I think this post shares space with Freddie DeBoer's concept of "poptimism," especially the notion that today's most revered artists are "underdogs." I also think of the extreme recency bias of that professor. It reminds me of the folks who'll be so obsessed with what is newest that they'll claim it's the greatest. It's a rather immature position. Also, these academic theories are often (always?) about job advancement. How many academic journals want new takes on Mary Shelley and Frankenstein as opposed to takes on Swift that employ the most popular and current politics?
I think there's a lot of validity to it. For instance, the idea that the likes of The Beatles and Dylan and Brian Wilson and Pete Townshend and Stevie Wonder and James Brown were to pop music what Orson Welles (and John Huston, Preston Sturges, etc.) were to Hollywood -- the pioneering auteurs who reinvented the medium as a space for personal artistic vision. That's important. That opened doors for people.
It’s a kind of pejorative term for the older (IE Baby Boomers, Jan Wenner, Rolling Stone) school of music criticism that puts a very high aesthetic value on the authenticity of singer-songwriters and rock bands playing their own instruments and contrasts that with “manufactured” pop music.
I'm a huge Taylor Swift fan ... but I do agree with virtually everything you say here! A few thoughts, though, that occur to me.
1. It's ridiculous to compare Swift to Mary Shelley, for all of the reasons you say. I do think Green might have more of a point when it comes to Mrs. Radcliffe and Bram Stoker, though. You may disagree (!), but I cringed through Mysteries of Udolfo (though there were some - clearly unintentional - points of humor in it, such as the constant innocent anachronisms, which kept me reading), and while Dracula is engagingly readable, it would be a major stretch to ascribe Shelley-like profundity to it, I feel, for all that it had substantial influences in its own right.
2. I totally agree with Christopher Booth when he says "The weasel words 'ask questions', 'celebrate' and 'explore' riddle weak, non-committal commentary that poses as critical insight. Usually when the writer is trying to ingratiate him or herself with a right-on readership." I'd go further: it's a kind of flattening - it's something one can say about almost any writer or artist in some shape or form, which removes any distinction between them.
3. Like Aaron Zinger, I don't think you really do Swift's lyrics justice by cherry-picking quotes from them, especially since one of those quotes cherry-picked is from a song which is deliberately written as a self-depreciating parody.
4. I don't think even a huge admirer of Taylor Swift would call her a truly ground-breaking or innovative artist the way that Mary Shelley was. My read of her is that she switches genres a lot, but within any particular genre she works very much within the existing framework, without smashing boundaries in a substantial way. And I don't think there's a problem with that! Not all artists have to be boundary-smashers - there is a place for a Brahms as well as for a Wagner. But it makes the comparison with Mary Shelley particularly inept.
5. It always makes me a little queasy when someone tries to assess a song-writer based solely on the words, ignoring the music; just as I don't think one gets even close to a fair picture of Tristan und Isolde if one simply reads the book. And with Swift one has to take the visual dimension into account as well: Green mentions in passing the Fortnight video as referencing Frankenstein (which, incidentally, Swift directed herself, as she has with pretty well all of her videos in recent years), but that video does far more than referencing Frankenstein - it draws on a whole series of Gothic tropes, setting them to a song whose lyrics, read plainly, would not instantly raise those associations.
6. "This is what philistinism looks like: the refusal to differentiate; the elevation above all else of the impulse to celebrate; the cordial enjoyment of an artist’s beliefs rather than their thought processes. Taylor Swift has reached a high form of achievement but it is not the same as Mary Shelley’s remarkable innovations, it is not the same at all. We cannot be serious unless we admit the difference—especially in our institutions of higher education."
I wish every English department would have something like this posted up on its door, or at least on its website!
Thank you! Happy to see examples of other quotes of her lyrics but I have never read any of her lyrics that I thought were very good. The large claims made for her significance surely suggest we would be able to appreciate her on the page, without all the costumes and sets and so on? If the lyrics only "work" in situ with the visuals then I take that as further example that her artistry is rather unliterary. And, in fact, you get a pretty good picture of T&I if you read Malory, yes! We culled much great Elizabethan poetry from song books, etc. (I wasn't cherry picking, but quoting from songs Green said he admired.)
When I said "visuals" I was thinking of the videos, not the staging - but I was really thinking more about the music than either, since all her songs have music (by definition), but most of them have no visual element.
As to whether she is sufficiently good a lyricist for her lyrics to stand alone without the music, I'm not sure - but she is better than the parts you quoted, and I don't think the test is even really a fair one, since the lyrics and the music were written to go closely together (which wasn't the case with all Elizabethan songs, I think - but correct me if I'm mistaken!).
(BTW, maybe I missed something in Green, but you quoted from the title track of The Tortured Poet's Department, and I don't THINK Green mentioned that song, though he did talk about the album more generally.)
I can quote you lyrics I think are good: try this from Champagne Problems, for example:
"Your Midas touch on the Chevy door/November flush and your flannel cure/This dorm was once a madhouse/ I made a joke, Well, it's made for me/How evergreen, our group of friends/Don't think we'll say that word again/And soon they'll have the nerve to deck the halls/That we once walked through" (The situation is that the girl has just turned down her boyfriend's proposal, and these are the fragmentary memories of their past relationship rushing through her mind.)
But part of the REASON I think they're good is that when I read them I have the music in my head - I know, for example, that the music signals "nerve to" as a half-rhyme with "walked through", which wouldn't be so obvious on the page; the music points up the allusion in "deck the halls" etc. etc. Whether they would come across as well to someone who didn't have the music in their head - I'm not sure. I'm also not sure why that would matter, because the music and lyrics form a unity, and it is the unity that counts.
And I TOTALLY disagree that you can get a good impression of Tristan und Isolde from Malory!!! Not only am I not sure whether Wagner had even read Malory (his immediate source was Gottfried von Strassburg), but - I mean, I don't know what to say? What would "So sturben wir ungetrennt" - that whole final section of the Act II love-scene be, without the accelerating music, the never-resolved chords, the voices intertwining, Brangane's warnings getting lost beneath the nearing climax ... I love Malory (though the Tristan section is maybe the part I love least - it goes on rather too long for my taste), but ... it's not Wagner, not even close.
I’m not very familiar with Taylor Swift’s work, but for real? “If the lyrics only work in situ with the visuals then I take that as further example that her artistry is rather unliterary.” So you’re saying you don’t see value in the Wagnerian artistic concept of Gesamkunstwerk?
If Wagner wrote trite relationship-centric lyrics and bland music, that only work together in the context of a pop song for teenagers and 25+ wannabe teenagers along with video and a stage production, then nobody would see any value in Gesamkunstwerk...
Plenty of people think all of opera is “trite relationship-centric” rubbish, actually.
And while I love his ring cycle, personally, I think it would be torture to see it in concert without costumes and staging done by others. Does that mean Wagner sucks?
You sound like you really hate Taylor swift (and teenagers, and girls, and women, and…relationships?). But I don’t actually see any meaningful artistic criticism here.
“Her lyrics are bad bc they are ‘only’ meaningful to female teenagers.” Yeah that’s not an artistic criticism. It’s just bigotry.
