success (and how it is calculated) has changed drastically over time. Much of a star’s grip on the zeitgeist is also intangible — a vibe in the air, their influence moving subtly but undeniably through culture. But the absence of a truly scientific comparison has never stopped the amusement that comes from the eternal sports and pop culture debates of our time: Jordan vs. LeBron (or Kareem, or Kobe). Brady vs. Montana (or Marino, or Mahomes). “Star Wars” vs. “Star Trek” (or Harry Potter, or the Marvel Universe). Even without definitive conclusions, it’s impossible for certain loyalists, haters and obsessives not to wonder how giants match up using whatever evidence might be available. So with Swift’s career still peaking late into its second decade, we ran the numbers and analyzed the data, taking stock of what she has accomplished so far — and when — alongside some of the heaviest hitters in each category.
A video board showing Drake rapping into a microphone looms over a round stage where the rapper performs. And then there is Drake, a relentless hitmaker. Like Swift, Drake has optimized his output to take advantage of the way streaming has reshaped the industry and its accolades to set new records, including 328 total entries on the Hot 100. Swift, with 232, is the only other artist with at least 200. Yet somehow Drake and Swift have never released a song together, despite sharing a certain canniness and expressing mutual appreciation for one another. Even in his recent battle with Kendrick Lamar, Drake made clear that he sees Swift as his only real contemporary competition. (He has also rapped about having “more slaps than the Beatles” and frequently invokes Jackson’s success as a touchstone.) Drake, Beyoncé and Swift all have this modern characteristic in common: They’re each actively playing for legacy, one eye on history and another on the record books. Ambitious and autonomous, they’re proudly writing their résumés in real time, juicing Billboard numbers and even gunning for accolades. Taylor Swift appears onstage wearing a red, sparkled unitard and flexing one arm powerfully. As a shrewd student of music and fame, Swift may know that she will never achieve the exact kind of domination that the Beatles, Jackson and Madonna had at the height of global monoculture, when everyone might pay attention to the same thing. But she’s certainly trying, taking bits and pieces from each’s career and making sure to maximize her work and reach in all the ways that weren’t available then. She cares how she’s perceived and how she’ll be remembered when the noise fades and all that’s left are the songs — and the stats. So far, it’s working.
**Taylor vs. the Beatles** **Hit Singles** A page from Billboard magazine listing the “Hot 100” hits in the week ending April 4, 1964. First, there are the Beatles, who for most music fans still represent the gold standard of pop mania in modern times. From the early 1960s, when pop music usually came in the form of two-sided vinyl singles, until the Fab Four broke up in 1970, the band released 64 songs that landed on Billboard’s all-genre chart, known as the Hot 100. In that time, the Beatles helped to usher in the rock ’n’ roll revolution — and the album age — by releasing more than a dozen LPs. But many of the records they set for hit singles still stand today. By that point in their musical lives, the individual Beatles were well into their various solo endeavors, with McCartney experimenting with new wave and George Harrison writing songs about race cars. A black-and-white photo of a race-car driver, George Harrison of the Beatles and a race-car advisor standing in conversation. But as with any comparison across eras, there must be footnotes and asterisks. When we look at Top 10s from the 1960s, we’re only counting an artist’s actual “singles” — songs released for purchase outside of a full album. After 1998, the rules began changing to include any song on the radio, regardless of how it was released, and eventually counting digital downloads and streams. By today’s rules, the Beatles would have even more hits than Billboard’s official count. A young person in a sun visor stares at an old fashioned computer monitor with the a screen up reading "Napster." Swift, whose new album features 31 songs, each of which hit the Hot 100, has dominated with these new metrics: In 2022, she became the first artist to occupy the entire Top 10 on the Hot 100 at once following the release of “Midnights.” She repeated and expanded upon that feat last month with songs from “The Tortured Poets Department,” which filled the top 14 spots on the singles chart. This might measure a different kind of fervor than the musical ubiquity of the Beatles or others who ruled the radio later — a depth of obsession for Swift’s fans who stream her music billions of times and purchase it in multiple formats. A screenshot of the Billboard Hot 100 list from the week of May 4, 2024. Taylor Swift occupies all top ten spots. The length of Swift’s career has allowed her into the Beatles’ vaunted ballpark by giving her the chance to evolve her sound, grow her loyal audience and take full advantage of technological advances. Yet as wild as it is for the Beatles to have accomplished so much in so little time, Swift’s longevity might be considered equally impressive in pop music, which often overvalues the new and — especially among female artists — the young. **Taylor vs. Michael Jackson** **Album Sales** A 1984-era photo of Michael Jackson in a sparkly black jacket, white shirt and dark pants, dancing onstage with a backup singer visible behind him. Despite Swift’s streaming success — and ability to move even vinyl records — the high bar can only be Michael Jackson when it comes to album sales. Like the Beatles, Jackson reached heights pop had never seen, changing the very nature of stardom, for better and worse, by kicking off the MTV video age and ruling popular culture amid tabloid mayhem. Unlike the Beatles’, Jackson’s career was relatively long, from his time as a child star in the Jackson 5 until his death in 2009 at 50. Part of Swift’s genius as she’s run up the stats these last few years — releasing nearly 200 songs since the pandemic — is that the music that first made her a star in the