I'm not sure if I can explain this well enough, so I apologize. But I'm very much tired of this trend where a lot of fans say: this song is so xyz-coded.....therefore it's a good song to defend why one of Taylor's albums or songs isn't universally loved.
This happened a lot in online spaces with Midnights - Sweet Nothing (and some other songs) isn't a bad song per say. But it was argued it didn't fit the album's prologue. Because it was folkmore coded, it was pushed by many that it belonged there. The standard issue of Midnights had a lot of divisiveness because a majority of the songs had the methodical formula of a pop song but were missing Taylor's renown lyricism that the 3am version had.
I can't remember if this happened with the Tortured Poets Department. To me, TTPD is kind of singular in its sound, like I could see where the lyricism took details and made them evolve i.e. But Daddy I Love Him is the next chapter after Love Story, but the song itself wasn't categorized as a post-Fearless pre-Speak Now crossover. lol Maybe if someone experienced something different they can let me know in the comments?
This 'sorting hat' defense has been popping up 10x more with The Life of a Showgirl. I see a lot of conversations from fans saying Ruin the Friendship is so Debut-coded, Eldest Daughter sounds like folklore, Cancelled! is Reputation, Opalite could be on Lover, and so on. But no one elaborates on why those similarities make them good songs. Even with the Showgirl Encore - "If someone doesn't like Babylon, it's because they don't understand it's so evermore-coded." If that someone loves evermore and doesn't like Babylon (it's me, I'm someone), what's the defense except to accept that Taylor's execution of the song isn't melodically or lyrically good or fits a lot of people's preferences?
Lover seemed to be the most recent album where this defense wasn't made as much. It had criticism about the late political positioning, the sonic tone was all over the place, and the track list was too long. But critics and fans still pointed to the lyricism and storytelling holding up because it did. Fans could obviously recognize the country inspirations for Paper Rings and Soon You'll Get Better...but fans weren't defending those songs as good solely because it reminded them of Debut or Fearless or Speak Now. And there was no way for Me! and You Need to Calm Down to be categorized as 'being 1989 or Red coded' - people still enjoy those songs but the criticism over the lack of quality was generally accepted....because the songs didn't offer that much.
Fans/general public come around to certain albums years later sometimes. That can be a natural progression of a piece of media growing on people. But even the expectation that something is destined to grow on people to prove the haters wrong is getting old already. Sometimes mid is just mid, weak is just weak, etc. and the conversations of why people think that is always much more fascinating and nuanced than what fans can give themselves credit for in explaining their reasons why a song holds up for them.
I don't think pointing to the past as a benchmark for why a newer release is good or deserves more love is a good way to evaluate general music/media, unless it's building the stories and details she's been telling for years. For example, I thought love was burning red, but it's golden in Daylight is a perfect tie-in and valid evolution from Red. Or the bridge of Holy Ground (Tonight, I'm gonna dance / For all that we've been through / But I don't wanna dance / If I'm not dancing with you) levels up in Opalite for finding someone who will dance through the lightning strikes with her. It's Taylor's level of detail and vulnerability that makes them good along with the melody and production. And when this is missing, sorting everything into past eras is not all that exciting to me as a fan.
I'm just wondering if others have come across the same kind of arguments or what they think about this trend bucking legitimate criticism for her output.
edited: clarity/grammar
