[chilicheese01]

More receipts!!!!111!!!!11!!

Originally posted by Digital Spy

Billed variously as a reinvention, a rebirth and a career-redefining break from her country roots, Taylor Swift's 1989 is a risky prospect in a year where album sales are already at a record low.

-

Making the switch to full-fledged pop was a risky prospect, and she doesn't falter, blending '80s-style electro beats with dreamy, dark baroque pop.

Originally posted by Billboard

A clean break with the core audience is a risky move for any artist.

Originally posted by The Line of Best Fit

There's evolution with purpose in every fibre of 1989, and far from jettisoning her integrity in this drastic lunge, she's proved in her bold, risky decision that she's got courage in her convictions to pull it off and faith in her fans to accept the new direction.

Originally posted by Mashable

This marked the beginning of the 24-year-old's risky jump from country pop artist to no-country-strings-attached pop star.

Originally posted by International Business Times

It was perhaps the biggest risk she has taken in her music career not just because she has moved out of her comfort zone – from country music to a genre of music which is thronged by numerous artistes, including those of her age.

Sources: 1; 2; 3; 4; 5; 6

Hmm, music journalists and ATRL stans seem divided on whether or not Taylor's switch to pop music was a risk. I wonder who I should trust...

[Stardust.]

Originally posted by pepsimanvn

Most people here thought Katy took more risk by having more sexual and controversial lyrics. While it might be true, is it really the kind of risk that artists should be taking? They take that risk because they want attention from GP, that's all, there is virtually no artistic value in having homophobic and sexual lyrics like Katy's. Her songs don't even talk about any meaningful issues to even justify the provocative lyrics. If anything, taking this kind of risk is essentially a desperate move to break into the market. Take a song like Blow by Beyonce, it's super provocative yet done very tastefully. This is not the case with Katy at all. So all arguments using this should be ignored.

While Taylor DID change her sound completely. While it is not an abrupt change to warrant being called a huge risk, it was still a complete change. Her debut album and 1989 sound nothing alike. She even ventured into urban genre with the remix of Bad Blood with Kendrick Lamar. And obviously this kind of risk is worth taking, and artistically meaningful.

The first thing is your opinion, it's subjective. And sexual songs mostly don't have any "deeper meaning", why would they.

And OOTB and PRISM don't really sound nothing alike either.
Taylor went from country to country pop to pop that appeals the masses and is GP friendly. Not really a risk except losing some of your original fans (and the good opinion of critics of you by releasing songs like We Are and SIO ) BUT the GP is on your side.

[KK_Lover]

Taylor

[chilicheese01]

Originally posted by Stardust.

The first thing is your opinion, it's subjective. And sexual songs mostly don't have any "deeper meaning", why would they.

And OOTB and PRISM don't really sound nothing alike either.
Taylor went from country to country pop to pop that appeals the masses and is GP friendly. Not really a risk except losing some of your original fans (and the good opinion of critics of you by releasing songs like We Are and SIO ) BUT the GP is on your side.

Sexual songs can have meaning. It's just that Katy's music doesn't dig deep enough or bring any original ideas lyrically. Just look at Bjork's Vespertine. That album is all about sex, and it doesn't have lyrics like:

Saucer of milk
Table for two
You wanna pet my kitty?
You such a dirty doggy

Just saying. It's hardly subjective. Songs about sex can be meaningful.

[Stardust.]

Originally posted by chilicheese01

Sexual songs can have meaning. It's just that Katy's music doesn't dig deep enough or bring any original ideas lyrically. Just look at Bjork's Vespertine. That album is all about sex, and it doesn't have lyrics like:



Just saying. It's hardly subjective. Songs about sex can be meaningful.

But Katy is no Bjork and most sexual songs are nothing but sexual songs with no deeper meaning. They can have this but it's not neccassary.

And I prefer this over "We are never ever ever getting back together, you go talk to your friends talk to my friends talk to me but we are never ever ever getting back together" which is not only stupid but childish.
They both have their ups and downs in their lyrics.

[Artemisia]

Originally posted by chilicheese01

Also, the genre change was risky with regard to critics' opinions. Some reactions:

On We Are Never Ever Getting Back Together:







-

On Shake It Off:



On 1989:







Some ATRL fan reactions to working with Max:





































Shake It Off/1989 debut week predictions:













Etc.

Etc.

Etc.

Some critics and fans were all for Taylor moving into pop music. But she clearly had her share of detractors. It was just a matter of whether or not her detractors were able to overpower her supporters. In the end, she still had her share of haters, but most fans and critics were okay with the change because her songwriting talent and music quality carried over. And now she's having the most successful album cycle of her career, which many fans (as seen above) did not expect whatsoever.