"Plenty of people think all of opera is “trite relationship-centric” rubbish, actually"
Plenty of people are ininformed and uncultured. Plenty of people in the US, for example, can't even point to Europe or Asia on the map, even less so to a specific country. Most people have no idea about art and aesthetics that's not confined to the pop culture and celebrity gossip of the day, and not even a connection to a living practicing culture, except as target audiences for pop marketing.
> You sound like you really hate Taylor swift
As much as I hate any trite pop artist, especially one around which a mass hysteria has occured, accompanied by huge marketing and media celebrity coverage.
> and teenagers, and girls, and women, and…relationships?
Nice ad hominem.
Not taking teenage girls or the kind of women whose music tastes are stuck in teenage-hood as the pinnacle of aesthetic wisdom is not hating them, just common sense. And I said I dislike " trite relationship-centric lyrics" not relationships. That alone would inform the reader that I consider there can be ...non-trite relationship-centric lyrics too, how about that huh?
Any more weasely accusations for me to clarify?
>But I don’t actually see any meaningful artistic criticism here.
You mean to argue against the point that Taylor Swift's work must be appreciated as Gesamkunstwerk?
> “Her lyrics are bad bc they are ‘only’ meaningful to female teenagers.” Yeah that’s not an artistic criticism. It’s just bigotry.
No, it's a perfectly fine summation of her output.
Adults didn't use to argue the high artistic merits of teenage love pop lyrics - even less so trite about dating this or that felow celebrity with pop culture references thrown in.
Idk, but your feelings, and the feelings of seemingly a lot of adult men, of…molten rage…towards Taylor Swift seems less to me about the state of artistic culture and the merits of current popular music, although some of that is legitimate, and more about some other issues lurking beneath the surface that are bubbling up and inflaming your opinions.
I’m a classically trained professional musician and artist (why else would I know a term like “Gesamkunstwerk”?). I have plenty of opinions about the state of pop music (ie popular music is 90+% trash bc of financial greed reasons). I also tend not to listen to too much music outside of my work bc my ears get tired after playing for 7 hours a day so I don’t unwind by listening to music like most people. So I’m usually behind the times on who are the big pop stars. For me, personally, I tend to keep up with pop music when I get in a taxi and hear a song on the radio. I also tend to listen critically and assess the music I hear instead of passively listening, bc I was trained to do that so it’s kind of automatic. If I hear something I like, I’ll Shazam it, and then I’m usually surprised and will be like “oooooh, so that’s so and so.”
Generally I’ll get in an Uber, hear a song, think “this is good bc x/this is bad bc x, who is this,” Shazam it, and then if that happens with two or three songs by the same artist I decide I like or dislike them. Thats how I found out I think Doja Cat and Ed Sheeran are great musicians, Camilla Cabello and Harry Styles have amazing composing teams, and, while I’m not personally moved by her songs’ actual sound ie composing/orchestration, Taylor Swift’s songwriting/lyrics are evocative, unique, and quite literary.
In fact, I was sitting in an Uber this year when Antihero came on. I thought “GOD. This song AGAIN?!” I can’t stand its oppressive, synthy sound, it’s everywhere, and it puts me in such a downer mood bc its sound and lyrics are depressing.
But then I also thought “ok I hate it bc it’s depressing, but the fact that I feel depressed when it comes on means it’s emotionally effective- i’m totally engaged in the lyrics- I can’t help but listen to the story almost against my will. Who is this sad, unpleasant woman who is the protagonist and why is she the ‘problem’? Am I supposed to be siding with her- is she being persecuted? Is she a reliable narrator?” So is it really a bad song? Well I don’t like the music ie the rhythm and sounds and textures, but actually the lyrics are amazing- almost Shakespearean.
So then I thought, “ok I have to know, who wrote it?” I imagined some emo young woman with wild emotions. I Shazam’ed it and…Taylor Swift. I was like “ahhh, of course!” I think she’s just a polarizing artist bc people who are listening more for sound are rightfully not impressed with what they’re hearing, but people who are listening for the lyrics love her songwriting…or hate them bc they appeal to messy, passionate women (how dare women be people with thoughts and feelings! How dare women imply they are the main character?!) I’m not sure how anyone can argue she’s anything less than an extremely talented lyricist. Why can’t she be recognized as such?
I respect her work as an artist, although I don’t think she should lip sync on her tours and I don’t respect live performances that aren’t actually live- but that’s more an industry-wide problem than an exclusively Taylor-Swift problem. Must she be held entirely responsible for the state of pop music? Would she be scapegoated or criticized or called a fraud in this way, to this degree, if she were a man?
I ask this as someone who thinks pop musicians should go back to using actual live instrumentalists in their songs bc I can barely stand listening to sampled and synth “instruments” and that if you can’t sing without autotune and you don’t use live musicians you have no business on stage or in the recording booth- unless the song is intentionally electronic. I have no reason to believe Taylor swift can’t carry a tune without autotune and can’t hire live musicians.
I think men who froth at the mouth in rage at Taylor Swift (and her supposed messy romantic life- or how she portrays it in her art) probably should take a deep breath, take a peak at what’s actually underneath the surface, and then see if their feelings about Taylor swift’s work might not be colored by a lot of complex emotion regarding women, intimacy, styles of emotional expression they find overwhelming or oppressive, anxieties about sex, status, and the state of pop music that they may be scapegoating her over bc she’s currently the top dog and they resent her for it, and other issues that are about far more than about just artistic choices.
By the way, if you’re waiting for artists to not be emotionally unregulated or infantile people…maybe don’t wait, bc that will never happen. And if it did, that would be terrible, bc it would mean that there would be no more art.
So, idk. Have your opinions. Go ahead and listen to “Antihero” and tell me you hate the sound and I’d agree. But tell me you think the lyrics are “trite” and the person who wrote them has no meaningful talent as a lyricist and I would say that you have no literary taste (maybe you never read fiction- plenty of men don’t- so you wouldn’t know what good or bad writing and storytelling is if it danced in front of you wearing a spangled leotard) or else your opinion is emotionally driven by some sort of personal resentment towards the artist or industry.
Yes absolutely- to separate the music from the lyrics robs the songs of their power. Specifically when thinking of some of my favorite parts of songs it’s the musical experience of the lyrics that enhances them. In “Say Don’t Go”I love this- Why'd you have to (why'd you have to)Make me love you (make me love you)?I said, "I love you" (I said, "I love you")You say nothing back- the complete break in the vocals and backing music after the word back adds to the vulnerability of the scene presented in the song.
I love the lyrics of loml as a whole but particularly the last stanza
Oh, what a valiant roar/What a bland goodbye/The coward claimed he was a lionI'm combing through the braids of lies/"I'll never leave" ..."/Never mind"/Our field of dreams, engulfed in fire/Your arson's match your somber eyes/And I'll still see it until I die/You’re the loss of my life
I agree Mary Shelley is certainly more undervalued than Taylor Swift and Taylor Swift is probably the most admired current singer/songwriter.
Totally agree. Those lines from loml are another great example of how the words and music blend inextricably. You have the repetition of the chorus theme in the final stanza, but with the second iteration marked (at "our field of dreams") by a change from the falling melody used in the rest of the song to a rising melody (and the swelling string production under it). That's a closural effect, and provides emotional reinforcement to the parallel closure in the words created by the reintroduction of the "flame" metaphor from the opening line of the song - the flames of passion that were rekindled turn out to be the destructive fire of the man's arson.
