Taylor Swift Is a Cyborg

Categories: Taylor Swift

taylormatrix-560.jpg
Image of Taylor Swift inside the Matrix courtesy of Big Machine Records
I've always thought something was off about Taylor Swift. Her immaculate, porcelain skin, picture-perfect golden bangs -- and certainly, her singing voice. Previously, I attributed these things to digital image doctoring or recording software magic. More recently, I have become suspicious of the 24-year-old pop-country darling. Something about Swift's perfection almost seems a little too... well, perfect.

Until she wrote a completely jarring, disjointed, and delusional article for the Wall Street Journal that suggests she is some sort of malfunctioning cyborg. The piece, published this month and titled "For Taylor Swift, the Future of Music Is a Love Story," is a peculiar and meandering musing on... uh, being an artist, fans, the future, or something.

See also:
An Exclusive First Look At Some of Taylor Swift's Trashed Fan Mail

The commentary begins with a safe and soggy question which reads like the opening line of a 7th grader's essay, "Where will the music industry be in 20 years, 30 years, 50 years?" If somehow you manage to care further, this is what's in store for you...

Early on, Swift states, "In my opinion, the value of an album is, and will continue to be, based on the amount of heart and soul an artist has bled into a body of work, and the financial value that artists (and their labels) place on music when it goes out into the marketplace."

To translate, music is worth what someone puts into it. Oh but wait, music is also worth whatever the financial value the artist and label decide. So with that logic Guns N' Roses' Chinese Democracy, which took 14 years to write and release, is one the most valuable records ever created. And it is worth $11.99, the retail value at Best Buy when it came out. Still there? Nah, me neither, because that means nothing.

The article continues on, pausing for a brief moment to provide hope for little girls everywhere before resuming to ruminate nonsensically on the nature of music and art.

"Music is art, and art is important and rare. Important, rare things are valuable. Valuable things should be paid for."

Are you getting the sense that one of her central processing microchips is being infested by inter-dimensional nanobots that are eating away at her fundamental programming? She's losing her ability to blend in with humanity, instead choosing to rely upon pure robot logic:

Music = Art
Art = Rare
Rare = Money

Although she's correct that music is technically art, the idea that all art is important and rare is a concept so far off it will make your eyes disintegrate into your skull as you rub them in disbelief. That's right, art is important and rare. For example, no one else could have written the piano-laden theme for Full House. That person earned and deserved every last penny, you un-evolved idiot. You know who else deserves some money? Your friend who got drunk and tried to re-record the Lion King soundtrack using a looping pedal and a pasta strainer.

Swiftbot1000 then switches gears (or galactic crystal cybertubes) and attempts to run simulations of human emotion and compassion, equating the love a fan has for music using the same terms as relationships between two humanoid organisms. Flash-in-the-pan dance anthems are referred to as "passing flings" while others symbolize more meaningful relationships from our pasts -- which is where it all falls apart.

Because that's a twisted and daft comparison that can only be made by someone who is either filthy rich and grossly out of touch with reality, or a total robot.

There's more inane crap in the obviously pasted-together garbage heap of writing. Functionless and drab positing on how autographs are archaic in favor of selfies, the idea of keeping fans in love with you by "surprising" them with live guest appearances, labels picking up artists preloaded with audiences -- you know, words of advice that apply to literally four extremely famous people who probably read the article as well.

Consider the simplistic head-shaking advice, the lawn chair philosophizing on the future of music, and the fact that the article changes subjects drastically and without any segue. It all adds up to one thing. Read the writing on the walls: she's an android, man.


Top 10 Douchiest Guitarists of All Time

The 10 Douchiest Drummers of All Time
The Top 15 Things That Annoy the Crap Out of Your Local Sound Guy



Sponsor Content

My Voice Nation Help
13 comments
dblument001
dblument001

Hi Douchebag- 

Why be so mean? Is VV that way now? The intolerance is sickening-

kkerr
kkerr

This article says a lot about a person's problems.  That person is its author.  

gaetano-c
gaetano-c

Not that I agree with everything Taylor said, but this article is just rude and tries to invalidate her points without really bringing up any points itself. How do they even let this be printed on The Village Voice? It seems like he took her Wall Street Journal article as an excuse to completely attack her.

existing87
existing87

I adore Taylor Swift. To imply her, or anyone’s natural features to be fashionable augmentation is shallow and snide. To suggest that her voice is digitally augmented is insensitive and preposterous. I don’t care if Ailes doesn’t love it as much as I do, but is it so hard to be polite about it?