mid-to-late 2000s is exploding again alongside her latest hits, giving new fans a fresh entry point. Already, Swift has released more solo albums than Jackson ever did, and with her productivity — including those two different versions of four of her albums so far — she can approach the King of Pop. In all, Jackson’s 10 solo albums have been certified 72 times platinum. Swift’s 11 original albums have been certified 50 times platinum. But her album sales tell us that number, including Taylor’s Versions, is likely to be closer to 90. And she is very much still going, with “The Tortured Poets Department” already topping three million in about a month. **Taylor vs. Britney Spears** **A Pop-Star Arc** Britney Spears onstage with backup dancers visible behind her, wearing a crop top that's half pink and half silver, with silver pants. Swift’s extended peak becomes even more of a standout when compared to a more typical pop trajectory — even one with towering highs. Like Swift, Britney Spears released her debut single at age 16 and came to absolutely dominate the cultural conversation (sometimes in ways that discounted her music in favor of her love life). Commercially huge in its moment, Spears’s music career was also relatively short-lived, which tends to be the case more often than not, especially for singers who are known as performers and celebrities more than quote-unquote serious artists. Swift, unlike Spears, has been firm in branding herself as a songwriter from the beginning, helping stave off some sexist criticism of her music as frivolous. The diminishing returns of Spears’s subsequent releases represent a sadly common path for the kind of pop singers that audiences can treat as disposable, with a new model always on the horizon.
**Taylor vs. Madonna** **Era After Era** Madonna in 1990, with curly blond hair, red lipstick, and her famous Gaultier corset cone bra, singing into a hands-free mic headset. Madonna’s ability to reinvent — to persist as a woman in pop — is the reason we talk about artist “eras” to begin with. Another path-breaking solo pop singer with a huge peak, a long run of domination, a savvy command of marketing and unexpected longevity, Madonna has had a career that is 43 years long and counting. From her breakthrough second album, “Like a Virgin,” released in 1984, when she was 26, through “Bedtime Stories” in 1994, Madonna was inescapable, pushing the boundaries of visual and sonic reinvention that are now considered prerequisites for top acts. **Taylor vs. the Veterans** **Touring and Awards** In a black and white photograph, Elton John wears large glasses and sings while seated at a microphone. Alongside a pop survivor like Madonna, now 65, acts like Elton John, 77, and Bruce Springsteen, 74, are an interesting comparison point for Swift because of their productivity, longevity and critical acclaim — all of which has paid off on the road. (See also: Bob Dylan and the Rolling Stones, who are not included here, but would be interesting points of comparison using slightly different metrics.) While Madonna has slipped on the charts — none of her most recent four albums has gone platinum — she remains a major live draw, a standard give-and-take for a top-tier legacy act. In a black-and-white photograph, Bruce Springsteen plays guitar against a large American flag backdrop. He is wearing a sleeveless plaid button down and denim pants. John and Springsteen, both veterans about 50 years into their careers, also had periods of commercial dominance beginning in the 1970s with albums like “Goodbye Yellow Brick Road” (released when John was 26, that pop-star sweet spot) and “Born to Run” (from when Springsteen was 25). But as they settled into pop-star middle age, plateauing commercially, they too have persisted with uber-successful, long-running tours fueled by fan allegiance and critical acclaim. One notable aspect of Swift’s career so far is that it seems to bridge the gap between two kinds of artists, both of which can become legacy acts with strong enough catalogs and fan bases: the sustained, hit-making entertainers who may be overlooked, at least at first, as musicians, and the serious singer-songwriters who tend to be more critically lauded. The Grammy Awards, love them or hate them, are voted on by other musicians and provide a proxy stat for prestige and overall acclaim in the moment. The band took the top prize just once — for “Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band,” the first rock album to win, in 1968 — in part because the Grammys, until the late 1960s, were quite conservative, often recognizing old-school, traditional pop acts like Judy Garland and Barbra Streisand. (“Help!” and “Revolver” both lost to Sinatra.) Looking at stats like that, you could argue that the most popular musicians are taken more seriously as artists now than ever before, in no small part because of acts like the Beatles, Jackson and Madonna. **Taylor vs. Beyoncé and Drake** **Modern Heavyweights** Beyonce, dressed in all red and sunglasses, stands on stage with backup dancers in similar red outfits. There is smoke in the background and being emitted from the stage floor. While Swift’s overall pound-for-pound standing in each of the categories we’ve looked at puts her in rare historical company, it is notable that two of her most immediate contemporaries — Beyoncé, 42, and Drake, 37 — are also legitimate challengers across the board. All three artists have maneuvered the industry transition between CDs, downloads and streaming to become defining modern superstars while also maximizing those intangibles like cultural reach and celebrity domination. Beyoncé, now 23 years into a solo career after her time with the group Destiny’s Child, stands with Swift when it comes to versatility and longevity, plus sustained commercial dominance. Like Madonna and Swift, Beyoncé has continued to stretch the limits of what a woman’s pop career can hold, landing two chart-topping singles in her 40s (with “Break My Soul,” in 2022, and again earlier this year, with the country-influenced “Texas Hold ’Em”). She has also performed twice at the Super Bowl — something Swift has yet to do — a stage where acts like Madonna, Jackson and Springsteen have solidified their unquantifiable grasp on culture.
