Taylor Swift is "the voice of this generation"

[longdistancewinner]

Y'all seem to have forgotten that she writes most of her songs. Very few other current artists do that. And so what if her voice isn't as great as, say, Stevie Nicks, but so what? Bob Dylan has gotten away with a crappy voice for years! Give it a rest folks.

Miley Cyrus has been known to write some of her songs, too. Should we give her a medal for it?

[pagemccartney95]

Miley has only recently been permitted by Disney(the king of teen idols) to write and perform her own songs. I never siad to give her or Taylor a medal for it. I said to give her some credit for it. Lots of people write songs. Not every one of them deserves an award.

[Wolfman]

But you've missed the point. At least give her credit for having the ability to write a song at all. And lots of people have written crappy songs(i.e., bubblegum music). I'm sorry for being preachy.

Just busting your chops. No bigs.

[longdistancewinner]

Miley has only recently been permitted by Disney(the king of teen idols) to write and perform her own songs. I never siad to give her or Taylor a medal for it. I said to give her some credit for it. Lots of people write songs. Not every one of them deserves an award.

Yes, but you implied that we'd somehow forgotten the crucial point of Taylor's song-writing skills when we'd disagreed with her supposed 'voice a this generation' malarky. As if song-writing skills are going to make us see her in a new light. If she can't sing, she can't sing. If she can't write, that's even worse.

You can write good songs and have a shit voice, but if you can't sing well, and you can't write well, you're not gonna be remembered for much of what you wanted to be.

[sailor86]

Did Yoko Ono write her own stuff?

[Gospel Zone]

Yes, but the whole reason of this post is that Swift is being touted as "the voice of this generation" while Percy was not. For all her Grammys, you would think the girl could sing well. Her live performances are not showing this at all. She's a fraud.

Compared to many of the big so called "singing legends", I think she sings just fine. As for the Grammys, the Grammys are not a litmus test for talent anyway. I would respect an artist more if they told the Grammys were to stick it when nominated.

Getting back to Taylor Swift, all she would need to do is be less pop and do some serious country or rock and she would be unstoppable. Maybe she's too good.

[Wolfman]

Compared to many of the big so called "singing legends", I think she sings just fine. As for the Grammys, the Grammys are not a litmus test for talent anyway. I would respect an artist more if they told the Grammys were to stick it when nominated.

Getting back to Taylor Swift, all she would need to do is be less pop and do some serious country or rock and she would be unstoppable. Maybe she's too good.

Do you smoke crack?

[longdistancewinner]

Compared to many of the big so called "singing legends", I think she sings just fine. As for the Grammys, the Grammys are not a litmus test for talent anyway. I would respect an artist more if they told the Grammys were to stick it when nominated.

Getting back to Taylor Swift, all she would need to do is be less pop and do some serious country or rock and she would be unstoppable. Maybe she's too good.

But isn't that why we're talking about her now? Because she didn't sing very well on a classic rock song?

The genre of music isn't what makes a singer sound shit, it's what they write and how they sing. If you can't do either of those well, no other genre's gonna change that.

[dazedcat]

http://www.comcast.net/articles/music/20100204/US.People.Taylor.Swift/

If she's the voice of this generation than I really feel sorry for the kids of America. I guess she fits though. This Twilight/ Miley Cyrus-loving generation seem to have no clue what true talent is all about. Whatever they show on TV is what they believe in. Very sad. Rant over now.

I think you just answered your own question. She probably is the voice of her generation, which says an awful lot about current culture, doesn't it.

[Jahfin]

I think you just answered your own question. She probably is the voice of her generation, which says an awful lot about current culture, doesn't it.

The popularity of teen artists such as Taylor Swift is nothing new so it doesn't speak to the state of "current culture" at all.

[Gospel Zone]

But isn't that why we're talking about her now? Because she didn't sing very well on a classic rock song?

That's right, it isn't and what classic rock song was that? I haven't heard the performance you are talking about, but judging by the comments on this site, I'm inclined to give her the benefit of the doubt. I think a lot of singers don't sing very well on "a classic rock song" but that doesn't stop people from soaking it up anyway and making it a so called classic, and I suspect some of those people are here on this site.

One thing that's interesting is the people here that don't like her, seem to have invested more time than I have on her. It's as if she's a threat to them, hence...maybe she's too good. Maybe they watch too many award shows. I don't watch award shows and Taylor Swift isn't exactly in my face every time I turn around.

I'm very cynical about new music and it's stars, but Taylor Swift impresses me as being multi-talented.

