Taylor Swift is one of the most unlucky artist with

Discussion in 'Music Corner' started by FaithMonkey, Aug 14, 2019.

  1. You can do it , Taylor!
     
    thecdguy likes this.
  2. johnny 99

    johnny 99 Down On Main Street

    Location:
    Toronto
    The problem with saying that is that there is nothing now that is "weird". Everything's been done.
    Are you going to tell me that little Billie Eilish is weird? Not if you grew up with Frank Zappa & The Mothers and Captain Beefheart's music.
    Almost all new music is pretty bad but it's sure not weird.
     
  3. Eobard Thawne

    Eobard Thawne Forum Resident

    Location:
    Canada
    I'll help her feel better....
     
  4. ghoulsurgery

    ghoulsurgery House Ghost

    Location:
    New Jersey
    Billie Eilish strikes as weird for pop music. I’m pretty surprised that she’s so popular because her sound is (to me) left of center for pop music. Zappa and Beefheart weren’t making pop music, so I’m not sure why you’re comparing them. Outside the world of pop, there are a million different subgenres and movements happening right now that are taking all kinds of music in different directions. If you can’t find anything weird, you’re not looking hard enough.
     
  5. johnny 99

    johnny 99 Down On Main Street

    Location:
    Toronto
    I don't want "weird", I want "good". I only find that with artists over a certain age and as I'm about to hit 60, I'm fine with that.
    As far as Billie Eilish goes, read about her in the new Rolling Stone (she's on the cover) She is such a kid, the article will make you cringe if you're a certain age.
     
  6. petertakov

    petertakov Forum Resident

    Location:
    Sofia, Bulgaria
    Yeah, lime small pox.
     
  7. drbryant

    drbryant Forum Resident

    Location:
    Los Angeles, CA
    But Madonna has 12 #1 hits and released many more singles (admittedly over a much longer period of time). Mariah has 18, Rihanna has 14, Whitney Houston 11, Janet Jackson 10 and Katy Perry 9, and arguably, Swift has been as popular as most of them (maybe not Mariah and Rihanna).

    So, I agree she’s been a bit unlucky. She’s released 52 singles and has had five go to no. 1. Bruno Mars has released far fewer (27) singles and has seven no. 1 hits. But he’s never had one stall at #2. Paula Abdul had a very short period at the top, basically just two albums, from which she released 11 singles. But she was blazing hot, and six of those eleven singles hit no. 1 (all in a row). Think about that: if Taylor Swift can get one more no. 1 hit, she’ll be tied with Paula Abdul.
     
    Last edited: Aug 15, 2019
    FaithMonkey and MikeVielhaber like this.
  8. thecdguy

    thecdguy Forum Resident

    Location:
    Philadelphia, Pa.
    I wouldn't really say they all hit #1 in a row, as "(It's Just) The Way That You Love Me" peaked at #3 in between "Cold Hearted" and "Opposites Attract". I don't think the fact that it was a re-entry of her second chart single necessarily stops it from breaking the chain of her first 3 #1's. Whitney has 7 consecutive #1 chart singles, but even those weren't consecutive releases as "Thinking About You" was released as a single in between her first two #1's, but failed to chart on the Hot 100.

    If you want to get really technical, Diana Ross also has 18 #1's like Mariah. Even though 12 of them were credited to The Supremes, she still sang lead on all of them, so there's an argument to be made for her having 18 #1's.
     
  9. Devin S

    Devin S Just slightly ahead of my time

    Nothing weird about Billie's album. The only thing about it you could actually call weird is the almost total absence of high frequency sound on it. Literally no high end on any track. Couple this with her practically whispered vocals and you've got a rather unique sounding album.

    But the songs themselves are fairly straightforward modern pop affairs, albeit much better than anything else on the charts at the moment. Taylor's sound on the other hand is already rather dated.
     
    Man at C&A and lc1995 like this.
  10. lc1995

    lc1995 Forum Resident

    Location:
    New York
    Yeah I kinda think Taylor is stuck in 2015 or so
     
    Devin S likes this.
  11. Devin S

    Devin S Just slightly ahead of my time

    Exactly. She's already considered to be irrelevant by many younger listeners who have moved on to Billie's music. The scene is constantly moving forward. Taylor needs to move with it or risk being left behind.
     
    lc1995 likes this.
  12. lc1995

    lc1995 Forum Resident

    Location:
    New York
    Exactly, I would almost say she's old hat as of right now.

    It's not like she's too old, there are artists older than her who are still relevant among Zoomers.
     
    Devin S likes this.
  13. Devin S

    Devin S Just slightly ahead of my time

    She's not too old. It's her sound that's dated.
     
    lc1995 likes this.
  14. lc1995

    lc1995 Forum Resident

    Location:
    New York
    Do you think it's too bubblegum sounding for the current mood?
     
  15. Devin S

    Devin S Just slightly ahead of my time

    Absolutely. That happy clappy Disneyesque pop sound of songs like "ME!" is so played out. Kids are more sophisticated now and are into stuff like Billie's "xanny" and songs about suicide. They're on top of things in an immediate and streetwise way that Taylor is not connecting with.
     
    ghoulsurgery and lc1995 like this.
  16. lc1995

    lc1995 Forum Resident

    Location:
    New York
    That + blatantly hip hop or dancehall influenced pop I would say they're into
     
    Devin S likes this.
  17. EdwinM

    EdwinM Grumpy old man

    Location:
    Leusden
    How important . She's filthy rich and successful.

    Nobody cares about the charts, it's just you.
     
  18. EdwinM

    EdwinM Grumpy old man

    Location:
    Leusden
    In 50 years time Creedence is still a legend and Taylor will be a footnote in music history
     
  19. Vangro

    Vangro Forum Resident

    Location:
    London
    SHF Cliche Alert.
     
  20. EdwinM

    EdwinM Grumpy old man

    Location:
    Leusden
    We can put it on a tile and hang it on the wall.
     
  21. Vangro

    Vangro Forum Resident

    Location:
    London
    This is turning into a rerun of the Ed Sheeran thread ... but with better legs.
     
  22. EdwinM

    EdwinM Grumpy old man

    Location:
    Leusden
    The original post itself was aiming at that in the first place I guess.
     
    Man at C&A likes this.
  23. EdwinM

    EdwinM Grumpy old man

    Location:
    Leusden
  24. drbryant

    drbryant Forum Resident

    Location:
    Los Angeles, CA
    The charts have never worked that way. Otherwise, Michael Jackson would have 18 no. 1’s and Paul McCartney 29 ( and Ringo Starr would have 22, more than Rihanna). That said, I’m sure Diana would love to take credit for those singles - it would make her the biggest female artist of all time (tied with Mariah).
     
    Last edited: Aug 16, 2019
  25. thecdguy

    thecdguy Forum Resident

    Location:
    Philadelphia, Pa.
    Depends on how you look at it, I guess. There's a gray area to saying that this or that artist has X amount of #1 songs, because of the technicality of duets and featured artists. Rihanna is a perfect example of that, with over half of her #1's either being a featured artist or having a featured artist. In the case of the two Eminem #1's she appears on, she does little more than sing the chorus and gets credit for having a #1 song. So again, it depends on how you look at it. She has definitely sung on 14 #1 songs, but to say that she has 14 #1 songs as a solo artist is a stretch. It would be more accurate to say she has 14 #1 appearances, just like Diana has 18 and Paul has 29.
     
    Devin S likes this.

Share This Page