With something like this, I simply don't see how it makes sense to try to assess words and music separately - but it also makes little sense to talk about this as "rather unliterary", as Henry wanted to do. It's intensely literary, but a literariness which derives from the interaction of the words with the music.
Another excellent essay, Henry. I appreciate your righteous indignation. In your exploration of discourse novels, you identified a sort of endless regress of identification and recursion in the language and structure of contemporary fiction. Here, it seems Green is insisting on aesthetic flattening--the philistinism you note--but I can't figure out why. What might motivate a literary scholar like Green to make such a claim? Is it just cynical careerism?
And can we really classify Swift's sensibility as gothic, anyway? It seems to be a really good example of postmodern, kitschy gothic pastiche (something Jameson might write about).
I doubt that it is cynical---many critics hold such views. It isn't new for critics to profess that you cannot choose what is "best" (that's quite an old idea, in fact). But I think he has taken it to extremes!
As to why, I think part of it might be our particular moment's ascribing of ethical weight to anti-establishment attitudes, to critique of perceived cultural elites and the hierarchies of taste they supposedly create. Even though, as in this case, Taylor Swift has orders of magnitude more economic and cultural power than the English professors or literary critics or whoever else one thinks creates the canon.
Thanks for this insightful analysis, Robert. Interestingly, then, the progressive, ostensibly democratizing spirit that levels haute couture and uplifts pop music bears within it a deeply regressive and reactionary impulse. You make an excellent point about Taylor Swift's tremendous clout and raw power. If I remember correctly, she's now a billionaire, and I wonder about the downstream cultural ripple effects of these fabulously rich and powerful artists, whose sensibilities might even influence public opinion: https://www.theguardian.com/music/2024/feb/06/taylor-swift-political-voting-election-influence
You’re welcome. For another example of what I’m talking about, think of classical music, which in most western countries is so unpopular that it survived on government funding and/or private philanthropy. It has a niche audience and tickets are much cheaper than seeing a name pop or rock act. Orchestras outside of big cities are often struggling to survive. And yet it gets perceived as elite and elitist while pop music and marvel movies and NFL games — all multibillion dollar industries that make a tiny group of people fabulously wealthy — have the status of populist entertainment.
You're right. And it's tricky to make an aesthetic argument about Shelley and Schubert while appropriately acknowledging the swirling historical dynamics of class, privilege, and, as you point out in your other comment, hierarchies of taste and exclusion. Late capitalism has twisted and inverted some of these dynamics, as you note, and I certainly appreciate commentaries like yours and Henry's.
Jeanette Winterson's 2019 novel Frankissstein is very good on the writing of Frankenstein. The divergent real-life consequences of defying societal conventions for Mary Shelley as opposed to poetry-dude-bros Byron and Shelley are stark.
Aside from the fact that it's an abomination to even compare the likes of Mary Shelley with Billionaire girl Swift, what needs to also be remembered is that writing "Gothic" today is anachronistic begin with. Shelley, Stroker and the others were waiting Gothic literature when feudalism was ending, and capitalism was taking root. It was the genre that spoke of a dying age and great social change. It makes no sense to writing whatever they call "Gothic" today...
Yes, but the genres that define our time aren't gothic in nature. It is better found in the waporwave, dreamcore, backrooms esque internet movement. It is like the gothic owing to both being on the cusp of social change, but revisiting gothic at this time is going to the past to try to go to the future. Aesthetics are very much defined by the material conditions of the society.
"Are we expected to believe that the Eras Tour is going to have the same hold on the collective imagination two hundred years from now as does the idea of Frankenstein’s monster today?"
I recall Beyonce being hailed constantly as some sort of illuminated genius like 10 years ago and now it feels like no cares that much. Mary Shelley has had a profound and lasting impact on literature and culture over decades and decades. We simply don't know what, if any, long term legacy Swift will leave. She's a wildly successful entertainer, but her legacy is still being written.
We haven't seen phenomenon like Swift in awhile but I am simply not sold on her as some sort of untouchable talent as a wordsmith or musician. The Beatles, Bob Dylan, Joni Mitchell etc are all considered alltime great musicians and songwriters - but no one is seriously lining them up against Shakespeare or Milton or something. Am I to believe Swift has surpassed them all - especially when we're judging her at the pinnacle of her popularity? Just seems absurd.
If people are still talking about her in such elevated terms in 30 years, then ok (even if I'll die a little inside).
I don't know why we can't simply enjoy her for what she is without intellectializing the shit out of her.
Really enjoyed reading your thoughts on this, Henry. It's brought to mind an anecdote I was told at school. A literary critic analysed a famous poem by Rafael Alberti, explaining all the hidden meaning and symbolism behind it and when someone told Alberti, he simply said: "I never knew I had said all that!" Which is another way to say that sometimes critics will find more meaning behind artistic creations than the artists themselves. Not sure if it may be the case in point, but I've always thought that living in an age where social media and connectivity have the power to amplify by tenfold anything, there's a tendency to go to great lengths to dissect anything and anyone that for a brief moment in time (what's a few years compared to centuries) captures the collective imagination. A bit like the craze about the NYT best books of the XXI century. Trying to analyse the significance and impact of a contemporary artist is futile because their true relevance will be only revealed long after they're gone. Having said that, Taylor Swift is an artist worth of merit in her own right -her achievements are indeed impressive, and I'm not even a fan of her music- as is Mary Shelley, and probably that's where the comparison should end. Like you said, we'll still be talking about Shelley and Frankenstein for years to come but we don't know if that'll be the case of Taylor Swift as, quite likely, in five years' time the industry will create another Swift that someone will again compare to Mary Shelley.
A lot of what writers do may be unconscious, but they are also happy to demur about critical interpretations, partly to leave themselves space to think creatively, partly to prevent themselves being pigeonholed, I think.
The weasel words 'ask questions', 'celebrate' and 'explore' riddle weak, non-commital commentary that poses as critical insight. Usually when the writer is trying to ingratiate him or herself with a right-on readership.
Green cannot be an idiot. Yet he has written something idiotic. The interesting question, therefore, is what was in it for him.
My argument would be something like this. At many times and places, literature and music have been closely intertwined: the Homeric bards, the troubadours, the singing biwa players. Very few people would deny that The Odyssey or Heike Monogatari are literature because they were originally sung.
Furthermore, the Nobel Prize in Literature has been previously awarded to playwrights: writers of literary works that is really intended to be performed, not necessarily read on the page. Jacinto Benavente y Martínez, George Bernard Shaw, Luigi Pirandello, Eugene O'Neill, Wole Soyinka, Dario Fo, Harold Pinter. In other words, awarding the Nobel to a writer primarily known not for books but for performances of their work in another medium is not unheard of. Would you deny Pinter's literariness because he pretty much only wrote plays and screenplays, not poetry or novels?