[dazedcat]

The popularity of teen artists such as Taylor Swift is nothing new so it doesn't speak to the state of "current culture" at all.

Sure it does. Tiffany or Brittney Spears or any other young girl singers were never called the "voice of their generation". They were teenie pop stars and everybody knew it. This young woman is now being elevated to such a status? I hear nothing in her voice or in her musical vision to warrant such a label like this. Modern culture is so vapid and bankrupt they'll throw as much **** against the wall as they can and hope some of it sticks.

Whatever then.

[longdistancewinner]

That's right, it isn't and what classic rock song was that? I haven't heard the performance you are talking about, but judging by the comments on this site, I'm inclined to give her the benefit of the doubt. I think a lot of singers don't sing very well on "a classic rock song" but that doesn't stop people from soaking it up anyway and making it a so called classic, and I suspect some of those people are here on this site.

One thing that's interesting is the people here that don't like her, seem to have invested more time than I have on her. It's as if she's a threat to them, hence...maybe she's too good. Maybe they watch too many award shows. I don't watch award shows and Taylor Swift isn't exactly in my face every time I turn around.

I'm very cynical about new music and it's stars, but Taylor Swift impresses me as being multi-talented.

So, we're not talking about Taylor's singing ability because she sang badly on 'Rhiannon' (how could you not know, what, with all the Stevie Nicks comparisons?) - a classic rock song? Because I'm pretty sure that the point of the thread was to argue against the claim that she is the voice of her generation, especially after she sang so badly at the Grammys. And since you originally said that 'all she would need to do is be less pop and do some serious country or rock and she would be unstoppable', I'm asking is it not the case that we're arguing about her singing on a classic rock song in the first place? It is.

Here's the song:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wgeTXNxBBzk&feature=related

As for my problem with Taylor, like I said, I don't have a problem with her. I just have a very big problem with her performing on one of my all time favourite songs, from one of my all time favourite singers, from one of my all time favourite bands.

[Yupter]

The point is that she can't sing very well... the end.

?

[greenman]

Sure it does. Tiffany or Brittney Spears or any other young girl singers were never called the "voice of their generation". They were teenie pop stars and everybody knew it. This young woman is now being elevated to such a status? I hear nothing in her voice or in her musical vision to warrant such a label like this. Modern culture is so vapid and bankrupt they'll throw as much **** against the wall as they can and hope some of it sticks.

Whatever then.

I'd say its a combination of celebrety culture going nuts in the last decade and the music business making much more of an effort to hype the artistic credability of there choosen acts. The second was a natural progression as indie/alternative music went mainstream I spose and why were hearing things like "she writes her own songs" even though the same has been true of a number of artists who were content to be labeled as "pop music" in the past.

[Gospel Zone]

So, we're not talking about Taylor's singing ability because she sang badly on 'Rhiannon' (how could you not know, what, with all the Stevie Nicks comparisons?) - a classic rock song? Because I'm pretty sure that the point of the thread was to argue against the claim that she is the voice of her generation, especially after she sang so badly at the Grammys. And since you originally said that 'all she would need to do is be less pop and do some serious country or rock and she would be unstoppable', I'm asking is it not the case that we're arguing about her singing on a classic rock song in the first place? It is.

Here's the song:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wgeTXNxBBzk&feature=related

As for my problem with Taylor, like I said, I don't have a problem with her. I just have a very big problem with her performing on one of my all time favourite songs, from one of my all time favourite singers, from one of my all time favourite bands.

I just watched the YouTube video and think she did alright. It had an edge to it, which makes me even more confident in what I've been saying. I'm sure she will get even better with age....and Stevie Nicks voice isn't getting any better. I think Jimmy Page and John Paul Jones should audition Taylor...she definitely has better hair than Robert Plant. Ha,ha!

As for the voice of this generation, are we talking about what I call generation dork ass? I think she's better than that.

[Virginia]

Do you think it has anything to do with today's singers relying so heavily on technology to get the "perfect" sound? Then put them into more of an unplugged setting and their voices don't hold up.

It seems there are very few nowadays who can sing in tune live (let's say acapella or nearly; where you can really hear the quality of their voice) and the only ones I can think of are over 40. Martina McBride, Sarah McLachlan, Don Henley (although he probably shouldn't count since he's been around so long).

I would much rather hear an authentic voice than a perfect voice, if that makes sense.

[ninelives]

Do you think it has anything to do with today's singers relying so heavily on technology to get the "perfect" sound? Then put them into more of an unplugged setting and their voices don't hold up.

