SNL Mocks Taylor Swift's Squad

[StrawberryBlond 14,954]

Shockingly, yes, critics will have different opinions with various artists. While one might be dismissive of an artist in a particular field, it doesn't mean they'll be dismissive of all  artists within that field. That's how opinions work. Taylor just seems to find that right balance, you're just gonna have to accept that critics for the most part like her. Of course people nod their heads, people like to believe these things, but it just doesn't hold up in a lot of cases. If Taylor pays for reviews, why does her latest album have 8 with mixed reception? Does she pay every single publication to include her in their list? Did she pay the Grammy's to give her AOTY? At that point you might as well believe that every artist does it. You have hand waving conjectures you pull out of thin air and that's why I can't take you seriously. Funny how it's only the artists you dislike that you accuse of such things.

It's just odd who they choose to make the exception for. There's girlie acts who deserve the praise much more than Taylor with better songwriting, better production, better personalities, everything. You'd think these critics who have been reviewing her from the beginning would be saying by now that she should be abandoning this style of writing that she's had since she was 15. It is not a good thing to still be writing in your teenage style when in your mid twenties. This grown, professional critics should be picking up on this. Oh, wow, 8 with mixed reception (almost all of them 60/100 which would be enough to go under best albums of the year according to my very low standards - seriously "just better than average" is all I ask). Where's the real negativity that most other artists get? She can't get lower than average. For someone of her style, that isn't normal. There are plenty of acid tongued critics out there who'd happily rip her to shreds. But there is negative ones out there, they just don't get reported on. Funny, huh? I'm not saying she asks every publication, but she could easily go after the most lucrative ones - Rolling Stone, Billboard, The Guardian, The New York Times, Entertainment Weekly, NME, etc. Granted, the smaller ones gave her good reviews too, but that could be coincidental. No, I don't think she paid for her Grammys, but the Grammy academy definitely needs a clean up. Take it from this guy, an actual member of the academy, of the real process involved in the selection and the winning: http://uk.complex.com/music/2014/01/how-does-grammy-voting-work There you go - concrete evidence that most of these "experts" don't have a clue, don't even listen to most of the music out there and their choice is akin to throwing a dart at a wall of album covers blindfolded. It's so nice to hear someone on the committee actually admit that members of the public are probably more knowledgeable than them in many cases.

I never said that Taylor definitely does this, it's all just a theory. And neither did I say that she's the only one who does it. I hope my faves don't, but what do I know? What do we really know about any of these "upstanding" artists? They could all be bribing (would explain why most reviewers never rate below 3 stars and no one is that easily pleased). So many of them are secretly horrible people that I wouldn't put it past them. And I notice that the only people who you can't take seriously are the ones you disagree with.

  If good reviews and Grammys were available for purchase, then Katy would be all over that! She would have a 90 score on her albums on metacritic and several Grammys by now. Beck would have never won over Beyoncé for AOTY! Taylor would have won with Red, instead of Daft Punk. 

There are around five thousand Grammy voting members. Did Taylor pay all of them that voted for her album? Have they all kept that a secret for years? How do you get to all these thousands of people to pay them and why aren't all the big names doing it? Why haven't one of these thousands of people from the music industry come forward to expose the artists that "pay for votes". 

Come on people...at least apply logic to some of these accusations! 

 

Or maybe some artists are more credible than others. Maybe Capitol only care about chart positions and sales but Grammys and critical reception don't mean squat to them. Plenty of artists really don't care about those things, as long as their fans are happy. The AOTY winners are always the most safest, pedestrian, bland albums, not because there's bribes going on (though I have huge suspicions the year Arcade Fire won for a number of reasons), but because the voters are mostly made up of really old people who don't get rap and pop. This is supplemented by the Grammy voter source I posted above. Taylor won because the older set love country and a virginal young girl being all wholesome and traditional was their most obvious choice alongside wacky Gaga, the goofball BEP's, etc. Also, the committee tends to vote for the albums with the best critical reception and Daft Punk had the critics in the palm of their hand that year, even moreso than Taylor. It's all so predictable. I knew Beck was a big contender for a mixture of these reasons and wasn't shocked like everyone else.

I am applying logic to it all. It's just some people don't like to consider that their faves may not be absolutely perfect. It's just Taylor and Beyonce fans that argue with me about my industry findings, I've noticed. The artists with a culture of flawlessness around them always have fans like this.

Good lord, why are you taking this so seriously?

