Taylor Swift vs The Beatles; Bringing Out The Worst In Music Conversation

Why does making sense have to be so hard?

Recently, The New York Times published an article asking if Taylor Swift is as big as The Beatles. It's a fun topic for debate, but it isn't what I want to talk about today. No, as would be expected, any talk that modern music could be as popular or successful as that of the past brought out many of the same tired voices screaming that music today is inferior in almost every way.

Music professor, producer, and YouTube personality Rick Beato made a video talking about this subject, and used it to continue his long-standing rant against songs written by large numbers of people. He is not along in voicing his distaste for the practice, and I will admit to not always being impressed by what it says about some artists, but there is a very key point Beato either intentionally or subconsciously skips over:

The number of writers doesn't make a flying fuck of a difference to whether or not a song is good.

Do we give more artistic credit to a musician who writes a song entirely on their own? Of course we do, because it is impressive to be the sole creator of an idea. But does it effect the song itself if a dozen other people contributed? No, of course it doesn't.

We don't penalize movie directors for using scripts they didn't write to make their movies. We don't fault authors for having editors who help focus their books. So why would we hold a songwriter in contempt for taking advice and ideas that might make their songs better?

It makes no sense. In fact, it makes as little sense as when many of the same type of critics lost their minds and couldn't stop bitching that Metallica cut their hair, as if you could hear hair gel through the speakers when you put the record on. There are plenty of reasons to dislike "Load", but their hairstyle isn't one of them.

It goes beyond that, though. Going back to the comparison of The Beatles, they don't fit the auteur aesthetic that Beato and the others love to romanticize. McCartney and Lennon routinely worked on each other's songs, serving as co-writers who just so happened to be in the same band. If you're going to argue that getting help from someone in the band is any different as a writer to seeking out an outside co-writer, you're again missing the entire point. Furthermore, in today's climate, George Martin would have had songwriting credit on a sizeable portion of The Beatles catalog. His orchestrations and suggestions were critical to many of the band's biggest songs, and he would certainly be deserving of credit for them if producers were given the same respect in those days they get today.

Do we think any less of The Beatles for not being able to bring all of their ideas to life solely by themselves? Of course not, because that's not what art is. The end result is the only thing that matters, or at least it should be if we're honest about our motivations.

If the songs on Taylor Swift's newest album had their backing tracks created by a producer, how is that any different than George Martin putting "Eleanor Rigby" together for Paul McCartney? It isn't, but so many are incapable of accepting that there is more than one way to make music, and more than one kind of music that will be popular for the rest of time. The Beatles had their day, classic rock had it's day, and today's music is something entirely different. What these people need to learn to accept is that their parents likely were just as critical of the music being held up as the 'good old days' as these people are of today's music. It's a generational blindness we're too stupid (as a society) to ever get past.

So is Taylor Swift bigger than The Beatles? I have no idea, since they exist in entirely different world. The Beatles didn't have the ability to get their music into everyone's ears as easily as Taylor, but she has to compete with the entirety of recorded music history being available at everyone's fingertips. What constitutes success today has almost nothing in common with its historical antecedent.

The better question is to ask if Taylor's success comes on the basis of songs that are as good as The Beatles. There is a fascinating debate to have about that, touching on everything from the trite lyrics of the mop-top days to crossing genre lines as the world got more siloed. We can have that debate, and maybe one day I'll take that on here. What you won't hear from me is any suggestion that Taylor Swift working with other writers somehow speaks to the quality of the songs. Taylor has written great songs with the help of collaborators, while Lennon and McCartney wrote some rather dodgy garbage on their own.

Basically, this whole discussion comes down to one thing; 'serious' music fans who claim to put the music above all the trivial aspects of the business are no better at falling victim to their base preferences as any of the rest of us.

The difference is that at least I'm critical enough to know when I'm talking out of my ass.