Photographer's open letter to Taylor Swift: How are you any different?

[StrawberryBlond 14,817]

Ok? It's still nothing in the grand scheme of things. The backlash she received after Red when everyone made her the butt of the joke for her relationships was far worse than this and yet her next era was 1989. Who's going to drag her besides pop stans if the next album won't do as well? I think everyone knows this album will almost be impossible to match. And she would still do great even with competition, you think she wouldn't outsell everyone if she released during the midst of Gaga, Katy, and Miley? Of course she would.

 

Also no no no to that last paragraph. There was no evolution with ARTPOP, there was no getting better, if anything it was a rushed step back. It's lack of critical and commercial success show that. Unlike 1989 who while selling 7.5 million WW was put on almost everyone's best of list, even by indie sites who usually puke at the site mainstream top 40/

Oh, here we go with the dating jokes during the Red era again. That is no backlash, just a minor bump in the road. As a Gaga fan, you should know what real backlash is. I don't think just pop fans would drag her - she's everywhere to the point where if she doesn't have success next time, it will be noticed and questioned. I also think you're under-estimating just how much different her next era will be. If she really is planning something different to 1989, she could lose all her new pop fans in a heartbeat. Her career is in a very precarious position right now because she's relying so much on the general public and new fans. They can be fickle. The commercial performance of Speak Now (and its singles especially) makes it clear that she could easily have faded away if she had continued to make this sound but she chose to be a people pleaser to ensure her career could keep going. And playing into exactly what the public want nearly always ends in disaster. I've seen some popstars get less success the more generic they get, actually. It really shows how much you believe her hype when you say that there would have been no competition even if other popstars were around. She wasn't slaying in 2010 when other popstars were having their moment, was she?

I just mean Gaga's artistry in general - she's come so far since TF and become so much better as a whole. It's so typical that you feel the need to insult Gaga to boost Taylor despite this being a Gaga forum. Do you realise how snobby it sounds to say that critical and commercial statistics reflect a good or bad album? It didn't have amazing reviews because the critics had been brainwashed into hating her by that point by the media and it didn't have the commercial success because it was poorly promoted by bad management. Taylor on the other hand, has always had the media eating out the palm of her hand and they've influenced critics into liking her and she got the commercial success because she had great promotion and great management who worship her. Everyone's getting in on this album because we're desperate for another craze after Adele's 21. For inexplicable reasons, an album just comes along every now again that's usually terribly mediocre but regardless has the public going bananas over it. 1989 is one of those albums, it's nothing to do with its quality. Taking a look at the list of bestselling albums of all time, I've got a feeling of...apathy to be honest. The bestsellers have never been a true indication of quality and never will be.

 

 

[Redstreak 6,653]

Oh, here we go with the dating jokes during the Red era again. That is no backlash, just a minor bump in the road. As a Gaga fan, you should know what real backlash is. I don't think just pop fans would drag her - she's everywhere to the point where if she doesn't have success next time, it will be noticed and questioned. I also think you're under-estimating just how much different her next era will be. If she really is planning something different to 1989, she could lose all her new pop fans in a heartbeat. Her career is in a very precarious position right now because she's relying so much on the general public and new fans. They can be fickle. The commercial performance of Speak Now (and its singles especially) makes it clear that she could easily have faded away if she had continued to make this sound but she chose to be a people pleaser to ensure her career could keep going. And playing into exactly what the public want nearly always ends in disaster. I've seen some popstars get less success the more generic they get, actually. It really shows how much you believe her hype when you say that there would have been no competition even if other popstars were around. She wasn't slaying in 2010 when other popstars were having their moment, was she?

I just mean Gaga's artistry in general - she's come so far since TF and become so much better as a whole. It's so typical that you feel the need to insult Gaga to boost Taylor despite this being a Gaga forum. Do you realise how snobby it sounds to say that critical and commercial statistics reflect a good or bad album? It didn't have amazing reviews because the critics had been brainwashed into hating her by that point by the media and it didn't have the commercial success because it was poorly promoted by bad management. Taylor on the other hand, has always had the media eating out the palm of her hand and they've influenced critics into liking her and she got the commercial success because she had great promotion and great management who worship her. Everyone's getting in on this album because we're desperate for another craze after Adele's 21. For inexplicable reasons, an album just comes along every now again that's usually terribly mediocre but regardless has the public going bananas over it. 1989 is one of those albums, it's nothing to do with its quality. Taking a look at the list of bestselling albums of all time, I've got a feeling of...apathy to be honest. The bestsellers have never been a true indication of quality and never will be.

