Save this storySave this storySave this storySave this story
In 2014, Taylor Swift released an album called 1989, which became a symbol of her transition from country to pop. She appeared on Jimmy Kimmel Live!, where the host reads some of her early reviews. Time magazine: “['1989'] represents her most impressive stunt yet — a shift in emphasis away from her past and toward music that’s as smart and confident as ever.” Rolling Stone: “'1989' sounds like Taylor Swift, even when it feels like nothing she’s ever tried before.” The Times: “By making pop music with almost no contemporary references, Ms. Swift is aiming for something higher, a timelessness that few true pop stars… even bother to aspire to.” The artist beamed: She may have known it then, but this was the moment Taylor Swift became Taylor Swift.
“1989” sold 1.287 million copies in the US in its first week, setting industry records. Singles like “Shake It Off” and “Blank Space” remain some of Swift’s most iconic songs, can’t-miss songs at a wedding or karaoke bar. However, the success of “1989” was eclipsed nine years later by the success of “1989 (Taylor’s Version).” The latter sold more than 1.6 million copies in the US in its first week and became the best-selling album in America in 2023. Apple Music recently named it the 18th best album of all time, ranking it just above The Beatles’ “Revolver.” Was the new “1989” really better than the first? Not really — it was re-recorded to sound almost exactly the same, and songs like “Blank Space” are essentially carbon copies of the originals. And yet, while the first “1989” won three Grammys, “1989 (Taylor's Version)” was worthy of a whole host of other awards, making one wonder how Swift didn't break some kind of double jeopardy rule.
Before Swift announced her intention to re-record all of her music in 2019, she was facing what she called “career death.” Three years earlier, during an ongoing feud with Kanye West, she had spoken out against lyrics he wrote about her that claimed he “made that b*tch famous.” In response, Kim Kardashian, West’s then-wife, posted an edited clip of a phone call in which Swift appeared to agree with the song’s content in advance. “She totally approved of it,” Kardashian explained to GQ. “She suddenly wanted to act like she didn’t do it.” Kardashian posted a tweet about snakes that appeared to be aimed at Swift, and snake emojis and the hashtag #TaylorSwiftIsOverParty spread online. Swift retreated from public life for a time. “Nobody physically saw me for a year,” she said. “I thought they wanted it.”
In 2017, Swift released Reputation, which was supposed to be her big comeback album, but it was ignored at the Grammys. When she found out, in a moment captured in the documentary Miss Americana, she was close to tears. “It’s OK,” she told a member of her team. “It’s OK.” She added, “I just need to make a better record.” The follow-up, Lover, featured some of Swift’s most beloved songs, like “Cruel Summer.” But the album’s lead single, “ME!” a heartfelt anthem of self-empowerment, was so disappointing that fans theorized that it wasn’t a single from the album at all, but rather a throwaway song she wrote for the soundtrack to the upcoming sequel to the animated film The Secret Life of Pets. (Some of the film’s promotional materials and the “ME!” video shared a similar color palette.) Swift later removed one of the song’s most offensive parts, an interlude in which she shouts, “Spelling is fun!” The next single, “You Need to Calm Down,” an upbeat song about LGBTQ allyship, was released during Pride Month. Swift was simultaneously criticized for mocking homophobia (“Shade never made anyone less gay”) and for baiting queer fans by wearing the colors of the bisexual flag in the video.
Later that month, Swift posted on Tumblr — not about “Lover,” but about every album that had come before it. She explained that when she was 15, she signed with Big Machine Records, signing over ownership of the masters to her first six studio albums to the label. Over the years, she tried to reclaim control of her masters, but Scott Borchetta, the CEO of Big Machine Label Group, was unwilling to sell them to her. Instead, the label offered a deal of sorts: For every new album Swift made with them, she would get the old one in return. Swift found the terms unacceptable. “I had to make the gut-wrenching choice to leave my past behind,” she wrote.
Sourse: newyorker.com