Taylor is merely a pop star. She's not some messiah. This is just SNL. It's just for fun. Everyone has opinions. :)

Thank you! It's so good for someone to notice that someone accusing me of taking things too seriously is taking things too seriously in itself! I don't always mean these comments as seriously as everyone else seems to think. It's just thinking out loud, nothing more. If they don't take things as seriously, why do they quote me to mock me and argue with me?

[Redstreak 6,653]

It's just odd who they choose to make the exception for. There's girlie acts who deserve the praise much more than Taylor with better songwriting, better production, better personalities, everything. You'd think these critics who have been reviewing her from the beginning would be saying by now that she should be abandoning this style of writing that she's had since she was 15. It is not a good thing to still be writing in your teenage style when in your mid twenties. This grown, professional critics should be picking up on this. Oh, wow, 8 with mixed reception (almost all of them 60/100 which would be enough to go under best albums of the year according to my very low standards - seriously "just better than average" is all I ask). Where's the real negativity that most other artists get? She can't get lower than average. For someone of her style, that isn't normal. There are plenty of acid tongued critics out there who'd happily rip her to shreds. But there is negative ones out there, they just don't get reported on. Funny, huh? I'm not saying she asks every publication, but she could easily go after the most lucrative ones - Rolling Stone, Billboard, The Guardian, The New York Times, Entertainment Weekly, NME, etc. Granted, the smaller ones gave her good reviews too, but that could be coincidental. No, I don't think she paid for her Grammys, but the Grammy academy definitely needs a clean up. Take it from this guy, an actual member of the academy, of the real process involved in the selection and the winning: http://uk.complex.com/music/2014/01/how-does-grammy-voting-work There you go - concrete evidence that most of these "experts" don't have a clue, don't even listen to most of the music out there and their choice is akin to throwing a dart at a wall of album covers blindfolded. It's so nice to hear someone on the committee actually admit that members of the public are probably more knowledgeable than them in many cases.

I never said that Taylor definitely does this, it's all just a theory. And neither did I say that she's the only one who does it. I hope my faves don't, but what do I know? What do we really know about any of these "upstanding" artists? They could all be bribing (would explain why most reviewers never rate below 3 stars and no one is that easily pleased). So many of them are secretly horrible people that I wouldn't put it past them. And I notice that the only people who you can't take seriously are the ones you disagree with.

Or maybe some artists are more credible than others. Maybe Capitol only care about chart positions and sales but Grammys and critical reception don't mean squat to them. Plenty of artists really don't care about those things, as long as their fans are happy. The AOTY winners are always the most safest, pedestrian, bland albums, not because there's bribes going on (though I have huge suspicions the year Arcade Fire won for a number of reasons), but because the voters are mostly made up of really old people who don't get rap and pop. This is supplemented by the Grammy voter source I posted above. Taylor won because the older set love country and a virginal young girl being all wholesome and traditional was their most obvious choice alongside wacky Gaga, the goofball BEP's, etc. Also, the committee tends to vote for the albums with the best critical reception and Daft Punk had the critics in the palm of their hand that year, even moreso than Taylor. It's all so predictable. I knew Beck was a big contender for a mixture of these reasons and wasn't shocked like everyone else.

I am applying logic to it all. It's just some people don't like to consider that their faves may not be absolutely perfect. It's just Taylor and Beyonce fans that argue with me about my industry findings, I've noticed. The artists with a culture of flawlessness around them always have fans like this.

Thank you! It's so good for someone to notice that someone accusing me of taking things too seriously is taking things too seriously in itself! I don't always mean these comments as seriously as everyone else seems to think. It's just thinking out loud, nothing more. If they don't take things as seriously, why do they quote me to mock me and argue with me?

I've never accused you of taking things too seriously, just that you're got some pretty nonsensical statements that you like to pass off as fact. I take a lot of people seriously, I don't agree with a good deal on this site when it comes to Taylor but at the same time they aren't professing the same things you are. Of course she isn't perfect, no one's perfect, but at least come at her with tangible criticisms and not conspiracy theorists. You not understanding why a different demographic would review her favorably is just not the same thing as a thought provoking criticism, it's a refusal to understand that their are other opinions besides your own.