 

 

But you're ignoring where it was placed on almost every best of list and received a higher metacritic score than many of her peers. All things that deal with quality.

[Redstreak 6,653]

Oh, here we go with the dating jokes during the Red era again. That is no backlash, just a minor bump in the road. As a Gaga fan, you should know what real backlash is. I don't think just pop fans would drag her - she's everywhere to the point where if she doesn't have success next time, it will be noticed and questioned. I also think you're under-estimating just how much different her next era will be. If she really is planning something different to 1989, she could lose all her new pop fans in a heartbeat. Her career is in a very precarious position right now because she's relying so much on the general public and new fans. They can be fickle. The commercial performance of Speak Now (and its singles especially) makes it clear that she could easily have faded away if she had continued to make this sound but she chose to be a people pleaser to ensure her career could keep going. And playing into exactly what the public want nearly always ends in disaster. I've seen some popstars get less success the more generic they get, actually. It really shows how much you believe her hype when you say that there would have been no competition even if other popstars were around. She wasn't slaying in 2010 when other popstars were having their moment, was she?

I just mean Gaga's artistry in general - she's come so far since TF and become so much better as a whole. It's so typical that you feel the need to insult Gaga to boost Taylor despite this being a Gaga forum. Do you realise how snobby it sounds to say that critical and commercial statistics reflect a good or bad album? It didn't have amazing reviews because the critics had been brainwashed into hating her by that point by the media and it didn't have the commercial success because it was poorly promoted by bad management. Taylor on the other hand, has always had the media eating out the palm of her hand and they've influenced critics into liking her and she got the commercial success because she had great promotion and great management who worship her. Everyone's getting in on this album because we're desperate for another craze after Adele's 21. For inexplicable reasons, an album just comes along every now again that's usually terribly mediocre but regardless has the public going bananas over it. 1989 is one of those albums, it's nothing to do with its quality. Taking a look at the list of bestselling albums of all time, I've got a feeling of...apathy to be honest. The bestsellers have never been a true indication of quality and never will be.

 

 

Also Speak Now sold over 5 million and won Grammys. I don't know how you find that "drag-worthy." Also you brought up Gaga first, I responded with an opinion I'm allowed. And do you know how crazy YOU sound when you try and pass off that people were "brain washed" into giving her lower scores? Maybe, just maybe, it wasn't that good of an album.

[StrawberryBlond 14,817]

But you're ignoring where it was placed on almost every best of list and received a higher metacritic score than many of her peers. All things that deal with quality.

You're being very naive if you think most reviewers judge albums fairly and are completely non biased. Payment from record labels in exchange for good reviews still happens. You only need to see the critical praise for generic, childish, pathetic albums that even the public deem as such to see that it goes on. Giving good reviews to artists just because they're highly successful and/or are considered legends is rampant. And not all reviewing outlets should be respected. NME is a reviewer that definitely should not be taken seriously after they exposed themselves as being backpedalling, spineless idiots many times with their reviews. The reviewing world is corrupt which is why pursuing the career professionally has never appealed to me. I'll stick to writing real, honest reviews regardless of who the artist is, how successful they are, and regardless of if I'm a fan or not. Unlike the professionals, I'm writing what I actually think, not what I'm being told to think. It's so rare to see an album that has a broad spectrum of critical opinons, they're nearly all the same, with half a star difference at the most. It doesn't come across as genuine opinions when the opinion is so consistent.