As for Dylan himself, I think that even people who don't particularly like his music can agree that he is a significantly more literary songwriter than, say, Taylor Swift. (And that, whether literature or not, he is one of the significant figures in the history of American culture; "Dylanesque" has become an adjective like Shakespearean, like Borgesian, like Kafkaesque, like Dickensian,)
Take a song like "Murder Most Foul," for instance -- it's a Joyceanly dense assemblage of Biblical, blues, political and cultural references. His songwriting marries American folk and blues tradition with high modernist poetry, drawing from Shakespeare, Eliot, Blake, beat poetry, the King James Bible, etc. His lyrics have a density of allusion you don't see in other pop songs, and the same polyphonic juxtaposition of high and low culture you see in high modernism. He is the Joyce of songwriting, and someone who brought back a revival of western poetry's bardic roots. And I don't think that Dylan opens the floodgates to awarding the Nobel to pop musicians; I think he has a fairly unique role as someone who brought literature into popular music.
I agree with you completely. I've been captured by Dylan's vivid imagery since the first time someone lent me Blonde on Blonde as a schoolboy. The visuals got stuck in my head and have never left.
So the Swift thing doesn't hold water, not because she writes songs, but simply because they don't clear the literary bar.
My question was an attempt to provoke the distinction you have made nicely.
For an answer in the negative to your bonus question, have a listen to Simon Armitage's Professor of Poetry lecture on Bob Dylan. He clearly does treat song lyric and poetry lyric differently (I tend to believe that approach).
The last one is a good question - my instinct is no, but I’ve never read ‘Tarantula’.
I do think that academics who have grown up in the pop music era struggle with the idea that lyrics are a different form to prose and poetry. No one compares George and T S Eliot as they are clearly very different.*
As songs have always been regarded as a lower form, there is then a tendency - driven by an inferiority complex - to overcompensate.
‘I am not an idiot, I like Swift, so I must rationalise my enjoyment of Swift’
There’s also, obviously, an aspect of commerce in there. If he was making a claim that Joanna Newsom’s ‘Divers’ covered similar themes to the metaphysical poets - no one would be having this conversation. There are no courses studying Newsom. There are no courses studying the mid century modern lyrics of late period Trish Keenan.
Which is perhaps the other issue - even if you were to restrict comparison to the world of lyrics, I’d put Swift in the category of good, rather than great.
I guess that is back to Henry’s point - the refusal for more knowledgable adults to make that kind of value judgment.
(One my 12 year old has no problem with - she thinks Phoebe Bridgers and Anais Mitchell are much better, and she is correct)
Perhaps that is because we don’t want to seem as clearly wrong as highbrow critics were by the rise of Dylan, late Beatles, et al. Or Adorno on jazz.
* a comparison undermined by fact George Eliot wrote poetry, although it’s not what she is remembered for
I don't think lyrics are a different form... after all, the sung lyric of the sixteenth century (and earlier) became the printed poetry we now admire as part of the golden age of English verse. The question is how much of this sort of thing can be taken as printed work and admired. I would say, for example, that some of Noel Coward's lyrics belong in poetry anthologies. Pop songs probably are regarded as a lower form (hence Coward's not being anthologised) but it's all just a question of where the best writing can be found, imo.
I think we should treat modern lyrics as a different form to poetry because - when sung - the natural rhythms of the language are changed, and are really in thrawl only to the music. You can stress whatever you want, and any innate stress-timing is subservient to whatever melody (or rhythm) you are singing.
I don't know if it's the best example but it always makes me think of how Alt-J sing "Common" on their song "Bloodflood".
Interesting comment: thank you very much. I don't understand, however, why he would need to rationalise his enjoyment of pop by comparing it to something quite different. Surely he has plenty of other topics available for more worthwhile use of his qualifications.
I enjoy witty memes on Instagram, but I don't feel the need to write about them or compare them to things hung in a gallery or films in a cinema.
So I feel it has less to do with a need to rationalise and more to do with a need to be seen as clever and au fait.
I don't think he's rationalising his enjoyment, or trying to be seen as anything. It's just an idea he genuinely believes. (Not a very good idea, imo, but nonetheless.)
Your Noel Coward comment made me realise I made the error of equating complexity or opacity with quality - and there is nothing wrong with taking more straightforward poetry or songwriting seriously.
I can’t get my head round the ‘why’ either - who is this piece of writing for?
Who does he want to be seen as clever by?
The title suggests it’s written to convince the Swift studies sceptic, but as this response and the comments below suggest, it’s not been successful, or even counterproductive.
I guess that like all those ‘Beatles are as great as Beethoven’ arguments, it’s really aimed at those who already agree, and want their feelings validated
(Also, I think these kinds of postmodern arguments feel quite dated)
I have no idea which artist, Shelley or Swift, is more "important" today. Importance doesn't sound like an aesthetic judgment, or even like it requires profundity. The way you're "comparing" the two by quoting some lyrics of Swift's you don't see merit in, and not quoting Shelley at all, doesn't illuminate anything for me. You could just as easily do it the other way. Here's some uninspired drivel from Mary Shelley's latest work:
Towards the end of a hot, calm day of June, a stranger arrived at Treby. The variations of calm and wind are always remarkable at the seaside, and are more particularly to be noticed on this occasion; since it was the stillness of the elements that caused the arrival of the stranger. During the whole day several vessels had been observed in the offing, lying to for a wind, or making small way under press of sail. As evening came on, the water beyond the bay lay calmer than ever; but a slight breeze blew from shore, and these vessels, principally colliers, bore down close under it, endeavouring by short tacks to procure a long one, and at last to gain searoom to make the eastern headland of the bay. The fishermen on shore watched the manœuvres of the different craft; and even interchanged shouts with the sailors, as they lay lazily on the beach. At length they were put in motion by a hail for a boat from a small merchantman—the call was obeyed—the boat neared the vessel—a gentleman descended into it—his portmanteau was handed after him—a few strokes of the oar drove the boat on the beach, and the stranger leaped out upon the sands.
Thank you for highlighting this post on your Year end Roundup. I had missed it first time around, possibly turned off by yet another article on TS in the first place. Now I realize that by using Mary Shelley as your own point of reference, it was essential reading. Thank you for bringing TS down to size, without demeaning or insulting her unnecessarily in the process.
I think this post shares space with Freddie DeBoer's concept of "poptimism," especially the notion that today's most revered artists are "underdogs." I also think of the extreme recency bias of that professor. It reminds me of the folks who'll be so obsessed with what is newest that they'll claim it's the greatest. It's a rather immature position. Also, these academic theories are often (always?) about job advancement. How many academic journals want new takes on Mary Shelley and Frankenstein as opposed to takes on Swift that employ the most popular and current politics?
The Tyranny of the New.
I agree (for those note aware, Freddie's latest is found here https://freddiedeboer.substack.com/p/a-few-indisputable-points-about-poptimism?lli=1&utm_source=%2Finbox&utm_medium=reader2 but he does have others).
Just note that it's not "deBoer's concept of Poptimism". He comments on it; he did not come up with it.
Ah, thanks for the clarification about the origins of "poptimism."
I am definitely guilty of rockism
I think there's a lot of validity to it. For instance, the idea that the likes of The Beatles and Dylan and Brian Wilson and Pete Townshend and Stevie Wonder and James Brown were to pop music what Orson Welles (and John Huston, Preston Sturges, etc.) were to Hollywood -- the pioneering auteurs who reinvented the medium as a space for personal artistic vision. That's important. That opened doors for people.