[Whispering 18,865]

 

Or maybe some artists are more credible than others. Maybe Capitol only care about chart positions and sales but Grammys and critical reception don't mean squat to them. Plenty of artists really don't care about those things, as long as their fans are happy. The AOTY winners are always the most safest, pedestrian, bland albums, not because there's bribes going on (though I have huge suspicions the year Arcade Fire won for a number of reasons), but because the voters are mostly made up of really old people who don't get rap and pop. This is supplemented by the Grammy voter source I posted above. Taylor won because the older set love country and a virginal young girl being all wholesome and traditional was their most obvious choice alongside wacky Gaga, the goofball BEP's, etc. Also, the committee tends to vote for the albums with the best critical reception and Daft Punk had the critics in the palm of their hand that year, even moreso than Taylor. It's all so predictable. I knew Beck was a big contender for a mixture of these reasons and wasn't shocked like everyone else.

I am applying logic to it all. It's just some people don't like to consider that their faves may not be absolutely perfect. It's just Taylor and Beyonce fans that argue with me about my industry findings, I've noticed. The artists with a culture of flawlessness around them always have fans like this.

You aren't applying logic when you make statements and assumptions that Grammys are paid for. Otherwise, we would always see the big names with the big money win them all. There is no way Beyoncé wasn't interested in getting AOTY with her last album or Taylor wasn't interested the year RED was eligible or Katy wasn't wanting to win at least one. (Look at how pissed and disappointed she has been) If a Grammy was available for purchase, Katy would have at least one by now.

Now, the rest of what you said about the voters not caring for rap or heavy urban music is using logic, because we know that to be true. We have seen information that back that up that fact. The original comment you made stating that these awards were bought and paid for is what lacks logic. That was the logic I was referring to in my comment you quoted...NOT that the Grammy voting system isnt in many ways flawed. 

[brownie 5]

Thank you! It's so good for someone to notice that someone accusing me of taking things too seriously is taking things too seriously in itself! I don't always mean these comments as seriously as everyone else seems to think. It's just thinking out loud, nothing more. If they don't take things as seriously, why do they quote me to mock me and argue with me?

I like, Taylor, I like Katy, I like Gaga (well, love Gaga)--I never understood "stan wars". We like what we like. But it seems like Taylor AND Katy fans especially take it wayyyyy too seriously, like it's some sort of "I'm better than you because I like so-and-so" competition. It's incredible to me how a simple SNL skit got some people so riled up!

[StrawberryBlond 14,954]

I've never accused you of taking things too seriously, just that you're got some pretty nonsensical statements that you like to pass off as fact. I take a lot of people seriously, I don't agree with a good deal on this site when it comes to Taylor but at the same time they aren't professing the same things you are. Of course she isn't perfect, no one's perfect, but at least come at her with tangible criticisms and not conspiracy theorists. You not understanding why a different demographic would review her favorably is just not the same thing as a thought provoking criticism, it's a refusal to understand that their are other opinions besides your own.

I've never passed them off as fact, at least not when referring to certain artists in particular. But in general, yes, these things will happen. I do come at her with tangiable criticisms, this is just one of my harsher speculations. It's not that I have a problem with other people having a different opinion, I just want to know why they think what they do. If all these reviewers are genuinely feeling her music, I would like to sit them down and pinpoint exactly why her work is such genius. When they pick out a good lyric, for example, I'm usually left scratching my head because I'm thinking: "This is not genius songwriting, it's the most basic of cliches and I can actually name other songs that have similar lyrics because they're so cliche. Why can't a professional critic, who's supposed to be versed in music history, not see this?" Or when they priase her production, I think: "This is a very bland beat, very unmemorable and unremarkable. And it's very similar to the other melodies on the album, just as it's similar to her past works. And her current work is the result of a lot of help from a professional,generic pop producers (who don't always get critical acclaim until now) as opposed to her. Why can't a professional critic, who's supposed to have an ear for music, not see this?"

You see why I say that just because someone has the title of "expert" doesn't mean they should be trusted? I've noticed that quite often, critics describe an album in a way that doesn't accurately reflect the product to the point where I even wonder if I listened to the same one. When reviewers are saying "1989 has almost nothing in common with mainstream pop" (New York Daily News), I wonder if they seriously got the wrong album to review because 1989 sounds like every generic piece of pop I've ever heard and even some of her own fans have said that her new work has caused her to lose her identity and sound like everyone else. So, you can see where I start to get theories about record labels giving bribes for good reviews.

