And lastly, I'm just going to leave this here:

She has never taken a risk.

ATRLers are not reliable sources. We're talking about the same people who thought Applause would do better than Roar and who still think Britney Spears is culturally relevant today.

As for the publications, I don't know why they're depicting her fanbase as hardcore country lovers. She always dabbled between the country and pop spheres. I see it as a trade-off at most, and one that was made so it had to work (aka going to Max Martin instead of some lesser known producer).

I think the best way to answer this question is to look back at the reaction to 1989's announcement and Shake it Off's release.

You all seemed to agree it was risky, so I'm going to vote yes!

It doesn't matter if they were wrong about those things. Their responses represent the intitial impression Taylor's announcement had on people. "Max Martin pop? What? She's going to flop!" or "No more 1m-selling debut weeks for her!" or "Welp, the acclaim was fun while it lasted!" At the time the idea of Taylor switching genres created all sorts of unanswerable questions that couldn't be resolved until she took the leap of faith and released the album. How is that anything BUT a risk?

Stop. You're committing textbook hindsight bias by filling in these gaps. The reasoning seems obvious now because we got to watch what happened. But at the time? Every publication, fan -- casual and not-casual alike -- wondered what this would do to her. Which means she had to decide to release this album in spite of these unknowns. Again, how is that anything but a risk?

A lot of yall are assuming that a risk must involve some kind of transgression or innovation. That isn't the case. All a risk entails is some exposure to failure; a potential for decline. By that definition, there is definitely some risk involved when the artist who leads a the largest fanbase in the United States within a certain genre of music abruptly follows a completely new musical direction.

Yes, she worked with pop radio king Max Martin, she didn't release anything truly out of the ordinary, and a shift from country to pop is not without precedent, but all this argues is that the risk was mitigated, not that it doesn't exist.

Risk is only correctly assessed when analyzed in the context of the album release. During the months leading up to the album release, there were a lot of unknowns about what the shift in sound would do to Taylor critically and commercially, and these unknowns were voiced by virtually everyone. Hence, it was a risk.

Would 1989 still be un-risky if she flopped? I bet yall would have been tooting your horns with some "I told you so!" mess had that happened.

Sorry but what? Did you skip We Are Never and I Knew You Were Trouble? Max Martin had worked well twice for her by this point. There were no reasons to believe it wouldn't work a third, fourth and fifth time

Her transition was not abrupt at all. Like I said, she was more than a familiar face for pop listeners. We're not talking about Miranda Lambert or Carrie Underwood here.

I already explained this pages ago. In spite of Red's pop singles it was, overall, not a huge departure from her traditional sound. Max's contributions made up 15% of the album. That is leagues different from an album executively produced by him.

There were plenty of reasons. That's why so many people thought she was going to tank. The publications musing over what this would do to her career. The number of Taylor stans themselves thinking her career would be over. Stop with this hindsight bias nonsense.

Riskier than the likes of Beyonce, KP, Rih, Brit ever

Exactly.

It was RISKY and it paid off

Nah, she already went Pop with IKYWT and WANEEGBT.. she just went full on Pop with 1989. her songs have always been flirting with Pop so the transition was expected.. nothing risky