An artist's standing in the media can play a major part in how their album is receieved. Critics tend to be sheep and follow whatever public opinion is regarding the artist at the time and reflect it in their review. Unfortunately, Gaga was going through a bad patch when ARTPOP was released. She had shortly finished an era consisting of large overexposure, she had endured some of the harshest copyright claims an artist had ever endured, she had ended her era badly, she had to cancel tour dates and go into a blackout to recover from her broken hip...She had a chance to comeback but her lead single's potential was quashed by a leak and Katy Perry choosing to release the week before (most shadiest move I've ever seen). Then there was a disagreement over what the second single was and the eventual choice involved a collab with the controversial R Kelly...by the time the album got released, it was no wonder critics had it in for her. The media reports had done a number on her and they followed suit. It could have been the best album ever created, they would have called it mediocre. That's just how it works when an artist goes through a bad patch. Taylor's never had to endure that as her team have worked relentlessly to ensure the media always likes her in many ways. She is never controversial, daring or innovative, and that's how she keeps on the media's good side. She knows how to play the game, I'll give her that, but it doesn't half make for bland music. By the way, legendary critic Robert Christgau gave ARTPOP an A grade and rated it as the most under-rated album of 2013, said it only failed because of Katy's timing overlap and branded its critical reception baffling. I think when even a critic says that their fellow critics reviews are confusingly harsh and potentially only so because of superficial factors (something I have never seen a professional critic do), it's a sign that there's heavy media manipulation going on.

Also Speak Now sold over 5 million and won Grammys. I don't know how you find that "drag-worthy." Also you brought up Gaga first, I responded with an opinion I'm allowed. And do you know how crazy YOU sound when you try and pass off that people were "brain washed" into giving her lower scores? Maybe, just maybe, it wasn't that good of an album.

Still less than the 6.9 million she sold for Fearless, though. And as always, I care more about the bigger picture than just America. Over 90% of its sales came from there, once again proving how much of a local artist she was until recently and how she had nowhere to turn if America ever got over her. Also, none of the singles from that album made a dent in the public's consciousness. I only know about them because I review albums and if I didn't, I wouldn't have a clue how any of them go, her only album where I'd be completely ignorant about all the singles if I didn't know any better. Even before she was big in the UK, I was aware of some of her song titles, knew how they went and even heard them in passing. I only heard the songs from Speak Now by purposefully seeking them out. I notice this is the album that Taylor fans don't really allude to much or cite any of the era as her slaying. I think it's because they know this could have been the start of the downfall if she hadn't gone more pop with Red.

I'm sure you won't consider me crazy when you really think about it and taking in my previous response. After witnessing many times the media giving medicore/bad reviews to artists going through bad patches (nearly all of them women, it's all very s-xist), I've concluded that the professional critic world is akin to the popular crowd in high school. If someone is really cool right now, they'll boost them, but if someone is uncool, they'll chew them up and spit them out.

[Redstreak 6,653]

You're being very naive if you think most reviewers judge albums fairly and are completely non biased. Payment from record labels in exchange for good reviews still happens. You only need to see the critical praise for generic, childish, pathetic albums that even the public deem as such to see that it goes on. Giving good reviews to artists just because they're highly successful and/or are considered legends is rampant. And not all reviewing outlets should be respected. NME is a reviewer that definitely should not be taken seriously after they exposed themselves as being backpedalling, spineless idiots many times with their reviews. The reviewing world is corrupt which is why pursuing the career professionally has never appealed to me. I'll stick to writing real, honest reviews regardless of who the artist is, how successful they are, and regardless of if I'm a fan or not. Unlike the professionals, I'm writing what I actually think, not what I'm being told to think. It's so rare to see an album that has a broad spectrum of critical opinons, they're nearly all the same, with half a star difference at the most. It doesn't come across as genuine opinions when the opinion is so consistent.

An artist's standing in the media can play a major part in how their album is receieved. Critics tend to be sheep and follow whatever public opinion is regarding the artist at the time and reflect it in their review. Unfortunately, Gaga was going through a bad patch when ARTPOP was released. She had shortly finished an era consisting of large overexposure, she had endured some of the harshest copyright claims an artist had ever endured, she had ended her era badly, she had to cancel tour dates and go into a blackout to recover from her broken hip...She had a chance to comeback but her lead single's potential was quashed by a leak and Katy Perry choosing to release the week before (most shadiest move I've ever seen). Then there was a disagreement over what the second single was and the eventual choice involved a collab with the controversial R Kelly...by the time the album got released, it was no wonder critics had it in for her. The media reports had done a number on her and they followed suit. It could have been the best album ever created, they would have called it mediocre. That's just how it works when an artist goes through a bad patch. Taylor's never had to endure that as her team have worked relentlessly to ensure the media always likes her in many ways. She is never controversial, daring or innovative, and that's how she keeps on the media's good side. She knows how to play the game, I'll give her that, but it doesn't half make for bland music. By the way, legendary critic Robert Christgau gave ARTPOP an A grade and rated it as the most under-rated album of 2013, said it only failed because of Katy's timing overlap and branded its critical reception baffling. I think when even a critic says that their fellow critics reviews are confusingly harsh and potentially only so because of superficial factors (something I have never seen a professional critic do), it's a sign that there's heavy media manipulation going on.