You aren't applying logic when you make statements and assumptions that Grammys are paid for. Otherwise, we would always see the big names with the big money win them all. There is no way Beyoncé wasn't interested in getting AOTY with her last album or Taylor wasn't interested the year RED was eligible or Katy wasn't wanting to win at least one. (Look at how pissed and disappointed she has been) If a Grammy was available for purchase, Katy would have at least one by now.

Now, the rest of what you said about the voters not caring for rap or heavy urban music is using logic, because we know that to be true. We have seen information that back that up that fact. The original comment you made stating that these awards were bought and paid for is what lacks logic. That was the logic I was referring to in my comment you quoted...NOT that the Grammy voting system isnt in many ways flawed. 

I didn't say all Grammys are paid for, but some may well be by certain individuals (not necessarily the ones you mentioned). Much has been made of the fact that Beyonce's dad was on the Grammy committee during the years that she won all those awards...and only stopped winning them the year he stepped out. Yes, she's winning again because she got the commercial success back, but you can see where the rumours came from. The Knowles family has got history of pulling strings to get Beyonce to where she is, as supplemented by ex band members and other acquaintances.

But really, this isn't one of my most adamant theories. I know the vast majority of Grammy decisions come down to the fact that the older set of voters go for the name they find the most rcognisable despite not knowing much about them and/or going for the safest, most relatable choice to them as opposed to new, experimental young talent.

[Whispering 18,865]

I didn't say all Grammys are paid for, but some may well be by certain individuals (not necessarily the ones you mentioned). Much has been made of the fact that Beyonce's dad was on the Grammy committee during the years that she won all those awards...and only stopped winning them the year he stepped out. Yes, she's winning again because she got the commercial success back, but you can see where the rumours came from. The Knowles family has got history of pulling strings to get Beyonce to where she is, as supplemented by ex band members and other acquaintances.

But really, this isn't one of my most adamant theories. I know the vast majority of Grammy decisions come down to the fact that the older set of voters go for the name they find the most rcognisable despite not knowing much about them and/or going for the safest, most relatable choice to them as opposed to new, experimental young talent.

And I've told you many times when you brought this up about Beyonce's dad that He was one of five thousand Grammy voters! His one vote did not matter when it came to the award wins that Beyoncé received. In fact, people like Dr. Luke are a Grammy voter. Why hasn't Katy won awards, since her main producer is a Grammy voter? It's because he is one of five thousand voters? 

Who is paying a large portion of these five thousand voters and why haven't any of them come forward about it? Why haven't a few of these voters, who were upset with the offers of bribes, come forward to tell their story? How much do you think these phantom bribers have to pay a few thousand voters to keep their mouths shut...forever? 

I stick by my original statement...it simply isn't logical to believe that Grammy awards can be paid for. 

[StrawberryBlond 14,954]

And I've told you many times when you brought this up about Beyonce's dad that He was one of five thousand Grammy voters! His one vote did not matter when it came to the award wins that Beyoncé received. In fact, people like Dr. Luke are a Grammy voter. Why hasn't Katy won awards, since her main producer is a Grammy voter? It's because he is one of five thousand voters? 

Who is paying a large portion of these five thousand voters and why haven't any of them come forward about it? Why haven't a few of these voters, who were upset with the offers of bribes, come forward to tell their story? How much do you think these phantom bribers have to pay a few thousand voters to keep their mouths shut...forever? 

I stick by my original statement...it simply isn't logical to believe that Grammy awards can be paid for. 

I didn't say he pulled all the strings, just a few. It's a weird coincidence that her Grammy popularity dropped after he suddenly stepped out. I wouldn't be surprised if he joined in the first place specifically to aid Beyonce in her quest to become the biggest celebrity in the world. Considering he drove her ex bandmates out of the group, made her into a solo star, stopped caring about the other girls, became her manager...becoming part of the Grammy academy was just too perfect. And remember that Dr Luke doesn't just represent Katy - he could also be nominated for other awards in the same category and you can only win once.