It's a risk that she willingly took, and it turned out to be a success. She surprised many people and most of that can be attributed to her dedicated fanbase. If anyone still tries to say it was completely safe, they are delusional.

kill them

[Lord Blackout]

Originally posted by chilicheese01

Sexual songs can have meaning. It's just that Katy's music doesn't dig deep enough or bring any original ideas lyrically. Just look at Bjork's Vespertine. That album is all about sex, and it doesn't have lyrics like:



Just saying. It's hardly subjective. Songs about sex can be meaningful.

Meaningful songs about sex are less likely to turn people off than gawdy, in your face songs like I Kissed A Girl or Last Friday Night. Hell even the bible references sex. If you don't do it in a vulgar way, it doesn't count as a risk that might alienate conservative middle America.

[pepsimanvn]

Originally posted by Stardust.

But Katy is no Bjork and most sexual songs are nothing but sexual songs with no deeper meaning. They can have this but it's not neccassary.

And I prefer this over "We are never ever ever getting back together, you go talk to your friends talk to my friends talk to me but we are never ever ever getting back together" which is not only stupid but childish.
They both have their ups and downs in their lyrics.

Gosh this isn't even about who has better lyrics. This is about people saying that because Katy has a song like I KISSED A GIRL and it's considered taking more risk. Yes it is a risk, but this risk is not about artistic expression and being creative. It's purely about the shock factor to get the GP talking, that's it.

And also, about OOTB and Prism. After OOTB, if Prism came out directly after it would still completely make sense, I as a listener would not get confused at all. But let's not even use Taylor debut album, but if 1989 came out directly after her 3rd album which is Speak Now, that would shock a lot of people and alienate most of her country fan base. But as I said, she didn't abruptly switch from country to pop, so it was not a huge risk, but it could still potentially ruin her career if not done right. So when you compare their music careers, Taylor obviously took more risk than Katy.

[hausofandrew]

Katy Perry is the safest pop star on the planet. She doesn't take risks. She stays inside the box. She's just basic and generic.

[cherrygoddess]

Originally posted by pepsimanvn

Most people here thought Katy took more risk by having more sexual and controversial lyrics. While it might be true, is it really the kind of risk that artists should be taking? They take that risk because they want attention from GP, that's all, there is virtually no artistic value in having homophobic and sexual lyrics like Katy's. Her songs don't even talk about any meaningful issues to even justify the provocative lyrics. If anything, taking this kind of risk is essentially a desperate move to break into the market. Take a song like Blow by Beyonce, it's super provocative yet done very tastefully. This is not the case with Katy at all. So all arguments using this should be ignored.

While Taylor DID change her sound completely. While it is not an abrupt change to warrant being called a huge risk, it was still a complete change. Her debut album and 1989 sound nothing alike. She even ventured into urban genre with the remix of Bad Blood with Kendrick Lamar. And obviously this kind of risk is worth taking, and artistically meaningful.

Having Kendrick Lamar on a remix doesnt make it urban, its still a pop song just with a rapper on it. Neither of them take risks they both change their sound up sometimes and it works.

[chilicheese01]

Originally posted by Artemisia

kill them

And there's no receipts whatsoever from the Katz. Just "I Kissed a Girl, Ur So Gay, Dark Horse, etc. are so risky!!!11!!!"

Critics on Prism:

Originally posted by Associated Press

The singer's new electro-pop songs are likable — and surely there are some Top 10 hits here — but she's playing it safe.

Originally posted by Chicago Tribune

“Prism” does come off as a more serious – if no less formulaic -- album than its predecessor. But being taken seriously may be Perry’s greatest challenge yet.

Originally posted by PopMatters

most of Prism just plays it safe, relying on tropes that worked before instead of venturing into new territory.

Originally posted by The Independent

She burnt her blue wig in the short promo video for the single “Roar”, but any tweaks to the Katy Perry formula are cosmetic on her post-Brand album.

On Teenage Dream:

Originally posted by PopMatters

Now, instead of making an attempt at an artistic leap forward, Perry has, with her candy-coated follow-up, Teenage Dream, doubled down on the formula that got her here.

Originally posted by The New York Times

The answers are mostly yes: “Teenage Dream” sticks to a radio-friendly formula

Originally posted by NY Daily News

Perry's strategy helped her rule this summer's airwaves with the top-down anthem "California Gurls." Given the song's global reach, it's small wonder she doesn't stray from the formula for a moment on "Teenage Dream," her second major-label CD.

Originally posted by Chicago Tribune

With music as rigidly formulaic as this, no wonder the teens in her songs want to party until they blank out.

