Re: Swifties unite!
Posted: Tue Sep 08, 2015 12:18 pm
Random internet saying wrote:Music was better when ugly people were allowed to make it.
That is not dead which can eternal lie, and with strange aeons bring us some web forums whereupon we can gather
http://garbi.online/forum/
Random internet saying wrote:Music was better when ugly people were allowed to make it.
What century was that?Isgrimnur wrote:Random internet saying wrote:Music was better when ugly people were allowed to make it.
Yeah, but Jim Croce was around then too, and while he was a helluva picker and a vocalist, he was one ugly dude.Jeff V wrote:What century was that?Isgrimnur wrote:Random internet saying wrote:Music was better when ugly people were allowed to make it.
Pretty pop princesses go at least back to the 1960's.
Isgrimnur wrote:Random internet saying wrote:Music was better when ugly people were allowed to make it.
Janis Joplin wasn't what I'd call a pretty pop princess. But she had the talent. Video truly killed the radio star. Once MTV started showing music videos, the public lost the ability to imagine they all looked like models.MHS wrote:Yeah, but Jim Croce was around then too, and while he was a helluva picker and a vocalist, he was one ugly dude.Jeff V wrote:What century was that?Isgrimnur wrote:Random internet saying wrote:Music was better when ugly people were allowed to make it.
Pretty pop princesses go at least back to the 1960's.
I was thinking more along the lines of female singers. Aside from contrived boy bands, I didn't realize there was a coordinated marketing effort push pretty boys over all others. That concept isn't particularly new, however, my dad used to rail about what a no-talent hack Ricky Nelson was and insisted his career was artificially contrived to promote his good looks.MHS wrote:Yeah, but Jim Croce was around then too, and while he was a helluva picker and a vocalist, he was one ugly dude.Jeff V wrote:What century was that?Isgrimnur wrote:Random internet saying wrote:Music was better when ugly people were allowed to make it.
Pretty pop princesses go at least back to the 1960's.
She doesn't write 100% of her own stuff. She started out as one of the youngest paid songwriters ever in Nashville and wrote most of the songs on her debut. She co-wrote the rest. As her fame has increased she's done more co-writing.Skinypupy wrote:After the song, the songwriter talked about what an honor it was to write songs for Taylor Swift, and how Swift has such a talented "team of writers" behind her. This confused me, as I've always been under the impression that Swift was the main writer of all her stuff. Her comments made me wonder how accurate that statement actually is.
Ah, that makes more sense.YellowKing wrote:She doesn't write 100% of her own stuff. She started out as one of the youngest paid songwriters ever in Nashville and wrote most of the songs on her debut. She co-wrote the rest. As her fame has increased she's done more co-writing.Skinypupy wrote:After the song, the songwriter talked about what an honor it was to write songs for Taylor Swift, and how Swift has such a talented "team of writers" behind her. This confused me, as I've always been under the impression that Swift was the main writer of all her stuff. Her comments made me wonder how accurate that statement actually is.
Bastard. You made me buy RedExodor wrote:Actually her previous album, Red, was much more interesting lyrically. With 1989 she decided to go full-on pop star and simplified her lyrics. I can enjoy 1989 but I think Red is a superior album in most respects.RunningMn9 wrote:I get that she creates good pop songs, but lyrically, she's still very childish (at least with songs like this one and most of the other popular ones I've heard), and I find that grating. But as long as you don't listen to any of the words she's saying, yeah she's a very good pop star. At this point in her career though (if she's interested in longevity), she needs to start working on stuff other than pop songs about how much she's into dudes.![]()
It all started because Elise liked Taylor's music and I ceded control of the car stereo to her long ago. It took a few years to admit that I liked her music too.
Still, I die a little inside when Elise switches over to One Direction.
Once I hit 35 I've noticed my "give a damn what people think" metric decreasing year after year. Now, at 40, it's pretty much gone. My family loves me and that's all that matters. If anyone else loves me, I just consider it a bonus.coopasonic wrote:Whatever. I like what I like and for the most part I don't care what others think of it.
Wait another decade, and you'll settle for "not actively plotting to kill me."YellowKing wrote:Once I hit 35 I've noticed my "give a damn what people think" metric decreasing year after year. Now, at 40, it's pretty much gone. My family loves me and that's all that matters. If anyone else loves me, I just consider it a bonus.coopasonic wrote:Whatever. I like what I like and for the most part I don't care what others think of it.
Allie: "You are so obsessed with Taylor Swift. You stalker." Emily: "Correction.. I am a SWIFTIE, not a stalker.".El Guapo wrote:Incidentally, is "swifties" really a term?
Yet many of their winners are clearly in the "not beautiful people" category and often (to my dismay) some of the really cute singers are eliminated early on. There are some, but it's by no means blatant. Even among popular non-winners, you can't say looks are everything (case in point: Jennifer Hudson, who is on par with Aretha Franklin in looks).tgb wrote:I'll see your Jim Croce and raise you two Dylans.
And while MTV was a big factor in promoting style over substance, the final nail in the coffin was provided by American Idol and others of it's ilk.
Simon Cowell should rot in hell.
But think about the most important figures in rock/pop over the past 50 years. How many would even make it to the final round of American Idol auditions? McCartney and Elvis (maybe). Would any of the Stones? Dylan? The Ramones?Jeff V wrote:Yet many of their winners are clearly in the "not beautiful people" category and often (to my dismay) some of the really cute singers are eliminated early on. There are some, but it's by no means blatant. Even among popular non-winners, you can't say looks are everything (case in point: Jennifer Hudson, who is on par with Aretha Franklin in looks).tgb wrote:I'll see your Jim Croce and raise you two Dylans.
