The Problem with Comparing Taylor Swift to The Beatles...
...and vice versa
Everywhere you look, whether you are paying attention or not—she is always there. When I posted my ranking of all her studio albums in 2022, I had no idea that Swift would skyrocket to this monumental level of super-superstardom—to the extent where we are now talking about the possibility of Taylor Swift being the most popular artist ever.
Last week, the New York Times posted an article titled 'How Big is Taylor Swift’—a topic which prompts a lot of discussion and debate about popular music’s most beloved icons. NYT’s article takes a comparative approach, using colorful graphs tracking the positions of hit songs, album sales, gross earnings for tours, etc.
With the extension of her record breaking ‘Era’s Tour’ and the monopolistic dominance of her latest studio album The Tortured Poets Department on the charts, many have joined in on the conversation about whether Swift is actually better or more important to music than The Beatles—which raises a major issue with the whole premise of the argument.
The problem with comparing Taylor Swift to The Beatles is rather a question of should we really be comparing the two in the first place?
Truthfully, I don’t think so—here’s why.
My resolve doesn’t come from a place of deep-bias towards the ‘Fab Four’s’ unquestioned supremacy, but rather from acknowledgment that the two are really just from different planets in the solar system. Nobody’s grandpa is a hero for pointing out the (most likely) obvious: The Beatles champion Taylor Swift in practically every sense of the argument. But, this is beside the point; after all, my premise is not contesting ‘who’s bigger’ or ‘better.’ It’s about whether we should be comparing them at all.
The first (and hopefully, most obvious) reason is because Swift is still in the midst of her career, not to mention the hight of it. If we’re going to look at The Beatles, Micheal Jackson, or Elvis Presley in the retrospective, I think it’s only fair that we do the same for Swift too. Likewise, it’s hard to make an argument for or against her case; unless you’re solely basing your argument off of statistics alone (which is exactly what NYT and others are doing right now).
My second reason comes about from my categorical breakdown of what factors contribute to an artist’s legendary status, and it goes like this:
Artists of this stature excel tremendously in one of these two categories:
1.) The artist’s influence and innovation in the art-form.
and
2.) The artist’s influence and innovation pertaining to the economic and commercial realm.
…and in the case of Beatles vs. Swift, neither of them triumph one another in the same category. When people talk about The Beatles, it’s usually about their music, and when people talk about Taylor Swift, it’s usually about her commercial success. However, this isn’t to say that neither of them haven’t made advances in the other category. The Beatles with their label ‘Apple’ and the worldwide distribution of their records made them pioneers in the music industry no doubt, but that’s not what they're best known for per se. The same applies to Swift and her music; she’s become one of the most prominent songwriters of her generation. Even so, we mostly admire the business savvy component of her empire more than her songwriting capabilities.
Let’s take a closer look.
Starting with the ‘mop-tops’ from Liverpool—their influence is beyond inarguable when it comes to songwriting and musicianship. Just about every artist has pointed to The Beatles as one of their biggest inspirations, making their mark across all genres. Some of the more popular include David Bowie, ELO, Oasis, Nirvana, Lady Gaga, Billie Eilish—the list goes on The group is undoubtedly responsible for jump-starting the careers of millions across the globe. On all fronts: artistry, musicianship, studio innovation—they mastered it all.
Taylor Swift, too, is making her mark in music, but in the world of commerce and industry. She is the largest entertainment asset in the world, perhaps even the face of it (do I need to mention ‘Person of the Year’ by Time magazine?). Marketing, brand-development, distribution, contract structures, you name it—she’s rewriting the script of how celebrities and brands conduct business in the digital age, and that’s not going away anytime soon. I don’t remember a person, or anything for the matter, as highly marketable since the release of Disney’s Frozen! The pure genius of ‘Taylor’s Version’ (what and why that is, can be explained here) is nothing short of brilliance—following in the footsteps of Prince’s gifted business instincts. Taylor Swift (yes, the brand and the person) is in it for the long-run, and I don’t have much doubt pertaining the significance of her influence on popular culture extending into the future.
Like a lot of things, we’ll just have to ‘wait and see’ how things pan out for Swift’s legacy in the coming years. How she’ll fare, who knows? But, I’m guessing that’s what keeps people like me attentive to the ebbs and flows of music and its artists.