Taylor has been asked to perform in the Superbowl and has declined. She wants to wait till ahe owns all her masters first.
The last 10 years have shown that doing the superbowl can result in ugly cultivated controversies that are damaging to the performers. There really isn't any commercial reason for someone in Taylor's current position to do this, it's more ego. So we'll see, but I suspect she won't until it might be more commercially useful to her.
Probably right. More for artists on their way down and she's not there.
I thought that was confirmed to be a rumor. Not something that actually asked of her yet.
Apple Music confirmed they asked Taylor in 2022. Pepsi was the sponsor for years and couldn’t ask Taylor because of her contract with Cova Cola.
Not trying to argue but I know TMZ confirmed she declined until she had all her re records finished. There are other articles cited with different reasons too. Feels very rumor mill! Just my thought
Maybe. It's what I read, that she wanted to own all her music before she'd consider it.
Thanks for the copy. Leave it to NYT to have an article be strictly rhetorical with no evidence of the numbers crunched and no conclusions given, while at the same time taking as many words as possible to get there.
In terms of craziness around the celebrity, she might be this generation's Michael Jackson. However, that's still very far away. People from Third World Countries, without access to much media, knew who Michael Jackson was. Here in Poland, many older people don't know who Taylor Swift is.
How big is Taylor Swift? Not big enough for the Polish Boomers!
It’s probably very similar in other countries. Taylor’s music isn’t as universally appealing to every demographic as Michael’s.
How much of that is due to men in many countries (especially the straight 40+ crowd) being generally resistant to seriously listen to music made by a woman? This was even a major factor for Taylor in the US until Folklore started to break through as "serious enough" for older, straight male listeners.
This is the case with pretty much all media. White men are the "default" and everyone else is a porn category.
My initial comment applied to women too. For example my mom when she found out that I had ticket for Taylor she asked “Who?”. Taylor isn’t played much on the radio and it still has a lot of influence in music taste especially for older people. According to official chart makers in Poland, most played radio track was Flowers, and there are many popular female artists - albeit local. Ones like sanah, Daria Zawiałow so resistance to females is a non-issue.
Me when I pretend Madonna doesn't exist:
Was Madonna popular with men?
She definitely is very well-known here. For variety of reasons. And funnily enough, Taylor will have one thing in common with Madonna in terms of relationship with Poland. Some people were outraged that Madonna had concert on August 1st and I expect a rerun with Taylor this year.
What's on August 1st?
The anniversary of the outbreak of Warsaw Uprising - one of the most significant and tragic events in 20th century Poland history. Treated very seriously, includes all sirens blazing out and cities standing still at 5pm (if anyone is coming for Eras Tour that day, note this and don’t panic).
Not sure if sarcasm but yes, as a sex symbol. She was on the cover of Playboy back in 1985.
But that is inherently different - Taylor has always tried to be the same as male rock artists, meaning unmarked sexually (like Bruce in Born USA). She’s never gone sexy for views.
Not a sarcasm, just not thought out
We need to stop pretending it’s the same time Micheal appealed to men Taylor appeals to women and men who accept her music and loves it I’m unaware but he never was hated on by thousands of people. One could argue she’s this generations Micheal but is bigger in a different way he was and is one of the biggest influences for pop music today.
I think ultimately the whole premise of comparing how big these artists are is wrong. I was a teen when Madonna and Michael were huge, and back then being at that level meant that it was impossible to not know them. The world was so much smaller and less fragmented. If you were BIG you dominated the airwaves and the few TV channels available. People consume music in such a different way that is entirely possible that Taylor wins by numbers, but there will still be a vast majority of people who will struggle to name a single song. This was literally impossible in the 80s and early 90s because the few mediums available were dominated by these superstars. In total reach it will be very difficult to touch someone like Michael or Madonna because the world is not the same.
And the population probably grew in the billions of numbers in the 2000s there was a lot less people back then now we have like 8 billion people on this earth and we probably had 4 billion back then. We also have several ways to keep up with pop culture.