And while MTV was a big factor in promoting style over substance, the final nail in the coffin was provided by American Idol and others of it's ilk.
Simon Cowell should rot in hell.
Well, no, but you are giving American Idol way too much credit. They are responsible for an insignificant percentage of popular entertainers today. It was a pop culture phenomenon for what it was, but at no point did they ever claim this was the end-all, be-all of popular music. If anything, it blatantly discriminated against those with their own unique sound and style; since the show forced them to diversify.tgb wrote:But think about the most important figures in rock/pop over the past 50 years. How many would even make it to the final round of American Idol auditions? McCartney and Elvis (maybe). Would any of the Stones? Dylan? The Ramones?Jeff V wrote:Yet many of their winners are clearly in the "not beautiful people" category and often (to my dismay) some of the really cute singers are eliminated early on. There are some, but it's by no means blatant. Even among popular non-winners, you can't say looks are everything (case in point: Jennifer Hudson, who is on par with Aretha Franklin in looks).tgb wrote:I'll see your Jim Croce and raise you two Dylans.
And while MTV was a big factor in promoting style over substance, the final nail in the coffin was provided by American Idol and others of it's ilk.
Simon Cowell should rot in hell.
I think not.
I never know what to make of Urban Dictionary, though, since it seems to have a lot of junk entries.coopasonic wrote:Allie: "You are so obsessed with Taylor Swift. You stalker." Emily: "Correction.. I am a SWIFTIE, not a stalker.".El Guapo wrote:Incidentally, is "swifties" really a term?
A modern day Madonna w/o the controversy (yet?). Very, very impressive.Since the beginning of 2015, the singer has raked in around $317.8 million from her '1989' album, tour and multiple endorsement deals...
..."Right now, Taylor is untouchable, " said L.A.-based media analyst Mike Raia. "She is so far ahead of everyone else in the industry that she has become not only a powerhouse entertainer but also an important mover and shaker on the commercial side on the music business."
They actually break that down too.Something about the melody or his voice, or something, just makes it sound so displeasing to my ears.
Ok fine, I'll listen to that one too so I can hate it rationally rather than irrationally!YellowKing wrote:They actually break that down too.Something about the melody or his voice, or something, just makes it sound so displeasing to my ears.
He uses a very unconventional mix of major and minor chords, and some of the chord progressions go major when your ear expects them to go minor, etc. So a lot of that unease is actually intentional. It's supposed to represent his wavering faith - major/minor, good/evil, heaven/earth.
The plethora?El Guapo wrote:I'm trying to decide what to call my fanbase. Guapaneros? Guapistas?
Pyperkub wrote: Tue Jan 16, 2018 8:01 pm So... any fellow Swifties pick up reputation?
I got it for Christmas, and it's rather disappointing. It's far too clubby for me, and the girl who sang "Shake it off" apparently can't as a fistful of the songs are revenge/hate fantasies. Bitter Taylor goes clubbing, basically.
Ok late but HAHAHA. Perfect.LordMortis wrote: Mon Oct 19, 2015 2:36 pmThe plethora?El Guapo wrote:I'm trying to decide what to call my fanbase. Guapaneros? Guapistas?
YellowKing wrote: Wed Jan 17, 2018 12:25 am I'm currently debating whether to take my daughter to see T-Swift for her birthday (she's turning 9).
PROS:
- The concert is in Atlanta, which is somewhere I've wanted to take the family on vacation anyway. Could combine it with a weekend trip to the aquarium, etc.
- The concert is very close to her birthday.
- She's never been to an actual concert, so this would be a REALLY BIG DEAL for her.
CONS:
- The ticket prices are insane.
- Strike that. The ticket prices are FUCKING insane.
- Did I mention I didn't pay this much to see Paul McCartney, and he's a freaking BEATLE?
Still - to see baby girl's face if I pulled this off. Dad of the Year award in the bag.![]()
Will cost over $1000 to take my daughter and wife.
I took my daughter to see Taylor when she was about the same age. The show was in Seattle so it was costly - tickets were ~$150 each and we spent the night in a fairly expensive hotel. It was worth every penny to see the joy on her face not only during the show but whenever she talked about it later.YellowKing wrote: Wed Jan 17, 2018 12:25 am I'm currently debating whether to take my daughter to see T-Swift for her birthday (she's turning 9).
I was excited thinking it was Bryan Adams. But the best part is that it led me to a Metal cover of Shake It Off:Holman wrote: Tue Jan 16, 2018 8:36 pm I've never been a big Taylor Swift, fan, although I can appreciate her talent.
I kind of really love Ryan Adam's whole-album cover of TS's 1989, though. It's quirky and beautifully done.
For example: Adams' "Shake It Off."
Full playlist here.
I think I paid $16 to have Billy Joel come out into the crowd where I was sitting and sweat on me.LordMortis wrote: Wed Jan 17, 2018 10:35 amWill cost over $1000 to take my daughter and wife.![]()
$300+ per person for a night out to see teen star concert?
I'm old.
When I was a teen Pink Floyd got together and started touring again (without Roger Waters) and twice they set the market. The best seats in the house went from $20 to $25 and then again from $25 to $30.
I once paid $150 a seat to see Tom Petty from the third row. I paid $100 for first row lower bowl to see Roger Waters perform "The Wall" I figure that was my treat for a lifetime.