Still less than the 6.9 million she sold for Fearless, though. And as always, I care more about the bigger picture than just America. Over 90% of its sales came from there, once again proving how much of a local artist she was until recently and how she had nowhere to turn if America ever got over her. Also, none of the singles from that album made a dent in the public's consciousness. I only know about them because I review albums and if I didn't, I wouldn't have a clue how any of them go, her only album where I'd be completely ignorant about all the singles if I didn't know any better. Even before she was big in the UK, I was aware of some of her song titles, knew how they went and even heard them in passing. I only heard the songs from Speak Now by purposefully seeking them out. I notice this is the album that Taylor fans don't really allude to much or cite any of the era as her slaying. I think it's because they know this could have been the start of the downfall if she hadn't gone more pop with Red.

I'm sure you won't consider me crazy when you really think about it and taking in my previous response. After witnessing many times the media giving medicore/bad reviews to artists going through bad patches (nearly all of them women, it's all very s-xist), I've concluded that the professional critic world is akin to the popular crowd in high school. If someone is really cool right now, they'll boost them, but if someone is uncool, they'll chew them up and spit them out.

I just have to highly disagree, sure some critics could be swayed by popular opinion, but all of them? Nah. It boils down to something I've said to you before. 1989 is an album you don't believe deserves the response it's gotten so you have to convince yourself of stories of paid reviews and other nonsense as if everyone else's opinion needs to align with yours.

[StrawberryBlond 14,817]

I just have to highly disagree, sure some critics could be swayed by popular opinion, but all of them? Nah. It boils down to something I've said to you before. 1989 is an album you don't believe deserves the response it's gotten so you have to convince yourself of stories of paid reviews and other nonsense as if everyone else's opinion needs to align with yours.

It's not just 1989, it's all her albums. I simply don't believe that professional, adult and mostly male critics could possibly be this impressed. If I, a female in her 20's, has always found Taylor's music bland, basic and childish, how is a male critic in his 50's going to view it? This society tells men that they can't like anything remotely feminine and risk emasculation, so male critics should not be falling over themselves to praise an album so clearly aimed at young girls. Male critics have always been harsh on females for a reason - a lot of female artists albums directly appeal to women, thus, men can't relate, thus give a more apathetic review. Out of all the female artists who buck this trend, the always girlie Taylor Swift should not be the one to change opinion of even the butchest critics. I must also add that while negative reviews of her work from professional critics do exist, Wikipedia rarely publishes them (Fearless got a 2.5/5 from Slant and Red got a 2/5 from Sputnikmusic - her only negative Wiki reviews published although the latter review had two printed, the other one was a 4/5) and Metacritic has NEVER published one negative review of her work on their site (you'd think a negative review from The Washington Post would be considered credible enough to publish, but no). But both sites are perfectly happy to publish negative reviews on other artists pages. It's one of the big problems I have with Taylor: she can do no wrong and the media treats her with kid gloves and I have no idea what she's done to deserve such preferential treatment.

I have never said that I expect everyone to agree with me. But I certainly expect a bit more diversity from critics. Critics seem to like the majority of albums. Truly negative reviews are rare. And I don't think it's natural. I don't consider myself to have ridiculously high standards of music but even I'm struggling to find amazing albums these days. I have only found one album released so far this year that was better than ok. Yet, critics giving reviews below 3/5 is rare. It's not natural to be this easily pleased. I can only conclude there's some agenda behind it all.

