1989 or Lover?

[LOVEDRUG 10,651]

lover.

i adore 1989, but some songs on the album such as shake it off and bad blood always ruin my listening experience. the album is a gorgeous synthpop masterpiece then you have these random modern pop songs stuck in the middle of the tracklist 

lover paints an image in my head as an entire album, something 1989 doesn't manage to do. i see critiques about a lack of cohesion, but for me lover is one of the most cohesive albums in her discography, people are just used to having albums of a single genre and style and criticise albums for exploring stylistically. every song on lover flows into the next perfectly and i can listen to the album back to front, which i cannot do with 1989 because of the songs i previously mentioned. perhaps it's all just because 1989 is overplayed though.

anyways, i prefer lover, i prefer the songs and i prefer the writing. there's some great lyricism on 1989 but for me, lover is just next level when it comes to the songwriting... and i prefer the production. lover would be a lot better without me! and yntcd but they don't spoil the album in my opinion, just don't particularly add anything

[LOVEDRUG 10,651]

also i hate how people discredit lover for being not cohesive yet reputation never receives the same critiques, when it is a lot less cohesive than lover 

[Yxilon 5,248]

Lyrics:

1) Red

2) 1989

3) Lover

4) Reputation

 

Compositions:

1) 1989

2) Lover

3) Red

4) Reputation

 

Productions:

1) Reputation

2) Lover

3) 1989

4) Red

 

So overall, 1989 wins

 

[ShayCristoforo 10,607]

1989 is a phenomenal album of excellence.

Lover isn't. Plain and simple lol. 

[Glamourpuss 29,062]

21 minutes ago, Autumn said:

lover.

i adore 1989, but some songs on the album such as shake it off and bad blood always ruin my listening experience. the album is a gorgeous synthpop masterpiece then you have these random modern pop songs stuck in the middle of the tracklist 

lover paints an image in my head as an entire album, something 1989 doesn't manage to do. i see critiques about a lack of cohesion, but for me lover is one of the most cohesive albums in her discography, people are just used to having albums of a single genre and style and criticise albums for exploring stylistically. every song on lover flows into the next perfectly and i can listen to the album back to front, which i cannot do with 1989 because of the songs i previously mentioned. perhaps it's all just because 1989 is overplayed though.

anyways, i prefer lover, i prefer the songs and i prefer the writing. there's some great lyricism on 1989 but for me, lover is just next level when it comes to the songwriting... and i prefer the production. lover would be a lot better without me! and yntcd but they don't spoil the album in my opinion, just don't particularly add anything

I think you may have switched my vote from 1989 to Lover. You reminded me why I love that album. 

Also Death by a thousand cuts is my favourite Taylor song at the moment. 

[LOVEDRUG 10,651]

Just now, Glamourpuss said:

I think you may have switched my vote from 1989 to Lover. You reminded me why I love that album. 

Also Death by a thousand cuts is my favourite Taylor song at the moment. 

indeed, death by a thousand cuts is my favourite from lover. i feel like that's the case with most people, they forget how much they like lover until they re-listen or hear someone else discussing it. but for me, it's definitely in my top three taylor albums

[Guest]

38 minutes ago, holy scheisse said:

Reputation > 1989 > Lover 

Fully agree.

[GGDisbetter 2,187]

Reputation >> 

1989 is great too but has how you get the girl which is shite tbh

Lover has heaps of filler and should've been 12 tracks (cut me, yntcd, its nice to have a flop, london boy, death by a thousand flops and the man) 

[JustinLovesGaga 883]

1989, no question. One of the greatest albums of all time. Pop perfection. You can't do much better than 1989. 

Lover, on the other hand, is only medium. Lots of filler and forgettable tracks.