Originally posted by Metro

Last Friday Night (TGIF) vies with the vile Ke$ha for formulaic trashiness

Sources: 1; 2; 3; 4; 5; 6; 7; 8; 9

[HASHTAGPOW]

Taylor

[Dollas n Diamonds]

Chili gathering the evidence and DOUBLE TAPPING the liars here

The NERVE of any of you to pretend it wasn't a risk when news of her pop album and sio first coming out it was all that was talked about. registration hasn't opened for more than a year we were all here for it don't act oblivious

Originally posted by cherrygoddess

Having Kendrick Lamar on a remix doesnt make it urban, its still a pop song just with a rapper on it. Neither of them take risks they both change their sound up sometimes and it works.

it is when said remix was given new production instead of just slapping a rapper on like some other pop girls do

Take it up with urban radio

[chilicheese01]

Looking back at old threads is priceless.

If Taylor Swift became a regular pop girl, would it work?

Keep in mind, this is before she released We Are Never and it became a huge success.

Results:

View Poll Results: Would she succed?
Yes 12 19.67%
No 42 68.85%

Not really I mean I'm sure if the songs are catchy enough she could get hits but it would be good bye to album sales

No her main fan-base is country

Why would she even wanna do that?

No i think she's fine doing country music

I don't think she would be convincing enough, she's been too successful having this image and she wouldn't be able to shake it.

The queen would never

No. She wouldn't sell so many records how she's selling right now.

No. She probably wouldn't totally flop, but her sales would be way down and her fan base would dwindle. I don't think the large majority of us Swifties would be here for that, and to go down the sex kitten route would pretty much contradict her entire career and personality up to now.

More on working with Max (in 2012):

I think she may lose a lot of US fans who bought her country music over this.

I cringed when I heard her say that. Awful.

But she'll lose sales. Its not worth it. Country is one of the best core audience you can have, they stick to you longer than a pop fan base.

I mean, she needs the country music fans sales-wise. They buy records.

She can't change it up completely.

She'll lose. Country fans buy albums, why do you think so many country artist have consistent and sometimes high sells. If she goes more pop her sales will dip.

Taylor needs to watch out... Switching over isn't always good. Ask Faith Hill after her Breathe era. Country is where her sales are at.

The Pink Friday RR album sales give a pretty clear example of what happens when you focus too much on pop rather than on the genre that made you.

Country fans will be angry.

I hope she doesn't go full pop, and looses her core fanbase.

In 2014:

I think she could possibly drop in sales if she totally left country.

i think her country audience does have something to do with it and completely alienating them would be a bad decision, but it's not the whole reason and she can still be successful without them. she might lose some of her sales though

Her country appeal is obviously part of why she is able to sell so much.

She'd drop definitely, and I expect her to open lower than Red did with her next effort

And after Shake It Off:

No. Because the reason she was a special pop girl with her country flare. Shake it Off is a major disappointment for me. Hopefully the album is better. It sounds like a pop song any other popgirl could have done.

No. It'll backfire on her really bad

Eww gross no...

Not completely. I think her voice fits best with country and singer/songwriter stuff, I'm gonna miss it.

Not at all. I'd be here if her pop music was good, but her pop music is incredibly lacking.

It's cringeworthy.

Full? 100%? No.

Judging by the lead single - it will backfire hard, ruining her image & brand. No more 1M first weeks also.

Tbh no, I wish she stayed on Country.

No. Her best songs are country.

The list is endless, ya'll.

[Icannot]

chilli, not too much on these poor souls.

[Mezter]

Taylor

[Lord Blackout]

You can post members' posts all you want, that won't change the fact that ATRL (or pop stans in general) did not know the first thing about Taylor's fanbase or Taylor altogether before she became a Britney-lite popstar in 2012.

[chilicheese01]

Originally posted by Lord Blackout

You can post members' posts all you want, that won't change the fact that ATRL (or pop stans in general) did not know the first thing about Taylor's fanbase or Taylor altogether before she became a Britney-lite popstar in 2012.

What's that? The fact that her fans are the most loyal around nowadays. Not to mention that she has the biggest fanbase of any current pop star. Besides, critics also noted how her transition into pop was risky.

[Lord Blackout]

Originally posted by chilicheese01

What's that? The fact that her fans are the most loyal around nowadays. Not to mention that she has the biggest fanbase of any current pop star. Besides, critics also noted how her transition into pop was risky.

Her fans didn't merge with pop stans til 2012 and she didn't become a force here til 1989/the Bad Blood announcement. That has nothing to do with how loyal her fanbase is. And critics have always brown-nosed her. That's no receipt.

[omrimayo]

Katy is the safest pop star of all time