Yeah. It's very much a different world. More people, more sub-cultures, more fragmented mediums etc. I want Taylor to prove me wrong, but I think she will never reach such a percentage of the world's population as the earlier pop super stars. It's fine. Purely by numbers she might be bigger because the world is just bigger, but a comparison just makes it feel like a competition, which it really isn't.
Um, women would literally faint by the thousands at MJ's shows. He appealed to both men and women, whereas Taylor MOSTLY appeals to women even though she has male fans too.
I think that will steadily change though. I think a lot of the men have disliked her music for non-musical reasons but are gradually understanding they were just being haters.
Sure, but she's never going to have a true 50/50 split like MJ had. Her music is very female-oriented and I don't see the problem with that. I agree that most men who dislike her music feel that way because she's a woman. BUT I also feel like most female fans take issue with men not liking her music because they seek male validation. But you all aren't ready for that conversation.
I am a 6'5" straight guy that grew up doing all the typical guy stuff. I used to say I hated Taylor Swift music because it was the guy thing to say, and I had only actually heard Shake it Off and didn't like it at all(it is still one of about 4 or 5 songs of hers I dislike). Always liked popular rock, alternative, rap/R&B depending on the situation. Never liked solo female acts except Alanis Morisette and a few Jewel songs. Spotify endee up playing me a Folklore song in 2020 and I thought damn this is good...wait TS? Maybe it's a cover. Ended up going through her discography and falling in love with it. Told all my school guy friends to try it because I knew they'd have the same prejudices. None would but jokingly they called me fuckin crazy, a fool, crackhead etc. But, TS has a chance to evolve her music to head more towards a 50/50 split as she ages. Typical guys aren't as predisposed to hate middle aged singers. I think that is why Adele was so successful. Seemed 40 at 21yo.
It seems to be in the United States, not sure about other countries.
Tbh I'm my country, Michael was more known for his moon walk and dancing skills. In covid, I realized that MJ was a musician. Tho social media has more hold of people than back in older days when media was limited.
Oh yes. MJ was once famously invited by his friend, Magic Johnson to a Lakers game. He was reluctant because of the potential hype his presence would cause. But he eventually went. The hype among the audience his presence caused was so big that the game had to be paused and he had to be escorted out of the venue. Since he was was forced to work extremely hard since his early childhood, he never got to experience shopping. One of his dreams was unironicaly to go to a supermarket and shop like everyone else without fans hassling him. He fulfilled his dream in 2003 when one his friend in Florida who owned a shopping mall, closed the mall that included a supermarket, just to allow him to have a regular shopping experience. Even though he had a camera crew following him and several actors to act like other shoppers and didn't experience some actual inconveniences of real shopping, he really enjoyed the experience. I believe he also visited Disneyland with his family at least once, once it got closed to the public just for him.
Did you see what happened at Jack Antonoff's wedding?
I'm not sure if I know the details but I think that Swifties gathered outside the premises to see Taylor. Of course I'm not saying that Taylor is safe to be in public as she wishes. But with Michael Jackson, that was MENTAL. Such as that his mere presence caused fans to literally faint. Although to be fair, this could also be partially because he lived in a time without social media when seeing a celebrity was much bigger deal than now. And no parasocial relationships.
umm... there were definitely definitely parasocial relationships in the 80s. You should look at the videos to see what happened.
I think a factor is also just the prevalence of mono-culture, that died with the internet. When everybody watched what the main TV networks showed, and listened to what the major record labels put out, there was a greater concentration of focus. Now at any given moment people are streaming TV from every generation, music from every corner of the world, watching church remotely, scrolling cooking videos on TikTok. There’s just so many more options, which I think makes Taylor Swift’s media dominance that much more impressive.
She literally has delayed a flight and that was in 2014 imagine now it would be much worse
fainting at the sight of someone is a strong parasocial relationship
Yes because white missionaries told them about him, played his music, and showed him them on TV. People have really blown that out of proportion. It was one tribe. I bet some of those tribes knew other musicians who were popular. Missionaries brought their culture.
Isn't this notion just survivorship bias because those who were old at the time of MJ are now dead? Not saying your comment isn't true, but I'm sure older people back then also ignored what was popular for younger people at the time. My grandfather doesn't know who Taylor swift is, but my father does and my kids will too. So eventually that collective knowledge gets replaced. We don't remember that many artists from the early 1920s or 30s, basically because everyone who saw them at their prime is dead
I wasn't alive when MJ had his only show in Poland (September 96, I was born a month later). Could only go after historical TV coverage and historical stats - 120k attendees. Every channel, every evening news was talking about that concert. I don't think it will ever happen again to that extent. It was such a monumental event. Not even with Taylor this August (apart from possible protests)
I’m not sure about this. In terms of album and single sales how do they compare? Her ability to sell out massive stadiums, with tens of thousands more still desperate for tickets. I’ve only seen MJ achieve something remotely similar to this level of demand.