It seems there are very few nowadays who can sing in tune live (let's say acapella or nearly; where you can really hear the quality of their voice) and the only ones I can think of are over 40. Martina McBride, Sarah McLachlan, Don Henley (although he probably shouldn't count since he's been around so long).

I would much rather hear an authentic voice than a perfect voice, if that makes sense.

Possibly - some "pop" oriented stuff often relies on image rather than musical ability. Nothing too new in that though - Madonna's voice in the early days was heavily worked on in the studio for example.

[longdistancewinner]

I just watched the YouTube video and think she did alright. It had an edge to it, which makes me even more confident in what I've been saying. I'm sure she will get even better with age....and Stevie Nicks voice isn't getting any better. I think Jimmy Page and John Paul Jones should audition Taylor...she definitely has better hair than Robert Plant. Ha,ha!

As for the voice of this generation, are we talking about what I call generation dork ass? I think she's better than that.

She did alright on her material, not so much on Stevie's. If 'edge' is a euphemism for off-key, then, yes, you can be confident, otherwise, she should just stick to singing well within her limited range. Nicks' voice isn't what it once was, but at 62 I wouldn't expect it to be. I have a boot of her stumbling around MSG off her face in '77. She still sounded better than Taylor.

Your generation may be generation 'dork ass', but I want mine to be better than that. And Taylor is not representative of it.

[Virginia]

Possibly - some "pop" oriented stuff often relies on image rather than musical ability. Nothing too new in that though - Madonna's voice in the early days was heavily worked on in the studio for example.

I think you're right; maybe it's more of a managing our expectations thing. I liked Madonna as Madonna back in the day (I don't listen to her now), but would never have expected her to sound like Stevie Nicks/Chrissie Hynde/Ann Wilson, etc.

Then we can be pleasantly surprised when our expectations are exceeded (personally I thought Lady GaGa sounded really good at the Grammy's with Elton John, and I think Christina Aguilera has a great voice for a pop singer).

There are a couple of pop singers whose voices are interesting and whom I'd be interested in hearing go off the road a bit. A perfect example is Maroon 5; I like them as-is, but would love to hear them dirty it up a bit and take the vocals down an octave, in a more alt. direction with heavier guitars. There are moments on Songs About Jane when they almost do but not quite...

[Jahfin]

Sure it does. Tiffany or Brittney Spears or any other young girl singers were never called the "voice of their generation". They were teenie pop stars and everybody knew it. This young woman is now being elevated to such a status? I hear nothing in her voice or in her musical vision to warrant such a label like this. Modern culture is so vapid and bankrupt they'll throw as much **** against the wall as they can and hope some of it sticks.

Whatever then.

The "voice of her generation" thing is merely damage control (as ill-conceived as it is). What I'm referring to is the popularity of teen idols, that is nothing new. Not to mention, no one I've heard of has ever wanted the mantle of "voice of a generation" thrust upon them. That goes for everyone from Bob Dylan to Kurt Cobain and Taylor Swift.

[Gospel Zone]

She did alright on her material, not so much on Stevie's. If 'edge' is a euphemism for off-key, then, yes, you can be confident, otherwise, she should just stick to singing well within her limited range. Nicks' voice isn't what it once was, but at 62 I wouldn't expect it to be. I have a boot of her stumbling around MSG off her face in '77. She still sounded better than Taylor.

Your generation may be generation 'dork ass', but I want mine to be better than that. And Taylor is not representative of it.

The "voice of this generation" argument is about as ridiculous as discussing whether or not Led Zeppelin is heavy metal. Anyone that caught up in who may or may not be a voice of a generation, what ever the hell that really means, is a little too caught up in pop culture and what others think.

Also, Taylor Swift was the best thing Saturday Night Live had in a long time.

[greenman]

What we can say for certain is that her music is bland in the extreme and should really be of no interest to anyone with a reasonabley well devolped taste.

[ninelives]

What we can say for certain is that her music is bland in the extreme and should really be of no interest to anyone with a reasonabley well devolped taste.

Don't totally agree with this - I'm not a fan of hers but I listen to a huge variety of music - and some of it may be considered "cheesy". I don't think that makes my taste any less developed or I shouldn't have interest in it. Just my two pence.

[Swede]

Don't totally agree with this - I'm not a fan of hers but I listen to a huge variety of music - and some of it may be considered "cheesy". I don't think that makes my taste any less developed or I shouldn't have interest in it. Just my two pence.

Nine, don't tell me you're listening to cheesy music??!