Poptism has been around for about a decade, I think, and was originally created in opposition to "rockism."
Thanks for the info. I hadn't heard the term "rockism."
It’s a kind of pejorative term for the older (IE Baby Boomers, Jan Wenner, Rolling Stone) school of music criticism that puts a very high aesthetic value on the authenticity of singer-songwriters and rock bands playing their own instruments and contrasts that with “manufactured” pop music.
Employ the most popular and current politics such as? I don’t wanna assume.
Academia rewards the left.
I don't think you even need to reference Shelley to notice that Swift's lyrics just aren't much good.
fair!
But would Mary Shelley have performed her “lyrics” quite as well?
I'm a huge Taylor Swift fan ... but I do agree with virtually everything you say here! A few thoughts, though, that occur to me.
1. It's ridiculous to compare Swift to Mary Shelley, for all of the reasons you say. I do think Green might have more of a point when it comes to Mrs. Radcliffe and Bram Stoker, though. You may disagree (!), but I cringed through Mysteries of Udolfo (though there were some - clearly unintentional - points of humor in it, such as the constant innocent anachronisms, which kept me reading), and while Dracula is engagingly readable, it would be a major stretch to ascribe Shelley-like profundity to it, I feel, for all that it had substantial influences in its own right.
2. I totally agree with Christopher Booth when he says "The weasel words 'ask questions', 'celebrate' and 'explore' riddle weak, non-committal commentary that poses as critical insight. Usually when the writer is trying to ingratiate him or herself with a right-on readership." I'd go further: it's a kind of flattening - it's something one can say about almost any writer or artist in some shape or form, which removes any distinction between them.
3. Like Aaron Zinger, I don't think you really do Swift's lyrics justice by cherry-picking quotes from them, especially since one of those quotes cherry-picked is from a song which is deliberately written as a self-depreciating parody.
4. I don't think even a huge admirer of Taylor Swift would call her a truly ground-breaking or innovative artist the way that Mary Shelley was. My read of her is that she switches genres a lot, but within any particular genre she works very much within the existing framework, without smashing boundaries in a substantial way. And I don't think there's a problem with that! Not all artists have to be boundary-smashers - there is a place for a Brahms as well as for a Wagner. But it makes the comparison with Mary Shelley particularly inept.
5. It always makes me a little queasy when someone tries to assess a song-writer based solely on the words, ignoring the music; just as I don't think one gets even close to a fair picture of Tristan und Isolde if one simply reads the book. And with Swift one has to take the visual dimension into account as well: Green mentions in passing the Fortnight video as referencing Frankenstein (which, incidentally, Swift directed herself, as she has with pretty well all of her videos in recent years), but that video does far more than referencing Frankenstein - it draws on a whole series of Gothic tropes, setting them to a song whose lyrics, read plainly, would not instantly raise those associations.
6. "This is what philistinism looks like: the refusal to differentiate; the elevation above all else of the impulse to celebrate; the cordial enjoyment of an artist’s beliefs rather than their thought processes. Taylor Swift has reached a high form of achievement but it is not the same as Mary Shelley’s remarkable innovations, it is not the same at all. We cannot be serious unless we admit the difference—especially in our institutions of higher education."
I wish every English department would have something like this posted up on its door, or at least on its website!
Thank you! Happy to see examples of other quotes of her lyrics but I have never read any of her lyrics that I thought were very good. The large claims made for her significance surely suggest we would be able to appreciate her on the page, without all the costumes and sets and so on? If the lyrics only "work" in situ with the visuals then I take that as further example that her artistry is rather unliterary. And, in fact, you get a pretty good picture of T&I if you read Malory, yes! We culled much great Elizabethan poetry from song books, etc. (I wasn't cherry picking, but quoting from songs Green said he admired.)
When I said "visuals" I was thinking of the videos, not the staging - but I was really thinking more about the music than either, since all her songs have music (by definition), but most of them have no visual element.
As to whether she is sufficiently good a lyricist for her lyrics to stand alone without the music, I'm not sure - but she is better than the parts you quoted, and I don't think the test is even really a fair one, since the lyrics and the music were written to go closely together (which wasn't the case with all Elizabethan songs, I think - but correct me if I'm mistaken!).
(BTW, maybe I missed something in Green, but you quoted from the title track of The Tortured Poet's Department, and I don't THINK Green mentioned that song, though he did talk about the album more generally.)
I can quote you lyrics I think are good: try this from Champagne Problems, for example:
"Your Midas touch on the Chevy door/November flush and your flannel cure/This dorm was once a madhouse/ I made a joke, Well, it's made for me/How evergreen, our group of friends/Don't think we'll say that word again/And soon they'll have the nerve to deck the halls/That we once walked through" (The situation is that the girl has just turned down her boyfriend's proposal, and these are the fragmentary memories of their past relationship rushing through her mind.)
But part of the REASON I think they're good is that when I read them I have the music in my head - I know, for example, that the music signals "nerve to" as a half-rhyme with "walked through", which wouldn't be so obvious on the page; the music points up the allusion in "deck the halls" etc. etc. Whether they would come across as well to someone who didn't have the music in their head - I'm not sure. I'm also not sure why that would matter, because the music and lyrics form a unity, and it is the unity that counts.
And I TOTALLY disagree that you can get a good impression of Tristan und Isolde from Malory!!! Not only am I not sure whether Wagner had even read Malory (his immediate source was Gottfried von Strassburg), but - I mean, I don't know what to say? What would "So sturben wir ungetrennt" - that whole final section of the Act II love-scene be, without the accelerating music, the never-resolved chords, the voices intertwining, Brangane's warnings getting lost beneath the nearing climax ... I love Malory (though the Tristan section is maybe the part I love least - it goes on rather too long for my taste), but ... it's not Wagner, not even close.
I’m not very familiar with Taylor Swift’s work, but for real? “If the lyrics only work in situ with the visuals then I take that as further example that her artistry is rather unliterary.” So you’re saying you don’t see value in the Wagnerian artistic concept of Gesamkunstwerk?
If Wagner wrote trite relationship-centric lyrics and bland music, that only work together in the context of a pop song for teenagers and 25+ wannabe teenagers along with video and a stage production, then nobody would see any value in Gesamkunstwerk...
Plenty of people think all of opera is “trite relationship-centric” rubbish, actually.
And while I love his ring cycle, personally, I think it would be torture to see it in concert without costumes and staging done by others. Does that mean Wagner sucks?
You sound like you really hate Taylor swift (and teenagers, and girls, and women, and…relationships?). But I don’t actually see any meaningful artistic criticism here.
“Her lyrics are bad bc they are ‘only’ meaningful to female teenagers.” Yeah that’s not an artistic criticism. It’s just bigotry.
"Plenty of people think all of opera is “trite relationship-centric” rubbish, actually"
Plenty of people are ininformed and uncultured. Plenty of people in the US, for example, can't even point to Europe or Asia on the map, even less so to a specific country. Most people have no idea about art and aesthetics that's not confined to the pop culture and celebrity gossip of the day, and not even a connection to a living practicing culture, except as target audiences for pop marketing.