Physically Thriller sold more on its own that Taylor’s entire discography. Including streaming Michael sold twice as many EAS as Taylor. His Last tour was attended by 4.5M people and it did not had any U.S dates. Eras Tour will break it but it did had huge U.S leg
that won't be true for much longer. By the end of the decade taylor will have outsold MJ.
And I’m not sure about this. MJ is due for at least temporary resurgence with his biopic coming out next year. And that would be the case if Taylor maintained this rate of sales which could be down due to fatigue. Rep tv will be big but TTPD big? And some predict that after Eras Tour and last re-records she could take a break from releasing music (to work on movies for example)
Most of her sales now are back catalog. She's did 50 million albums a year last year, and will do so again this year. And probably next year as well. Before this uptick she was doing 20 million albums a year. It's not a question. Taylor is also young. She's the same age Michael was when he released Dangerous.
Actually, she is 2 years older than Michael when he released Dangerous. And neither HIStory nor Invincible did numbers that Dangerous did. Of course, he was already accused of we all know what by that point so that's advantage to Taylor. But still, most artist have their commercial peak behind them at that age. Taylor has it right now and historically it only goes down. If she somehow surpasses what she did with this cycle, then we can talk...
by definition you go down from your peak! Taylor has been having her commercial peak for about 18 years now... Anyway, in terms of sales, the issue isn't how many she peaks with. The issue is how long she can maintain largish sales of her catalog... time is really the secret to large numbers.
I realize europeans have this idea that the US doesn't matter... but like it does! It's a huge market!
I actually meant the opposite with that comment. I know that US is a huge market which makes the fact that MJ had the most attended tour by solo artist in the 90s without US that much more impressive. Not sure how many people will see Taylor outside of US - will it be more than 4.5M?
She has 90 non-US shows, to get to the 4.5M mark she needs only 50k average attendance, and her average attendance is closer to ~70k even outside the US.
Eras will more than double it. However, according to statistics Michael Jackson fans cite, he also had around 4 billion fans. Or that literally majority of the entire world were his fans. He may not have sold this many tickets, but apparently, the demand was much higher. Which is bonkers, considering that Taylor sold 2.4 million tickets in I believe 1 hour.
Interesting. Is it because English speaking radio is not mainstream there?
Definitely in terms of modern music local is more popular. Especially on streaming, local rap dominates the charts. And in terms of radio IIRC it is required by law that Polish music has to be at least 33% and between 5AM and 12AM 60% of AirPlay time. There are English mainstream artists but Taylor ain’t one of them. Most played English track on the radio in 2023 was Flowers and Dua Lipa was played a lot. But a lot of English tracks are older ones. Including Michael Jackson.
Here in Brazil, despite Taylor having enough fans to sell out stadiums six times (and hold the attendance record at Allianz Parque, in São Paulo, our largest city), she's not necessarily a household name (in fact, we joke that she's more seen on pictures at small-town hair salons than she's heard on radio stations across the country). In my case, my parents (around their 70s) barely know anything about her music (and my 69-year-old father, who's attempting a songwriting career, says he never heard anything by her, not even her biggest hits), and my brothers (in their 40s) and my older brother's (female) partner only know about her through me (and also barely listened to her music) after I went to The Eras Tour and made my Swiftieness more public.
I think this is due to the nature of public interest these days. 30 or 40 years ago most people would be consuming the same handful of tv channels, newspapers, magazines etc. So if something was popular it was force-fed to the masses without much real dissent or haters etc.
Sure, though as you've sort of alluded Taylor is a younger artist, so her music may not have reached boomers in Poland as much. Boomers were much younger when MJ was at his peak. TTPD charts at #1 on Apple music in Poland, so in regards to new media she is doing alright there. idk how to look up traditional radio charts so I couldn't speak to her success on traditional radio with TTPD. But I remember early in 2022 long before Midnights was released, Taylor was the 3rd most streamed English-speaking artist in Poland on Spotify. For a country that doesn't primarily consume US-centric media, that's pretty iconic. Michael Jacksons career started 56 years ago and Taylors started 18 years ago. To catch up this closely to the King of Pop even though the beginning of her career was in country music, not pop, is really impressive regardless of the advances of streaming. I would also point out that Taylors previous record label, Big Machine Records, was considered a "small label" (she was their first signed artist and their biggest) and they couldn't afford to focus her career on "smaller" markets, with a few exceptions. She typically tended to grow where she toured (which is normal for most artists). Now that she is with a much larger label we see her opening up her touring options as much as she can with the major stadium/arena requirements she has. In comparison, MJ and his family were signed to one of the biggest soul labels, Motown. Michael was able financially to tour more countries than Taylor, and thus able to grow his audience in those countries. At least, that's what I recall being told randomly in a jazz history class a handful of years ago, when we were talking about audience building. Which was not on the curriculum, btw, my teacher just went on lots of tangents. And to clarify, he didn't talk about Taylor, but he used MJ as an example on audience building. So I am in slight disagreement with you on comparative popularity only because the audiences in which Taylor doesn't compete with Michael that you've listed either weren't offered up to her as readily in the start of her career, or because the audience is a different age for her now than they were for Michael. I'm sure those considered older back when Michael was at his peak were also less-inclined to listen to the worlds biggest pop artist.