I don't think all voters are paid, necessarily, just the right things are being impressed to as many people as possible. For example, I'm sure there's lots of parties thrown for academy voters. I'm sure that pre-ceremony, everyone is trying to ensure their faves win by dropping impressive facts to as many groups of people drinking champagne as they can. I could go from group to group, starting up with: "So, what do you think of that pop category, eh? Not very inspiring this year but that Lady Gaga is something else. I think it's brilliant how she writes and produces all her work as opposed to the average commercial act who just contribute a line or two." And then going over to another group and being all: "Who do you think out of the younger acts will go on to be successful years from now? Because I always say legends never get it wrong and Tony Bennett once said that Lady Gaga was the most talented artist he'd ever worked with and that she could be as big as Elvis." Planting a seed here, a seed there. It'll spread and flourish. That's what I'm talking about more than bribes. You're less likely to have people come forward with stories of manipulation that way. But, for the record, there was a story about a Grammy being bought not all that long ago... http://www.inquisitr.com/241699/chris-brown-bought-grammy-producer-is-fired/

[Whispering 18,865]

I didn't say he pulled all the strings, just a few. It's a weird coincidence that her Grammy popularity dropped after he suddenly stepped out. I wouldn't be surprised if he joined in the first place specifically to aid Beyonce in her quest to become the biggest celebrity in the world. Considering he drove her ex bandmates out of the group, made her into a solo star, stopped caring about the other girls, became her manager...becoming part of the Grammy academy was just too perfect. And remember that Dr Luke doesn't just represent Katy - he could also be nominated for other awards in the same category and you can only win once.

I don't think all voters are paid, necessarily, just the right things are being impressed to as many people as possible.  

A few strings isn't going to get an artist an AOTY win, as five thousand is more than "a few". Beyonce's dad joined for the same reason the other thosands of music industry members join...because they were asked. Katy's manager or managers are more than likely a member of the voting pool, as are all the other managers, producers of other artists. Dr. Luke isn't going to be able to sway a vote on Pop Album of the Year or Song of the Year, since he is one of five thousand. This isn't a difficult concept to understand. One person is not going to get you an AOTY award.

Voters aren't paid. All submissions and then nominations are going to be promoted to the voters, with facts and information. That means that artists with major labels should have the advantage....but even then, it doesn't always work out that way. 

 

[StrawberryBlond 14,954]

A few strings isn't going to get an artist an AOTY win, as five thousand is more than "a few". Beyonce's dad joined for the same reason the other thosands of music industry members join...because they were asked. Katy's manager or managers are more than likely a member of the voting pool, as are all the other managers, producers of other artists. Dr. Luke isn't going to be able to sway a vote on Pop Album of the Year or Song of the Year, since he is one of five thousand. This isn't a difficult concept to understand. One person is not going to get you an AOTY award.

Voters aren't paid. All submissions and then nominations are going to be promoted to the voters, with facts and information. That means that artists with major labels should have the advantage....but even then, it doesn't always work out that way. 

I notice you didn't quote the bit about Chris Brown buying a Grammy and how it seemed that he only had to get through to one person to do it. Seeing that this person got fired tells you it's not just a rumour. But your points are very valid and I totally get where you're coming from. I just say that there's always a seedy underbelly to lots of goings on in the industry. Something that carries as much weight as a Grammy must have some shadiness going on. It's not the best of examples but you know there's rumours that at the People's Choice Awards, they only give the award to the people that show up, even if they didn't actually get the most votes? Or that the MTV Awards scrapped the true winners of the Best Newcomer award in order to promote struggling new group, Fifth Harmony? Nowhere near the same calibre, naturally, but the point is, awards shows have always been shady and nothing is all that it seems. With something as prestigious as the Grammys, you can bet a lot of artists and labels at least try to get things going their way by any means necessary.

[Whispering 18,865]

I notice you didn't quote the bit about Chris Brown buying a Grammy and how it seemed that he only had to get through to one person to do it. Seeing that this person got fired tells you it's not just a rumour. But your points are very valid and I totally get where you're coming from. I just say that there's always a seedy underbelly to lots of goings on in the industry. Something that carries as much weight as a Grammy must have some shadiness going on. It's not the best of examples but you know there's rumours that at the People's Choice Awards, they only give the award to the people that show up, even if they didn't actually get the most votes? Or that the MTV Awards scrapped the true winners of the Best Newcomer award in order to promote struggling new group, Fifth Harmony? Nowhere near the same calibre, naturally, but the point is, awards shows have always been shady and nothing is all that it seems. With something as prestigious as the Grammys, you can bet a lot of artists and labels at least try to get things going their way by any means necessary.

Most of the other awards shows are jokes or based on numbers strictly. The Grammys are different than those other awards shows. 

Yes, I'm sure that major labels send out press and information with submissions, and that it could help somewhat with nominations, but there are always those random indie artists that sneak in and oftentimes even win. Even then, every artist signed with a major label would have that advantage. Having a large amount of voters from multiple genres and parts of the music industry helps with thd process of voting for the winners.