> You sound like you really hate Taylor swift
As much as I hate any trite pop artist, especially one around which a mass hysteria has occured, accompanied by huge marketing and media celebrity coverage.
> and teenagers, and girls, and women, and…relationships?
Nice ad hominem.
Not taking teenage girls or the kind of women whose music tastes are stuck in teenage-hood as the pinnacle of aesthetic wisdom is not hating them, just common sense. And I said I dislike " trite relationship-centric lyrics" not relationships. That alone would inform the reader that I consider there can be ...non-trite relationship-centric lyrics too, how about that huh?
Any more weasely accusations for me to clarify?
>But I don’t actually see any meaningful artistic criticism here.
You mean to argue against the point that Taylor Swift's work must be appreciated as Gesamkunstwerk?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(law)
> “Her lyrics are bad bc they are ‘only’ meaningful to female teenagers.” Yeah that’s not an artistic criticism. It’s just bigotry.
No, it's a perfectly fine summation of her output.
Adults didn't use to argue the high artistic merits of teenage love pop lyrics - even less so trite about dating this or that felow celebrity with pop culture references thrown in.
What happened to us?
…Yeah….
Idk, but your feelings, and the feelings of seemingly a lot of adult men, of…molten rage…towards Taylor Swift seems less to me about the state of artistic culture and the merits of current popular music, although some of that is legitimate, and more about some other issues lurking beneath the surface that are bubbling up and inflaming your opinions.
I’m a classically trained professional musician and artist (why else would I know a term like “Gesamkunstwerk”?). I have plenty of opinions about the state of pop music (ie popular music is 90+% trash bc of financial greed reasons). I also tend not to listen to too much music outside of my work bc my ears get tired after playing for 7 hours a day so I don’t unwind by listening to music like most people. So I’m usually behind the times on who are the big pop stars. For me, personally, I tend to keep up with pop music when I get in a taxi and hear a song on the radio. I also tend to listen critically and assess the music I hear instead of passively listening, bc I was trained to do that so it’s kind of automatic. If I hear something I like, I’ll Shazam it, and then I’m usually surprised and will be like “oooooh, so that’s so and so.”
Generally I’ll get in an Uber, hear a song, think “this is good bc x/this is bad bc x, who is this,” Shazam it, and then if that happens with two or three songs by the same artist I decide I like or dislike them. Thats how I found out I think Doja Cat and Ed Sheeran are great musicians, Camilla Cabello and Harry Styles have amazing composing teams, and, while I’m not personally moved by her songs’ actual sound ie composing/orchestration, Taylor Swift’s songwriting/lyrics are evocative, unique, and quite literary.
In fact, I was sitting in an Uber this year when Antihero came on. I thought “GOD. This song AGAIN?!” I can’t stand its oppressive, synthy sound, it’s everywhere, and it puts me in such a downer mood bc its sound and lyrics are depressing.
But then I also thought “ok I hate it bc it’s depressing, but the fact that I feel depressed when it comes on means it’s emotionally effective- i’m totally engaged in the lyrics- I can’t help but listen to the story almost against my will. Who is this sad, unpleasant woman who is the protagonist and why is she the ‘problem’? Am I supposed to be siding with her- is she being persecuted? Is she a reliable narrator?” So is it really a bad song? Well I don’t like the music ie the rhythm and sounds and textures, but actually the lyrics are amazing- almost Shakespearean.
So then I thought, “ok I have to know, who wrote it?” I imagined some emo young woman with wild emotions. I Shazam’ed it and…Taylor Swift. I was like “ahhh, of course!” I think she’s just a polarizing artist bc people who are listening more for sound are rightfully not impressed with what they’re hearing, but people who are listening for the lyrics love her songwriting…or hate them bc they appeal to messy, passionate women (how dare women be people with thoughts and feelings! How dare women imply they are the main character?!) I’m not sure how anyone can argue she’s anything less than an extremely talented lyricist. Why can’t she be recognized as such?
I respect her work as an artist, although I don’t think she should lip sync on her tours and I don’t respect live performances that aren’t actually live- but that’s more an industry-wide problem than an exclusively Taylor-Swift problem. Must she be held entirely responsible for the state of pop music? Would she be scapegoated or criticized or called a fraud in this way, to this degree, if she were a man?
I ask this as someone who thinks pop musicians should go back to using actual live instrumentalists in their songs bc I can barely stand listening to sampled and synth “instruments” and that if you can’t sing without autotune and you don’t use live musicians you have no business on stage or in the recording booth- unless the song is intentionally electronic. I have no reason to believe Taylor swift can’t carry a tune without autotune and can’t hire live musicians.
I think men who froth at the mouth in rage at Taylor Swift (and her supposed messy romantic life- or how she portrays it in her art) probably should take a deep breath, take a peak at what’s actually underneath the surface, and then see if their feelings about Taylor swift’s work might not be colored by a lot of complex emotion regarding women, intimacy, styles of emotional expression they find overwhelming or oppressive, anxieties about sex, status, and the state of pop music that they may be scapegoating her over bc she’s currently the top dog and they resent her for it, and other issues that are about far more than about just artistic choices.
By the way, if you’re waiting for artists to not be emotionally unregulated or infantile people…maybe don’t wait, bc that will never happen. And if it did, that would be terrible, bc it would mean that there would be no more art.
So, idk. Have your opinions. Go ahead and listen to “Antihero” and tell me you hate the sound and I’d agree. But tell me you think the lyrics are “trite” and the person who wrote them has no meaningful talent as a lyricist and I would say that you have no literary taste (maybe you never read fiction- plenty of men don’t- so you wouldn’t know what good or bad writing and storytelling is if it danced in front of you wearing a spangled leotard) or else your opinion is emotionally driven by some sort of personal resentment towards the artist or industry.
Yes absolutely- to separate the music from the lyrics robs the songs of their power. Specifically when thinking of some of my favorite parts of songs it’s the musical experience of the lyrics that enhances them. In “Say Don’t Go”I love this- Why'd you have to (why'd you have to)Make me love you (make me love you)?I said, "I love you" (I said, "I love you")You say nothing back- the complete break in the vocals and backing music after the word back adds to the vulnerability of the scene presented in the song.
I love the lyrics of loml as a whole but particularly the last stanza
Oh, what a valiant roar/What a bland goodbye/The coward claimed he was a lionI'm combing through the braids of lies/"I'll never leave" ..."/Never mind"/Our field of dreams, engulfed in fire/Your arson's match your somber eyes/And I'll still see it until I die/You’re the loss of my life
I agree Mary Shelley is certainly more undervalued than Taylor Swift and Taylor Swift is probably the most admired current singer/songwriter.
Totally agree. Those lines from loml are another great example of how the words and music blend inextricably. You have the repetition of the chorus theme in the final stanza, but with the second iteration marked (at "our field of dreams") by a change from the falling melody used in the rest of the song to a rising melody (and the swelling string production under it). That's a closural effect, and provides emotional reinforcement to the parallel closure in the words created by the reintroduction of the "flame" metaphor from the opening line of the song - the flames of passion that were rekindled turn out to be the destructive fire of the man's arson.
