Taylor Swift - Folklore

Robert Palmer and Linda Ronstadt, both of whom never seem to quite get that same level of appreciation Bowie got on the variety-within-a-pop-context front.

Very simple explanation here; Bowie's magpie-ism registers as "cool"/"arty" to the critic-brain, where Palmer's and Ronstadt's shifts register as "mercenary"/"empty-shell".

Their loss!

she had a marvelous time ruining everything

The proof is irrefuable!

https://media3.giphy.com/media/1447XAXteQjahi/source.gif

https://media3.giphy.com/media/1447XAXteQjahi/source.gif

"exile" is pretty easily my least favorite song here but that bridge is a killer, some peter gabriel/kate bush "don't give up" shit

i don't like the verse in "exile" much at all but that's more than made up by the chorus & especially the bridge

but you know instead of reassuring and life-affirming it's about miscommunication and mutual alienation while still feeling yoked to the memory of an old warmth now lost

... like iirc a lot of the record is xp

salt air
and the rust on your door
i never needed anything more

^^^ love this opening

Your integrity makes me seem small
You paint dreamscapes on the wall

I believe Aaron Dessner when he says what he enjoyed most was the creative partnership, but I wonder at what point in all this he realized, whoa, I’m about to make a shit-ton of money.

I was thinking about that, too. And Justin Vernon, for that matter, who at this point already has several credits with Kanye, Eminem, et al., he must be swimming in it.

So Dessner has never even been in the same room with Swift, right?

so she says

I’m confused by “genre hopping” - all of Taylor Swift’s music seems to exist on a pretty narrow spectrum between pop and country to my ears?

The National guys all have several shit-tons of money already, I doubt the thought really took him aback tbf

Also anyone who is feeling this should join Brad and I in enjoying the last three Vanessa Carlton albums

― Tim F, Saturday, July 25, 2020 1:49 AM (yesterday) bookmarkflaglink

oh boy otm

I actually have no sense of how rich "band I've heard of but not Taylor Swift level megastar" makes you. If you're in the National, could you just not work for the rest of your life? It's not *that* rich, is it?

It's like the Chris Rock routine about "rich" vs. "wealthy." The National guys might not even be "rich," but I'm sure they're fine with money. However, I'm willing to bet Dessner potentially makes as much from this album as he's made from the last several National albums and tours combined.

I don't hear any genre hopping with her. I think maybe a better way to put it is how comfortable she's been with at this point a pretty diverse slate of collaborators. That's a testament to her talents (as singer/lyricist) and her personality, which tbh didn't really click with me at all until this album and, in particular, the documentary. She's the through-line but unlike (for example) Bowie or Madonna, she *doesn't * sound like a "musical chameleon," or someone who hops from style to style and image to image. She just sounds like a really sympathetic and sensitive collaborator, attuned to what others are bringing and what she can bring to them.

Playing the most recent National album again. I should play this for my kids to see if they hear any similarities.

I seriously doubt Dessner has a day job, and I'm sure he does just fine, as he works with many many artists and I'm sure he's paid well for it. He's done a few film scores also but nothing huge. "Rich" I'm not sure but he likely has a comfortable life.

A day job?! The National has sold millions of records and did p/ much non-stop touring, selling out huge venues (in Europe at least). They're all millionairs, easily.

Oh sure it’s just that whatever comfortable lifestyle he already has he just got a nice bonus.

Looking at Spotify, just their top 10 songs have had around 400 million streams so I imagine they do ok

Lol, 400 million streams on Spotify probably gets them a sandwich.

Touring is expensive. It's very easy to come back from a big headlining tour having barely broken even, or even lost money.

• You have to pay the road crew, tour manager, publicist, etc. out of pocket
• Visas, travel expenses, hotels, etc.
• Insurance
• If you're not a headliner, if you're opening for a major touring act or on a festival tour (Warped, Knotfest, Ozzfest when that was a thing, etc.), you have often bought that slot

I'm sure the National do well, because they've managed to make it a sustainable business for quite a long time, and Dessner does other stuff, but if he's more than upper-middle-class I'd be really shocked. Run of the mill doctors and lawyers make more money in a given year than highly successful, highly recognizable musicians.

Run of the mill doctors and lawyers kindergarten teachers make more money in a given year than highly successful, highly recognizable musicians.

Yeah, seriously. Just to underscore costs, Swift's Reputation tour reportedly made $266 million, which is a ton of money, but Swift herself is worth somewhere around $350 million, which means she got paid piles of money, of course, but that the bulk of the tour money probably went to the machine. Assuming any of these numbers are even close to accurate, in 2018 she reportedly earned $5 million in record sales, $2.4 million through streaming, and $2 million in publishing royalties. I bet she makes the most through endorsements and stuff, though.

Anyway, I was curious. One estimate has it that Spotify pays $1 for every 229 streams. So barring some special secret negotiation, 400 million streams likely gets the National a little under $2 million. Divided across the band members, minus costs, and yeah, you're doing well but not buying a private island or anything. But if Swift made $ 2.4 million in total streaming, then the National probably make much, much less than annually.

One estimate has it that Spotify pays $1 for every 229 streams. So barring some special secret negotiation, 400 million streams likely gets the National a little under $2 million.

This isn't the thread for this, but a) that seems way higher than I've read elsewhere, and b) Spotify doesn't pay individual artists for how much their music is streamed. A lot of people are very mad about that fact and have been since the beginning. Spotify takes all the money generated by all the songs that are streamed, throws it in a big pot, and divides it up among all the artists and labels.

