Indeed. In genre, her music can be best described as at the center of a three way venn diagram between levitating bedroom balladry, unkempt psychedelic grunge, and uptempo pop-rock, although perhaps more instrumental to her music's success than the production is the lyrics and themes. She sings with honesty, specificity, and humor, conveying the abstract pangs of angst and heartbreak as a vivid image of the rebellion and sadness of youth.
My condolences to you . . .
I would concede she doe have some level of talent. Then again, I could name 20 other Pop tarts with similar levels of talent. Have no idea what her appeal to some people comes across as. Yes, she's popular. But that don't mean the music is "good".
Music for 13 year old girls.
I bet you’re really fun at parties
No one saw this
"Good" music is inherently subjective and totally dependent on personal tastes. You might not like her, and that's perfectly fine. However, the best objective tools we have to rate if an artist/music is good are things like awards, streaming counts, record sales, and tour ticket demand all of which would show Taylor Swift puts out very very "good" music. It's not perfect, but it's the best measurment we have.
That's not remotely true.
So how would you objectively rate if music was good or not?
You can't
I was originally responding to the following post that included the following:
I gave my logic for an objective way to measure if music is good. Which I was then told was wrong, but given no reasoning as to why or an alternative way to measure it.
The retheme is clearly going to be The Swifties Rock 'n' Rollercoaster with Taylor doing an original medley of '60s cover songs. To keep it in-joke and meta, Taylor (in a wig) will be the lead singer of her fictitious band of the same name. Think Josie and the Pussy Cats.
Or Lawrenice welkRock 'n' RollerCoaster starring Motley Crue. You heard it here first.
