Discussion: If Katy released 1989, would it be as acclaimed/respected? - Page 4

Whiskey Mouth

Quote:

Originally posted by Sazare

Nope! A lot of critics have it out for Katy (not completely unjustifiably). They'd be sure to call out all the moments on the weak points album that barely got passing references on Taylor's reviews as justification for their poor scores.

I'm not really sure why Taylor constantly gets a free pass for all the stuff Katy gets panned for. Especially when Taylor does it with half the panache and personality.

How so? Taylor's personality is all over 1989. The songs are about things she went through, and while Katy's could be too, they're just really packed with clichés that have been recited to hell and back. Not to mention Taylor is clearly more involved lyrically than Katy.
If Taylor released a weak body of work like most of Katy's she'd probably be penalized for it too, but she doesn't. And actually we won't find out until she declines in quality.

muddysquirrel

Quote:

Originally posted by Kayzan

Talking as if 1989 had some kind of impressive lyrics. It's the SAME or even WORSE than PRISM, stop overrating your favorite songwriting "talent" to the pits. She's not the second coming.

Leave it to Katy stan to think songwriting only consists of fancy words and metaphors. Katy can not make words pop on songs as fluently as Taylor and that is a fact. No disrespect to Katy. Nobody in mainstream pop can do it as well as Lord.

revel8

Sort of a stupid thread based on hypotheticals. Taylor was a professional songwriter since she was 14. And it shows. Katy Perry could never write 1989. Only Taylor could write 1989. Only Taylor could write Red and her other albums. Artists are individuals especially singer-songwriters. Only Bruce Springsteen could write Born In The USA. No-one else could have written it.

What next? If Schwarzenegger had written Rocky would it have won an Oscar? If Madonna had written Thriller would it have sold as well?

UnusualBoy

No, it wouldn't have been the same, mostly because Taylor has gotten a good reputation and acclaim with the critics while Katy hasn't.

Samuel

Quote:

Originally posted by PCiAM

Exactly.. like... this:
http://gawker.com/all-226-cliches-ut...bum-1451718946

That article is still dumb as hell.

Quote:

From up above
Let go
That’s right
You are worthy
So fancy free
Laying on the bathroom floor

These allegedly being cliches

At least about half of them aren't.

Ainsworth

Nope. It wouldn't be nearly as acclaimed if Katy had released it. Taylor is loved by critics and she is praised for her songwriting, where Katy probably wouldn't be.

Though, if Katy did release 1989, I think it'd still be her most acclaimed/solid album.

muddysquirrel

Katy is basically Taylor Swift lite when it comes to songwriting. Melodies are cute, though. But lyrics on "Prism"? Total cringe....

enxe

Quote:

Originally posted by PCiAM

Many critics bash pop music because they believe its manufactured, lacks artistic identity and/or is packaged to be consumed by mass amounts of people. Critics often think whomever singing the top 40 song of the moment can just as easily be replaced by another singer since many of these tracks are created solely by producers.

Taylor has put out a pop record that is easily accessible by mainstream but the album is still very "Taylor" and has her flair/personality all over it. You can tell she had a had in the creation of this music. Not just any mainstream pop star could have put this out and I think critics are aware of that and are rewarding her for it.

Perfectly explained

BlueTimberwolf

Quote:

Originally posted by PCiAM

Many critics bash pop music because they believe its manufactured, lacks artistic identity and/or is packaged to be consumed by mass amounts of people. Critics often think whomever singing the top 40 song of the moment can just as easily be replaced by another singer since many of these tracks are created solely by producers.

Taylor has put out a pop record that is easily accessible by mainstream but the album is still very "Taylor" and has her flair/personality all over it. You can tell she had a had in the creation of this music. Not just any mainstream pop star could have put this out and I think critics are aware of that and are rewarding her for it.

Just b/c she referenced herself in some of the songs, doesn't make the final product is any more artistic. Shake it Off could be anyones.

Kayzan

Quote:

Originally posted by muddysquirrel

Leave it to Katy stan to think songwriting only consists of fancy words and metaphors. Katy can not make words pop on songs as fluently as Taylor and that is a fact. No disrespect to Katy. Nobody in mainstream pop can do it as well as Lord.

Dreamer.

Artemisia

Could she have released 1989 is the important question that needs to be answered first. And the answer is no.

Katy and Taylor are completely different artists, creatively. It does not make sense for Katy to be writing songs like Blank Space, Out of the Woods, and Shake it Off. Even if you wanted to set up a completely hypothetical situation where Katy was writing songs like that, you'd have to accept that she would then be a different artist, and thus received by critics differently.

Vespertine

Quote:

Originally posted by iHype.

Why is this site so damn important you always bring it up?

OT: No.

It's basically a compendium of critics' lists, so I guess it seems fairest. You can accuse individual publications of bias, but P&J balances it all out, in theory.

I'd say it also has some prestige just because it's Robert Christgau's baby. He's one of the biggest (and hardest to please) critics.

Samuel

Quote:

Originally posted by muddysquirrel

Leave it to Katy stan to think songwriting only consists of fancy words and metaphors. Katy can not make words pop on songs as fluently as Taylor and that is a fact. No disrespect to Katy. Nobody in mainstream pop can do it as well as Lord.

How exactly does she 'make words pop'?

BlueTimberwolf

Katy is just as "all over" her songs as Taylor is.

HumanitySector

Nope, and it's funny because 1989 is basically a Katy Perry-sounding album.

Proof that most of critics have no idea what they're talking about.

BlueTimberwolf

Quote:

Originally posted by Artemisia

Could she have released 1989 is the important question that needs to be answered first. And the answer is no.

Katy and Taylor are completely different artists, creatively. It does not make sense for Katy to be writing songs like Blank Space, Out of the Woods, and Shake it Off. Even if you wanted to set up a completely hypothetical situation where Katy was writing songs like that, you'd have to accept that she would then be a different artist, and thus received by critics differently.

Why couldn't she make those songs?

Edge Of Glory

Quote:

Originally posted by Jaspurr

Yeah, that's exactly the point. It's only Taylor who could write these lyrics & make pop music with so much substance not everyone else. And that's exactly what the critics are praising 1989 for, not because of its sound.

But this thread is asking how the album would've been received had Katy had released it. It doesn't matter that Taylor is the only one who could've written 1989 irl since we're talking hypothetically. If Katy had written the same exact lyrics and released them, as I said, they wouldn't have had less substance bc substance isn't measured by anything other than the lyrics.

I hope I'm coming across clear.

alex_katycat

Quote:

Originally posted by muddysquirrel

Katy is basically Taylor Swift lite when it comes to songwriting. Melodies are cure, though. But lyrics on "Prism"? Total cringe....

LMFFAOOO

Artemisia

Quote:

Originally posted by BlueTimberwolf

Katy is just as "all over" her songs as Taylor is.

No, she's not. What kind of identity comes with songs like Legendary Lovers or Dark Horse?

I love both of those songs, but they don't really say anything about Katy Perry as an artist.

Jaspurr

Quote:

Originally posted by Edge Of Glory

But this thread is asking how the album would've been received had Katy had released it. It doesn't matter that Taylor is the only one who could've written 1989 irl since we're talking hypothetically. If Katy had written the same exact lyrics and released them, as I said, they wouldn't have had less substance bc substance isn't measured by anything other than the lyrics.

I hope I'm coming across clear.

Are you trying to say the question the OP asks doesn't make any sense? 'Cause I agree.