With something like this, I simply don't see how it makes sense to try to assess words and music separately - but it also makes little sense to talk about this as "rather unliterary", as Henry wanted to do. It's intensely literary, but a literariness which derives from the interaction of the words with the music.
Another excellent essay, Henry. I appreciate your righteous indignation. In your exploration of discourse novels, you identified a sort of endless regress of identification and recursion in the language and structure of contemporary fiction. Here, it seems Green is insisting on aesthetic flattening--the philistinism you note--but I can't figure out why. What might motivate a literary scholar like Green to make such a claim? Is it just cynical careerism?
And can we really classify Swift's sensibility as gothic, anyway? It seems to be a really good example of postmodern, kitschy gothic pastiche (something Jameson might write about).
I doubt that it is cynical---many critics hold such views. It isn't new for critics to profess that you cannot choose what is "best" (that's quite an old idea, in fact). But I think he has taken it to extremes!
As to why, I think part of it might be our particular moment's ascribing of ethical weight to anti-establishment attitudes, to critique of perceived cultural elites and the hierarchies of taste they supposedly create. Even though, as in this case, Taylor Swift has orders of magnitude more economic and cultural power than the English professors or literary critics or whoever else one thinks creates the canon.
Thanks for this insightful analysis, Robert. Interestingly, then, the progressive, ostensibly democratizing spirit that levels haute couture and uplifts pop music bears within it a deeply regressive and reactionary impulse. You make an excellent point about Taylor Swift's tremendous clout and raw power. If I remember correctly, she's now a billionaire, and I wonder about the downstream cultural ripple effects of these fabulously rich and powerful artists, whose sensibilities might even influence public opinion: https://www.theguardian.com/music/2024/feb/06/taylor-swift-political-voting-election-influence
You’re welcome. For another example of what I’m talking about, think of classical music, which in most western countries is so unpopular that it survived on government funding and/or private philanthropy. It has a niche audience and tickets are much cheaper than seeing a name pop or rock act. Orchestras outside of big cities are often struggling to survive. And yet it gets perceived as elite and elitist while pop music and marvel movies and NFL games — all multibillion dollar industries that make a tiny group of people fabulously wealthy — have the status of populist entertainment.
You're right. And it's tricky to make an aesthetic argument about Shelley and Schubert while appropriately acknowledging the swirling historical dynamics of class, privilege, and, as you point out in your other comment, hierarchies of taste and exclusion. Late capitalism has twisted and inverted some of these dynamics, as you note, and I certainly appreciate commentaries like yours and Henry's.
Jeanette Winterson's 2019 novel Frankissstein is very good on the writing of Frankenstein. The divergent real-life consequences of defying societal conventions for Mary Shelley as opposed to poetry-dude-bros Byron and Shelley are stark.
oh interesting, thank you
I was just going to make this same comment!
Aside from the fact that it's an abomination to even compare the likes of Mary Shelley with Billionaire girl Swift, what needs to also be remembered is that writing "Gothic" today is anachronistic begin with. Shelley, Stroker and the others were waiting Gothic literature when feudalism was ending, and capitalism was taking root. It was the genre that spoke of a dying age and great social change. It makes no sense to writing whatever they call "Gothic" today...
Yes, but the genres that define our time aren't gothic in nature. It is better found in the waporwave, dreamcore, backrooms esque internet movement. It is like the gothic owing to both being on the cusp of social change, but revisiting gothic at this time is going to the past to try to go to the future. Aesthetics are very much defined by the material conditions of the society.
"Are we expected to believe that the Eras Tour is going to have the same hold on the collective imagination two hundred years from now as does the idea of Frankenstein’s monster today?"
I recall Beyonce being hailed constantly as some sort of illuminated genius like 10 years ago and now it feels like no cares that much. Mary Shelley has had a profound and lasting impact on literature and culture over decades and decades. We simply don't know what, if any, long term legacy Swift will leave. She's a wildly successful entertainer, but her legacy is still being written.
We haven't seen phenomenon like Swift in awhile but I am simply not sold on her as some sort of untouchable talent as a wordsmith or musician. The Beatles, Bob Dylan, Joni Mitchell etc are all considered alltime great musicians and songwriters - but no one is seriously lining them up against Shakespeare or Milton or something. Am I to believe Swift has surpassed them all - especially when we're judging her at the pinnacle of her popularity? Just seems absurd.
If people are still talking about her in such elevated terms in 30 years, then ok (even if I'll die a little inside).
I don't know why we can't simply enjoy her for what she is without intellectializing the shit out of her.
Exactly so—why must we pretend she is something else in order to enjoy what she plainly is?
Palpable incredulity, artfully defended! Excellent writing sir
Many thanks!
Really enjoyed reading your thoughts on this, Henry. It's brought to mind an anecdote I was told at school. A literary critic analysed a famous poem by Rafael Alberti, explaining all the hidden meaning and symbolism behind it and when someone told Alberti, he simply said: "I never knew I had said all that!" Which is another way to say that sometimes critics will find more meaning behind artistic creations than the artists themselves. Not sure if it may be the case in point, but I've always thought that living in an age where social media and connectivity have the power to amplify by tenfold anything, there's a tendency to go to great lengths to dissect anything and anyone that for a brief moment in time (what's a few years compared to centuries) captures the collective imagination. A bit like the craze about the NYT best books of the XXI century. Trying to analyse the significance and impact of a contemporary artist is futile because their true relevance will be only revealed long after they're gone. Having said that, Taylor Swift is an artist worth of merit in her own right -her achievements are indeed impressive, and I'm not even a fan of her music- as is Mary Shelley, and probably that's where the comparison should end. Like you said, we'll still be talking about Shelley and Frankenstein for years to come but we don't know if that'll be the case of Taylor Swift as, quite likely, in five years' time the industry will create another Swift that someone will again compare to Mary Shelley.
A lot of what writers do may be unconscious, but they are also happy to demur about critical interpretations, partly to leave themselves space to think creatively, partly to prevent themselves being pigeonholed, I think.
Oh absolutely!
Good, focused indignation!
The weasel words 'ask questions', 'celebrate' and 'explore' riddle weak, non-commital commentary that poses as critical insight. Usually when the writer is trying to ingratiate him or herself with a right-on readership.
Green cannot be an idiot. Yet he has written something idiotic. The interesting question, therefore, is what was in it for him.
Bonus question: did Dylan deserve his Nobel?
I think he believes what he says, honestly. No idea about Dylan as I am hugely unfamiliar with his work... Christopher Ricks would say yes, I think!
I'd say yes.
My argument would be something like this. At many times and places, literature and music have been closely intertwined: the Homeric bards, the troubadours, the singing biwa players. Very few people would deny that The Odyssey or Heike Monogatari are literature because they were originally sung.
Furthermore, the Nobel Prize in Literature has been previously awarded to playwrights: writers of literary works that is really intended to be performed, not necessarily read on the page. Jacinto Benavente y Martínez, George Bernard Shaw, Luigi Pirandello, Eugene O'Neill, Wole Soyinka, Dario Fo, Harold Pinter. In other words, awarding the Nobel to a writer primarily known not for books but for performances of their work in another medium is not unheard of. Would you deny Pinter's literariness because he pretty much only wrote plays and screenplays, not poetry or novels?