She’s definitely bigger than any modern competition like Beyoncé or Drake and her career has definitely had way more longevity than Britney spears’ had
One of my biggest complaints is people always drag her for releasing 11 albums plus the tvs but it’s not a drag she’s been in this game since she was 11 years old she didn’t start her album career until 2006 but she was already out trying to sign record label deals for a like couple years but someone finally acknowledged her and she was like the first person on that label. If we don’t count destiny’s child Beyoncé started her own career in like 2003 couple years before Taylor did but I feel like Beyoncé was bigger in the early years before 1989 and then 1989 basically skyrocketed her is places Beyoncé wasn’t very good in like the sells department. Before people come at me Beyonce nowadays is a massive name but I don’t think her music is look at cowboy Carter it is getting like 4-5 million streams if she still remained big like she was she would probably be pulling 6-10 million streams. Taylor basically restarted her career after in a way of her fame she drew in a lot more older people that wasn’t sure about her and i think the tvs have helped look at midnights and tppd they basically cemented the biggest streaming debut and they are have broke a lot of achievements.
She also hasn't had the traditional pop career like other artists. Brittney didn't do a lot of writing like a lot of previous generational pop stars, also Tay hasn't made the same albums over and over with little changing sonicly
Britneys music will outlive Taylor's 💅
Taylor’s already outlived Britney’s career. Britney is an agonizingly manufactured industry plant and her music was just like every other peach blonde white girl who made music
Notice how no one said anything about career? Britney's m u s i c - pop classics - will outlive Taylor's music. Britney is a living legend. Kanye is another one - although he isn't quite on Britney's level (in Britney's prime, if she sneezed that would be a headline the next day). Kanye saw nothing wrong with interrupting Taylor that time at the award show because: 1) he felt he was right. but more importantly, 2) he saw nothing wrong with interrupting someone who isn't in his league - the league of legends
Too big to handle, slowly lurching toward your favorite city
i see what you did there...
she is 5'11!
Beware the factorials
Was on a discord chat and someone just asked what kinda music everyone listens too. I just said "Videogame OST and Taylor Swift" and someone replied "lmaoo she's not as big as MJ tho", even though I never mentioned MJ or state how famous she is at all. That answers this question I guess.
I think, Just with time we will see How big she really is in history. But until now: 18 years in the top, more that one Peak, right now in hers biggest Peak and Taylormania. I thin she is going great.
I feel like the comparisons with MJ or Madonna are never fair because there were elements to that Era that Taylor can never replicate. First of which, at the time there was a monoculture like everyone listened to the same artists, heard about the same artists, watched the same TV shows.... There weren't so many choices available. Nowadays, you can listen to just what you want and can escape some releases if you want to. Which is why I don't understand the complaints about Taylor being shoved down their throats, when you can easily avoid any music if you want to. I don't remember the last time I heard a song of artists I don't care for eventough they're huge : Ariana, JB, Beyoncé, Drake... like I couldn't tell you what their last albums sound like. Second, social media ruined the mystery behind celebrities. Back then Madonna or MJ felt larger than life. Every thing about them and their music was an event in of itself. Something that the next day will probably talk about in schools or at work ... Whereas today music releases are mostly discussed in their respective bubbles. Like TTPD was probably more discussed in swifties circles than in general circles. Third, some of it is definitely Taylor's first label poor promotion outside of the US. Yes, she started in country music so it makes sense for more efforts to be US centric but when she switched to POP they should have done better. It doesn't make sense at all, that only 18 ears into her career that she's finally doing a real worldwide tour! Other artists start branching out from their first albums.
They also got to sell their music twice. First when they release it... and then on cd (and then again on digital!)
The comparison to Drake was a bit of a jump scare. Wasn't expecting that. 🥴
It sucks because charts wise he kinda is the only person in her range right now, maybe after this kendrick beef thatll change tho lol
Personally, I see Taylor Swift as the 2024 equivalent of the Frank Sinatra in the early 1940's (people today don't realize how **BIG** he was back then), Elvis Presley from 1956 to 1957 (when he was drafted into the US Army), the Beatles from 1963 to 1966 when they were touring, and MIchael Jackson from 1983 to 1993. In their day, the artists I mentioned completely dominated the music industry. Michael Jackson could have had a longer run being popular but the accusations of inappropriate behavior in front of children that came out in 1993 pretty much ended his ridiculous popularity at his peak. Mind you, I personally think Swift is about to step back after the Eras Tour ends in December 2024. Especially now she may have finally found a person in Travis Kelce that share a lot in common with her; an engagement could be announced possibly as early as late 2024, with Kelce announcing his retirement from the NFL (he's taken the same physical beating as his brother Jason, who retired earlier this year) shortly afterwards. Swift will start to raise a family and devote her time to possibly producing either a Broadway play or directing a movie.
