[1] https://pitchfork.com/thepitch/tiktok-report-benees-supalone...
Tik Tok is an absolutely massive recent source of new music growth [0], Taylor Swift and Beiber are absolutely massive artists with almost unparalleled influence across multiple genres, their riding of new vibes throws off tsunami wave effects.
They’re doing their job, and doing it well, the effects of giving their first 10 in a decade to Fiona Apple’s new album for example, you’re just not the target.
0 - https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-features/tiktok-vid...
Don’t let that imply Drake isn’t even more influential though, man almost single handedly brought the sound of West Africa -> London onto American radio.
I mean... musical taste has its variations and I am cool with that but this is objectively an exaggeration.
This is all in terms of listeners and quantity, not taste and quality, in line with Pitchfork’s target moving.
And it’s definitely exaggerated, but mostly because Taylor Swift and Beiber were the slightly dated examples given. Nicely emblematic though.
Massive like Rick Astley? Hootie and the Blowfish? Your argument attributes artistic quality with an artist and their machine's size and reach. I'm sorry, but this doesn't justify critical notice or attention.
As for their influence - I'm at a loss for what you mean here. What genres are these two artists influencing - other than pop? Maaaybe hip-hop with their use of the millenial whoop [1] - but even that is a stretch.
> their riding of new vibes throws off tsunami wave effects.
This is what Madonna, MJ and basically every mainstream artist has done for eons - co-opting genres and trends to remain relevant (Kenny Rogers even did disco).
> you’re just not the target.
Thanks for the patronizing tone. As a DJ, signed artist and music nerd of more than 20 years, I think I understand a little about the nuances of this stuff. I actually used Aphex as I thought it may be relatable to a tech crowd, but I could have said a number of artists (new or old) from many different genres to make the point.
I didn’t mention or consider artistic quality in my comment, and didn’t mean to suggest popularity is quality.
This from the website that built an empire on discovering and promoting new music...
Is what I originally replied to, if “new music” implied quality music, than this is a miscommunication.
Maybe, fifty years from now, we'll look back on that first Taylor Swift album as world-changing. But I doubt it. Talented? Yes, remarkably so. But I don't hear a "Heroin" or "Venus in Furs" level change in the very nature of music there.