After addressing piracy and free access to music, Taylor says music is valuable, and should be paid for. The latter comment is clearly meant to be general; to consider humanity’s relationship with music is a general notion. Productions of emotion and reflection need some sort of ordered distribution, and their constructors should be paid. To retort that this could be applied to casual phone recordings and such is not a sufficient rebuttal; the point stands, even if Ailes doesn’t like its phrasing.

Taylor’s comparison of experience of music and romantic relationships is a an apt illustration, and Ailes makes no effort to argue otherwise, other than some brief bluster about her financial success.

Lorna Newton McKenzie
Lorna Newton McKenzie

terrible article; Miss Swift is right; but the recording industry which siphons off the artists $, pressures them to make more albums and tour constantly doesn't want to hear her point of view. They have taken a hit because the computer age aids artists to record and market their music. Hank Williams who died drunk in the backseat of a car on another long ride to another show said, "They're slicing me up and selling me like bolonie"

Ignorant101
Ignorant101

You sir, is the idiotic, stupid one. Blabbing about Ms. Swift's reponse and referring to it as nonsensical or 7th grade essay. We thing you are the ignorant, neanderthal idiot who do not belong in any news business. Why? Because you cannot present pros or cons in an article without resorting to stupidity.

Ignorant101
Ignorant101

You sir, is the most idiotic, stupid, ignorant person yet. Blabbing about Ms. Swift's reponse and referring to it as nonsensical or 7th grade essay. We think you are the ignorant, arrogant, neanderthal idiot who does not belong in any news business. Why? Because you cannot present pros or cons in an article without resorting to stupidity and most of all, your grey matter is lacking.

aline-
aline-

Can't tell if this is a joke or if the writer is actually a moron. All this is, is taking Taylor's words and twisting them to make her seem horrible.

Anon65
Anon65

I've thought for a while now that Taylor is a shrewd beyond her years business woman and the inanity of her songs were a way of reeling in the young ones. This piece in WSJ  makes me reconsider that position.

"My hope for the future, not just in the music industry, but in every young girl I meet…is that they all realize their worth and ask for it."


 "These days, nothing great you hear on the radio seems to come from just one musical influence"

Pop sounds like hip hop; country sounds like rock; rock sounds like soul; and folk sounds like country—and to me, that's incredible progress." 


"There continues to be a bad girl vs. good girl/clean-cut vs. sexy debate, and for as long as those labels exist, I just hope there will be contenders on both sides. Everyone needs someone to relate to."


Or....it could just be that the ruse is never ending.

anon
anon

Why do people feel the need to hate on others for their opinion? If you think she did a bad job, keep it to yourself. there is enough hate in this world without you unneccesarily adding to it. What did she ever do to you? Nothing... So who really cares what you think about the article? Say nice things, or say nothing at all, becasue Talyor did nothing wrong and offended nobody in this atricle.

bartman412
bartman412

Don't let this writer take out of context bits and pieces of what Taylor said to try and tell you what to think. Go read what Taylor wrote in the WSJ and form your own opinion about the op ed she wrote. This writer comes across as a jealous little boy who is trying to make Taylor sound foolish. She wrote an admittedly optimistic piece,but to dismiss the opinion of the only artist who can still sell a million albums in a week is absurd. I love the way this writer takes a few words and then "TRANSLATES" them so the to stupid among you can be told what to think.. Go read it in the WSJ and form your own opinion....Drew are you jealous that she was invited to write a piece in the WSJ? Because that is what you sound like in this hate piece.

Now Trending

New York Concert Tickets

From the Vault

 

Loading...