As far as commercial radio music goes, there are certainly worse people to look to than Taylor Swift. Her family-friendly lyricism and safe musical boundaries mean she provides an oft-pleasant, unchallenging listening experience for many. Personally, I always found it a little problematic that parents are okay with letting their daughters listen to an artist whose lyrics revolve almost entirely around vindictively obsessing over ex-boyfriends but whatever, I doubt it’s ever going to completely distort a child’s values.
Then early last year, she drew the ire of Earl Sweatshirt for her ‘Shake it Off’ video which used black dancers and dancing styles as ~hilarious~ ornamentation. A little later, she claimed that streaming services like Spotify don’t adequately value her art which is really fucking rich coming from the musician behind the top selling album of 2014. By the close of 2014, a lot of people were beginning to realise that Taylor Swift was not just the most bankable music-related product of this decade, she (or the powers that drive her popularity) is kind of a shitty person.
Well, now it’s certified thanks to a trademark application under her name. Apparently a series of phrases are undergoing scrutiny at the U.S. patent and trademark office thanks to the Swift camp. These aren’t just phrases relating to specific concepts and titles of hers, either. These are things like “this sick beat”, “we never go out of style”, “nice to meet you, where you been?”, “could show you incredible things” and “party like it’s 1989”.
Now, in case you were already mad at Swift’s treatment of cultural artefacts that don’t belong to her, now is a good time to mention that ‘sick’ as a phrase of positivity in reference to music has its roots in Trinidad and Tobago in the ’70s and 80’s as well as being used quite frequently in South London scenes from the early ’90s onwards. It should also be noted that the “party like it’s __” formula has been in existence since before Swift wrote her first song. Maybe you don’t need to be told that, but someone needs to tell Taylor because she has officially gone full sociopath.
In terms of tour merchandising and the like, something like this kind of makes sense and many bands have done something similar for that reason but they’re rarely this all-encompassing. I mean, this goes beyond the precautions she should sensibly make to avoid Urban Outfitters making crop tops with her pithy slogans or something. If Swift gets her way, you may not be able to title your albums with terminology that has been in music far better and far more wide reaching than Swift’s.
I’m going to have a hard time understanding how anyone could appreciate or support her music following this announcement given that it’s seemingly intended to litigiously stunt the self-expression of others in order to give her art exclusivity. Then again, I guess there’s not any other way she could pursue a sound that could be described as ‘unique’ besides using bureaucracy to trademark lyricism.
Taylor Swift’s world tour kicks off in May. Maybe by then she’ll legally own the concept of a gig too and she can finally complete her commercial monopoly at the expense of anyone else trying to succeed at making music.
Trademark application screengrabs courtesy of Becca Laurie, PL
[Via.]
More Taylor Swift
Ways to get attention: break into Taylor Swift’s Twitter
Attention Swifties: KFC probably got Taylor Swift disqualified from the Hottest 100
Taylor Swift gets avant-garde, drops ‘accidental’ 8-second track