[Redstreak 6,653]

It's not just 1989, it's all her albums. I simply don't believe that professional, adult and mostly male critics could possibly be this impressed. If I, a female in her 20's, has always found Taylor's music bland, basic and childish, how is a male critic in his 50's going to view it? This society tells men that they can't like anything remotely feminine and risk emasculation, so male critics should not be falling over themselves to praise an album so clearly aimed at young girls. Male critics have always been harsh on females for a reason - a lot of female artists albums directly appeal to women, thus, men can't relate, thus give a more apathetic review. Out of all the female artists who buck this trend, the always girlie Taylor Swift should not be the one to change opinion of even the butchest critics. I must also add that while negative reviews of her work from professional critics do exist, Wikipedia rarely publishes them (Fearless got a 2.5/5 from Slant and Red got a 2/5 from Sputnikmusic - her only negative Wiki reviews published although the latter review had two printed, the other one was a 4/5) and Metacritic has NEVER published one negative review of her work on their site (you'd think a negative review from The Washington Post would be considered credible enough to publish, but no). But both sites are perfectly happy to publish negative reviews on other artists pages. It's one of the big problems I have with Taylor: she can do no wrong and the media treats her with kid gloves and I have no idea what she's done to deserve such preferential treatment.

I have never said that I expect everyone to agree with me. But I certainly expect a bit more diversity from critics. Critics seem to like the majority of albums. Truly negative reviews are rare. And I don't think it's natural. I don't consider myself to have ridiculously high standards of music but even I'm struggling to find amazing albums these days. I have only found one album released so far this year that was better than ok. Yet, critics giving reviews below 3/5 is rare. It's not natural to be this easily pleased. I can only conclude there's some agenda behind it all.

Or maybe they just generally like them? Critics are supposed to review the work for what it is. And Metacritic has a list of every accepted review site, and then the site themselves have to send in those reviews to Metacritic. Maybe the negative unpublished reviews are just from sites that don't count. A lot of her review points come from her songwriting, the story she weaves, and the evident emotion in her voice. That's something that connects regardless of gender. I think critics are smart enough to fairly review material regardless of "ewwww men can't like feminine songs!!!"

[HausAlly 799]

i really don't understand taylor swift, i know that a lot of the money hungry actions are on behalf of her team/record company and it stems from rights and things but how can she sit there rolling in cash when her fans/GP get ripped off on her behalf, she talks a lot of **** about how indie artist's deserve more, what about your fans that can't afford to buy your **** cause someone in your team decided that they deserved more, she is a pop star that thinks she's an indie artist, and i swear to god if she doesn't stop complaining about her money lets just rob her and give it all to Africa 

[DeleteMyAccount 11,881]

So if I take multiple pictures of Taylor at a concert I'd have to pay her to use them?

[PEXI 250]

Gaga was right about paying artists, this guy is right about paying photographers.

You would have to pay to get a photo taken of you at the Sears portrait studio or something, right? It's a professional photoshoot, not a regular group of pictures someone randomly took of you with their cell phone. Photographers get the right to charge you if you do a photoshoot with them. And it's no different with singers and actors, or any type of fame really. 

There is a fine difference with general photographers and paparazzi, if no one has noticed. Photographers take professional photos with you and you get complete control over what happens with those pictures after you pay for them. Paparazzi follows you around on the streets while you're minding your own business and they take pictures of you every chance they get and then upload the pics wide across the internet without your notification or permission.

As I said earlier in this post, photographers must be given the respect of some money in return for a full photo shoot. It's a simple exchange, and especially someone with high amounts of cash like Taylor should be able to pay.  

Case closed. 

Gaga?

[PaperIz 7,346]

I guess it makes sense lol

[AIex 3,102]

Gaga?

I typed Gaga instead of Taylor? Oops. I was tired.

This thread is dead anyways, y'all stop reviving it randomly.

[NewUsername 11,375]

I still find it strange that sometimes the artists and record company and all get about ALL the rights on the photos 

[TimisaMonster 31,073]

Omg he's right....Taylor?

 

[Dayum 240]

Let me get this straight. First of all, did Swift pay the photographer to take her pictures? Or did the photographer pay her to take her pictures? If the former, then the photographs clearly belong to Swift because she paid it. It would infringe her property and privacy rights if photographers can just reuse it for whatever purpose they may have. If the latter, then as he said there is a contract on the limitations of the right and how to use it. This is just like a copyright issue which I'm sure many of you would know. Or like a consent issue. If she consents to her photo being taken, does not mean she consents to her photo being distributed, even though on the side she may get more publicity, which seems to me to be nothing much of a gain considering her global popularity as of now. Apple on the other hand was claimed to have gotten the music products without paying the artist and that would continue for the three months apple music was to be free. Clearly that bears no resemblance to the photographer.