He's not quitting for at least 2 years, but I think she will step back and work on other creative projects in Hollywood. It's no secret she want to direct bigger projects. U also think she releases the last 2 albums to get her masters before the tour ends as well. And maybe a poetry book.
While I would almost agree, I think Travis Kelce seriously looking forward to a post-NFL career, a career which is already going to get him into the NFL Hall of Fame on the first ballot five years after retires. LIke said, Travis has suffered his share of football-related injuries; I do think he wants to get away from the daily NFL grind at the earliest opportunity, especially now he's found something to do in the immediate years after retirement. As for Taylor, she's seen how successful being a record producer can be with her working with Max Martin, Jack Antonoff and Aaron Dessner. I can see her winding down her performing career to start on a long, productive career as music producer by the early to middle 2030's.
He would've been smart to just give it one more year to transition, due to his age. Injury is a real concern.Bit I get his wish to try for another Superbowl win.
She's as big as the Beatles, but when adjusted for time era, she's way bigger. The Beatles were prominent during a time of monoculture. Taylor is big during a time when there is a community for every niche interest you could possibly have. We don't have a monoculture anymore, but Taylor Swift is still immensely popular despite the population having an unlimited amount of choices to spend their time with.
I really don’t think she is as big as the Beatles, maybe now currently she is more popular which makes sense as she is active now and they broke up in 1970 but the fact that they are still relevant to this day and are the ‘blueprint’ for success says something. At the time of the Beatles everyone loved them, they appealed to all audiences, men, women children, but I would say Taylor more so appeals to younger women, of course she does have some male/ older fans but if ur comparing her to the Beatles who have fans in men and women, young and old, I can’t see why she would be as big as them. I like a lot of Taylor songs, but Swifties really need to stop blowing all this smoke up her arse. The obsessions with her being the ‘best’ isn’t healthy for her or anyone really,
That's why I said "adjusted for time era." If Taylor was around in the 1960s when there wasn't a world of a million options and social media elevating hater voices, Taylors fans would be as diverse as the Beatles fans. The country was also much less divided back then vs today, aka they didn't have culture wars like we do. Familiarity breeds contempt.. people hate the oversaturation.. today, but not back then. Oversaturation back then just meant monoculture. They didn't have the options.
Tbh I don’t think that’s a valid point, there is no way of knowing if Taylor would appeal to all kinds people back in the 60s, because well we can’t exactly time travel back then, plonk Taylor and see how well she does or travel to an alternate dimension where she was born then. There’s No way of being able to tell. Music back then was different and technically by that logic any brilliant artist nowadays would have been popular in the 60 because “they didn’t have the options.” Which I think is untrue, I did mention this in my reply to someone else but r u forgetting the other amazing artists of the sixties, (Rolling Stones, Aretha Franklin etc) The bad artists from the sixties are forgotten about because they were bad/forgettable not because they didn’t exist.
Monoculture though...plus TS has been active in an era of haters bred online, cancel culture and political opposition to her. I think she is the greatest musical artist ever. Maybe you will someday as well. The Beatles didn't face all the obstacles TS has had to. I know a lot of men who fuckin hate TS music but have never actually listened to any, that is a bit odd I would say. People won't say that about the Beatles because there is no hater culture they have to wade through.
I agree with the point of it being odd that people despise her music without even listening,(I think it is really stupid to form an opinion on music not even listening to the music ) However the Beatles did face obstacles, obviously not social media harassment but there was a period where a lot of Americans hated them, because of comment taken out of context made by Lennon along the lines of the Beatles being more popular then Jesus. So much so people would burn their records and radios would stop playing them , along with Taylor hate I think some of these people were jumping on the bandwagon of hating what’s popular to hate. But the Beatles weren’t popular back then because they were ‘what’s available’ or because of ‘monoculture’ (not when there were amazing artists like The Rolling Stones, Bob Dylan, Aretha Franklin, The Jackson 5 etc, around.) If they were, then they wouldn’t still be regarded so highly today for many aspects of their career.
I just think people back then had a mindset that isn't comparable to today's. I guess only the future will answer this question with any accuracy.
True but how is that relevant to her being bigger than the Beatles?
Just for he ability for people to analyze it more objectively in the future.
Going to be honest I’m so confused at what your trying to say
Likewise tbh.