Oh I'm sure those numbers are totally wrong. Those streaming services are less than transparent at best, and infamously not generous. Didn't Pharrell say that tens of millions of streams of Happy essentially made him peanuts? Point being that 400 million streams seems like a lot, until you realize it pays fractions of a cent per stream.

Lads. The National are a band who still sell rekkids! Middle-aged people buy their cds and expensive double lp’s. Crazy i know. And yes, touring is expensive, but you’re not telling me a band like that isn’t making good money off those hundreds of thousands 60-90 euros per ticket.

Not that it matters but.. Yeah, I don’t think Dessner will be too surprised with what this gig will pay him.

The National are one of the top five most successful indie bands in USA, they own their own houses. Income primarily comes from plum licenses (in commercials, movies), points on hit records ("Folklore", i.e.) and tour revenue. I'd peg Aaron's take on "Folklore"'s sales/streaming profits, assuming he's making 25%, at an average of 500k a year for the next decade. But: these are musicians in the absolute upper echelon of money-makers. Any lawyer practicing corporate law, real estate law, litigation or claims is gonna be making more per annum than a Dessner

I checked and their delayed Europe tour they had two nights at the O2 Academy Brixton which is 5K capacity

I think ilx never gave a fuck about them so you're underestimating how popular they are and how ardent their fanbase is.

It was really just an offhand thought. Here you are, a member of a successful rock band, puttering around at home during quarantine, making music because that's what you do and you have a lot of time on your hands and you're not even sure what the music's for, and then you get a text message and suddenly it's like, "Oh, that's what this music is for — to buy another couple houses and stage my long-dreamt-of puppet musical on a mountain in Norway."

You're thinking of Phil Elverum

I like Ned's most recent posts-- although I feel as if Taylor kind of hit her "Let's Dance" phase a little early.

Thanks! A little early, maybe, but also I might take relative age and 'career' space into account. (Eight years separate the debut album and 1989, eleven years separate Ziggy Stardust and Let's Dance -- and yes, I know that's not when Bowie started etc. etc. but let's phrase it in terms of the US public eye, and also the difference in how careers work now, as such.)

I mean, in between those glam rock and pop albums, he did soul pastiche, ambient collaborations with Eno, art-rock with Fripp,... Do people really see a remotely comparable scope in Taylor Swift's work? Like crut, I am also baffled by "genre hopping" wrt TS.

The album she did with Wolfgang Voight was admittedly pretty unexpected.

I think "Peace" (on the new album) may have the most "soul" of any song Taylor has done?

(Great song, btw - probably should have ended the album? I still can't get into "Hoax," or ever really hear the melody.)

i see that this thread is gonna get to 1000 comments before i get a chance to listen

Yeah sund4r you're kinda right-- less in common with a Robert Palmer and more in common with "a rock band who had their disco moment". I hope that's the case, anyway! I have no taste for Taylor-the-pop-musician. I like her best when she sounds like Jann Arden

i'm two listens in, + tho i'm enjoying it i'm also not sure if my interest will sustain for much beyond that. it's very nice and a smart/refreshing departure for her, but it is also so ceaselessly subdued in mood that i do struggle to take it all in as an ~album~ at times. the instrumentation is polite and refined, for better and worse, + i enjoy the hypnotic electronic touches. i found myself wishing that the hazy instrumental opening to "epiphany" would just continue uninterrupted for awhile like a stars of the lid record or something but nope, had to jump right back into tay's vocals. unlikely to become my fav ts record, but pretty good!

i enthusiastically welcome her not releasing a tragic, labored attempt at a 'pop hit' prior to dropping the album

have personally been wondering if the subdued mood is a feature and not a bug. i look at what's working on streaming and i don't see a lot of big/bombastic/uptempo/maximalist pop music

i see sad ballads from the pop artists who do manage to fit through the bottleneck and reach the masses, and i see songs that are advance scouts from rap and r&b records that in a lot of ways, resemble folklore more than they resemble reputation or 1989. long, tonally melancholy/subdued, lyrically focused at least compared to the max martin school of "if it sounds good, who cares what it means?"

the single that worked from lover was the title track. the single that worked from reputation was delicate. either of those songs could show up on folklore and fit right in. what if this just is the sound of pop now? what if the smaller, more subtle gradient of moods this record displays from track to track are just more relatable and enticing to a generation of listeners that isn't interested in the traditional sugar rush of bubblegum because they literally have cut actual sugar out of their actual diets and therefore mistrust any product, cultural or otherwise, that's trying to give them too much too soon?

screaming at the thought of this album's tracks getting slotted into the popular 'peaceful piano' 'mood' playlists

sounding more depressed/pensive does not automatically make your music more sophisticated or subtle. imo that this is swift's best album is nothing to do with the (admittedly au courant) glumness or mood greydient and more to do with the fact that it feels less dead-eyed than usual & she (eventually) starts doing more interesting things with the instrumentals than before. it's reductive to say that pop music itself is becoming less maximalist. pop music is becoming more of everything and you can choose to listen to whatever bits of it you're told to you like

All fair, but this is also her first album in four albums not preceded by a particularly obnoxious, very not subtle lead single. Definitely a choice.

“Shake It Off” wasn’t obnoxious (and neither was “We Are Never...,” if you’re counting back that far). This is veering into “pop is bad” territory!

I mean, different strokes, I guess.

shake it off was foully obnoxious, we are never was iconic, rip terrace house