As for Dylan himself, I think that even people who don't particularly like his music can agree that he is a significantly more literary songwriter than, say, Taylor Swift. (And that, whether literature or not, he is one of the significant figures in the history of American culture; "Dylanesque" has become an adjective like Shakespearean, like Borgesian, like Kafkaesque, like Dickensian,)
Take a song like "Murder Most Foul," for instance -- it's a Joyceanly dense assemblage of Biblical, blues, political and cultural references. His songwriting marries American folk and blues tradition with high modernist poetry, drawing from Shakespeare, Eliot, Blake, beat poetry, the King James Bible, etc. His lyrics have a density of allusion you don't see in other pop songs, and the same polyphonic juxtaposition of high and low culture you see in high modernism. He is the Joyce of songwriting, and someone who brought back a revival of western poetry's bardic roots. And I don't think that Dylan opens the floodgates to awarding the Nobel to pop musicians; I think he has a fairly unique role as someone who brought literature into popular music.
Hi Robert,
I agree with you completely. I've been captured by Dylan's vivid imagery since the first time someone lent me Blonde on Blonde as a schoolboy. The visuals got stuck in my head and have never left.
So the Swift thing doesn't hold water, not because she writes songs, but simply because they don't clear the literary bar.
My question was an attempt to provoke the distinction you have made nicely.
Cheers, Chris
For an answer in the negative to your bonus question, have a listen to Simon Armitage's Professor of Poetry lecture on Bob Dylan. He clearly does treat song lyric and poetry lyric differently (I tend to believe that approach).
The last one is a good question - my instinct is no, but I’ve never read ‘Tarantula’.
I do think that academics who have grown up in the pop music era struggle with the idea that lyrics are a different form to prose and poetry. No one compares George and T S Eliot as they are clearly very different.*
As songs have always been regarded as a lower form, there is then a tendency - driven by an inferiority complex - to overcompensate.
‘I am not an idiot, I like Swift, so I must rationalise my enjoyment of Swift’
There’s also, obviously, an aspect of commerce in there. If he was making a claim that Joanna Newsom’s ‘Divers’ covered similar themes to the metaphysical poets - no one would be having this conversation. There are no courses studying Newsom. There are no courses studying the mid century modern lyrics of late period Trish Keenan.
Which is perhaps the other issue - even if you were to restrict comparison to the world of lyrics, I’d put Swift in the category of good, rather than great.
I guess that is back to Henry’s point - the refusal for more knowledgable adults to make that kind of value judgment.
(One my 12 year old has no problem with - she thinks Phoebe Bridgers and Anais Mitchell are much better, and she is correct)
Perhaps that is because we don’t want to seem as clearly wrong as highbrow critics were by the rise of Dylan, late Beatles, et al. Or Adorno on jazz.
* a comparison undermined by fact George Eliot wrote poetry, although it’s not what she is remembered for
I don't think lyrics are a different form... after all, the sung lyric of the sixteenth century (and earlier) became the printed poetry we now admire as part of the golden age of English verse. The question is how much of this sort of thing can be taken as printed work and admired. I would say, for example, that some of Noel Coward's lyrics belong in poetry anthologies. Pop songs probably are regarded as a lower form (hence Coward's not being anthologised) but it's all just a question of where the best writing can be found, imo.
I think we should treat modern lyrics as a different form to poetry because - when sung - the natural rhythms of the language are changed, and are really in thrawl only to the music. You can stress whatever you want, and any innate stress-timing is subservient to whatever melody (or rhythm) you are singing.
I don't know if it's the best example but it always makes me think of how Alt-J sing "Common" on their song "Bloodflood".
Interesting comment: thank you very much. I don't understand, however, why he would need to rationalise his enjoyment of pop by comparing it to something quite different. Surely he has plenty of other topics available for more worthwhile use of his qualifications.
I enjoy witty memes on Instagram, but I don't feel the need to write about them or compare them to things hung in a gallery or films in a cinema.
So I feel it has less to do with a need to rationalise and more to do with a need to be seen as clever and au fait.
I don't think he's rationalising his enjoyment, or trying to be seen as anything. It's just an idea he genuinely believes. (Not a very good idea, imo, but nonetheless.)
Which is worrying!
Your Noel Coward comment made me realise I made the error of equating complexity or opacity with quality - and there is nothing wrong with taking more straightforward poetry or songwriting seriously.
yes---many elizabethan poems are relatively simple, or someone like Herrick
Sorry - I thought I was responding to Jules above, not to you. I meant to address her comment. I agree with yours
Oh sorry, I can never tell — the lines down the side confuse me!!
Yep, likewise!
I can’t get my head round the ‘why’ either - who is this piece of writing for?
Who does he want to be seen as clever by?
The title suggests it’s written to convince the Swift studies sceptic, but as this response and the comments below suggest, it’s not been successful, or even counterproductive.
I guess that like all those ‘Beatles are as great as Beethoven’ arguments, it’s really aimed at those who already agree, and want their feelings validated
(Also, I think these kinds of postmodern arguments feel quite dated)
I couldn't agree more on the dated feeling of it.
Many thanks, Jules.
What I would find more entertaining would be a Taylor Swift song in the prose of Jonathan Swift, preferably about Lilliputian Lovers.
I have no idea which artist, Shelley or Swift, is more "important" today. Importance doesn't sound like an aesthetic judgment, or even like it requires profundity. The way you're "comparing" the two by quoting some lyrics of Swift's you don't see merit in, and not quoting Shelley at all, doesn't illuminate anything for me. You could just as easily do it the other way. Here's some uninspired drivel from Mary Shelley's latest work:
Towards the end of a hot, calm day of June, a stranger arrived at Treby. The variations of calm and wind are always remarkable at the seaside, and are more particularly to be noticed on this occasion; since it was the stillness of the elements that caused the arrival of the stranger. During the whole day several vessels had been observed in the offing, lying to for a wind, or making small way under press of sail. As evening came on, the water beyond the bay lay calmer than ever; but a slight breeze blew from shore, and these vessels, principally colliers, bore down close under it, endeavouring by short tacks to procure a long one, and at last to gain searoom to make the eastern headland of the bay. The fishermen on shore watched the manœuvres of the different craft; and even interchanged shouts with the sailors, as they lay lazily on the beach. At length they were put in motion by a hail for a boat from a small merchantman—the call was obeyed—the boat neared the vessel—a gentleman descended into it—his portmanteau was handed after him—a few strokes of the oar drove the boat on the beach, and the stranger leaped out upon the sands.
I have never read any of her lyrics I thought we're good. Would be happy to have you or someone else quote some though.
Keep fighting the good fight, Henry!
As I wrote elsewhere, the lionization of hackdom is the devotional offering of the hack.
Preach!
Bravo! A very enjoyable read!
Thank you for highlighting this post on your Year end Roundup. I had missed it first time around, possibly turned off by yet another article on TS in the first place. Now I realize that by using Mary Shelley as your own point of reference, it was essential reading. Thank you for bringing TS down to size, without demeaning or insulting her unnecessarily in the process.