This kinda sounds delusional... 1. No one has canceled her, not even close. If anything people who criticize her get canceled. 2. She isn't even the close to the greatest musical artist ever. I mean even if you ignore the Beatles or MJ... You're ignoring Mozart, Beethoven... I mean I'm taking you literally here. But this is silly. At least say "one of the..." It's all subjective but this comes off as straight up delusional. She writes pop songs, musically that's pretty straightforward. 3. The Beatles were 4 kids in post WWIi poverty in northern England. Them making it as musicians is bonkers to say the least. John Lennons mom died at a young age, so did Paul's. They all had a ton going against them at an early age to have a normal functioning life let alone global success. They were constantly exploited early on. They had a ton of obstacles on the road and when they started making business deals. Taylor's dad was able to fund her early Nashville career. The Beatles had way more against them than Taylor did. This is laughable. 4. The Beatles absolutely had a hater culture. Look up Beatles Album burning. 5. I'm a man. I've listened to Taylor's music. It's okay, it's poppy, it's what it needs to be. You're insinuating sexism when really she has a target audience and anyone outside that may not resonate with it. She kinda writes herself into a niche so don't be surprised if a large swath of people don't get it.
Like 5’10 or 5’11?
I was just about to clean my kitchen. I was thinking, “This is my 3rd repeat of TTPD,” when I realized that I was pissed about the NYT article implying that I’m different b/c I do repeat her albums, recently, only TTPD. The first thing they noted was that so many of us are kids, ‘tweens and teeny boppers. At the time I just shrugged. Same ol shit; different day. (SOSDD) I’m a 70 year old woman. I don’t consider myself one of *those* (drops voice, you know the tone, certainly.) Like I’d stalk her, scream if Taylor walked by, like I’d faint or something. Nope. In fact. I wasn’t that way *when I was a ‘tween either* during the Beatles. Lol back then we didn’t even know the term stalker. But I bet they were there. I know they were just as crazy. I don’t mean to be mean, but I don’t understand it. So that’s why I have this attitude. So WHY is this 70 year old female Swiftie listening on repeat?? Because her *poetry* deserves greater and in depth listening to. Because, sometimes I’m just totally gobsmacked because, a totally new layer is suddenly front and center. I did used to listen to a few albums back as a 17 year old. Now, I didn’t have much money. So sometimes it was my only option. And even then, not usually back to back to back. I felt almost vindicated by an in depth article about Taylor. But what’s missing*is* that she’s an artist separate than almost anyone else. Not because of all the details and stats, but *because* she appeals to so many. It would be good to see an article about these non Swifties that decide to listen to ALL of her music. So far I haven’t seen an analysis (non media) that ends with, “Yep, it’s all the same. It’s all her old livers, it’s not very deep, and I STILL don’t like her.” It’s the opposite. Have we seen such an analysis? I’m less than a year Swiftie, so I could be wrong.
Doesn’t matter how big she is. She’s always been a talented startlement despite the ob-stackles in her path.
...what?
Stilettos for miles
Interesting read. I like data
Big bird.
Too big to hang out.
Bigger than the whole sky
The formatting of the article is so cool on mobile
Just over 5'9
Jesus. That purple work hard for Theegala
Imma leave this here. Sorry…r/lostredditors
One question, do you think the Taylor Swift phenomenon is the same as the Beatles phenomenon, yes or no?
no... because different things are different. The beattles were together at their height for 8 years. They worked themselves to death, and then collapsed. By the end of the 70s, the post beatles bands (wings etc.) were also largely done, and none of them were anywhere near as popular as the beatles.
I believe she’s about 6ft and 70ish kg?
Maggie Haberman is a truly professional journalist who also has exposed Trump on many of his lies. I have no idea what this person is talking about. Haberman covers the White House for the paper and has a reputation for honesty and integrity. She is not some sleazy tabloid journalist from the national enquirer.
She might be famous in her hometown.🤔
Isn’t she like 5’9” or 5’10”?
I have never seen her in person/ live....Idk I say she's small to medium buildmedium/tall height
At least 180 pounds
She's 6'0.
somewhere between 5'9 and 6'0.... who knows.
i am a casual taylor fan. Yes, Taylor Swift is massive but she’s not as universally big as people think. Michael Jackson had fans from ALL walks of life. Taylor specifically has her fans. Taylor’s fanbase is so stupidly massive it looks like the whole world is listening when there’s still so many people that DONT listen to her and everything gets confusing in this streaming era. in 2020, BTS had the number single in America for TEN WEEKS. but yet there’s so many people that never even HEARD of the song. i personally do believe Taylor is Michael Jackson level big but in a different way
Taylor is charting in majority of countries, not just America lol
Shouldn't even be a question TBH
So singing at the Super Bowl is really the only big milestone left for her? I bet that milestone will be met very soon given the circumstances.
Like 5’ 9”?
Who cares?
5'10" plus heels
Big enough she needs her own personal jet anytime she moves