TIME Magazine: Taylor Swift by Stevie Nicks

[LikeAWillow]

Originally Posted by Sahara

I love this Stevie's still teaching me that!

I'm glad someone does! Whenever I play my ledge drinking games, I make a spot for "Marissa throws madonna/whore out in the conversation again and everyone rolls their eyes." Really, though, I feel like I learned so much about what I think it means to be a feminine, sexy, and empowered woman from Stevie, and it's absolutely nothing like the "universal woman" that she's now saying Taylor writes about.

A little edit with a graphic for funsies:



^It's so un-Rhiannon of you, Taylor.

[michelej1]

Originally Posted by Musicman408

This is really graceful of Stevie. How cool that the article is in Time!

Since each "influential person" only has one person talking about them, I am glad that Stevie was included. Cyndi Lauper did the Time description for Lady Gaga.

I was glad that Prince and Elton John made the list. I didn't realize they were still considered influential. Ricky Gervais made it too. I'm in love with him (well, I'm pretty smitten with Karl and Steve too).


Michele

[TrueFaith77]

But note: That is Taylor as both the Madonna and the Whore!

That is saying SOMETHING.

I'm not saying it's saying something profound, but is it JUST supporting the cultural myth of Madonna/Whore options/archetypes for women?

I think I read it as aligning itself with the sentimentality that cultural myth allows--a sentimentality to which Stevie NEVER stoops, but that doesn't mean she doesn't understand its appeal, its comforting appeal. After all, it's dangerous to be taken by the wind.

[LikeAWillow]

Originally Posted by TrueFaith77

But note: That is Taylor as both the Madonna and the Whore!

That is saying SOMETHING.

I'm not saying it's saying something profound, but is it JUST supporting the cultural myth of Madonna/Whore options/archetypes for women.

It is indeed because it's painting the Whore as even more of a shallow, one dimensional character. This isn't Taylor saying "the madonna and the whore are inside of all of us a little bit." It's saying, there's so little to this girl, we're not even bothering to get another actress. Do you know how much it takes to become a whore? Just a red, skimpy dress and a loss of virginal, blonde curls. Hang on to your hymens, ladies, one wrong step, and you're losing your boyfriend, too!

[LikeAWillow]

Originally Posted by TrueFaith77

its appeal, its comforting appeal. After all, it's dangerous to be taken by the wind.

You added this after I replied, so I missed it, sorry I like the comfort that comes from innocence and flowers and pretty dresses and pretty hair, I do...in little girls. I guess I just wish we lived in a world where it was okay for little girls to become women and it was just as sentimental and feel-good when they did

[TrueFaith77]

Originally Posted by LikeAWillow

It is indeed because it's painting the Whore as even more of a shallow, one dimensional character. This isn't Taylor saying "the madonna and the whore are inside of all of us a little bit." It's saying, there's so little to this girl, we're not even bothering to get another actress.

Hmmm... honestly, I haven't thought much about the video, but I don't think it's signifying that they cast Taylor in both parts to avoid hiring another actress. I think its significance has more to do with Taylor's vanity and the medium's emphasis on novelty/gimmicry. Now, to your point: This vanity showcase for her "range" defines "range" utilizing certain cultural myths (red/white; glasses/no glasses)--which means the video supports those myths. (A myth is not inherently good or evil btw.) The emphasis on gimmicry/novelty for tis own sake as opposed to its expressive potential explains why that novelty is being utilized to the service of ideas about femininity and romance that the culture accepts as Truth (i.e. myth). However, I think the point is supposed to be: they are both equally beautiful outside (once the glasses come off ) but that one of them is ugly inside.

Originally Posted by LikeAWillow

Do you know how much it takes to become a whore? Just a red, skimpy dress and a loss of virginal, blonde curls. Hang on to your hymens, ladies, one wrong step, and you're losing your boyfriend, too!

Here's where we disagree. I don't remember (and I COULD BE WRONG) that there is any suggestion she and the boy are sexually ACTIVE; although the red dress tends to signify SOMETHING about sexuality (Jezebel, Wharton, Jessica Rabbit), perhaps it is the sexual appeal that disguised the fact that she's not a nice person (which seems to be the point of the video's dual casting--not deep, just . . . another Mean Girls redeux).

[LikeAWillow]

So before I reply, I just want to say how happy I am that someone's actually talking about this with me This is awesome. Anyway. Moving to the post.

Originally Posted by TrueFaith77

Hmmm... honestly, I haven't thought much about the video, but I don't think it's signifying that they cast Taylor in both parts to avoid hiring another actress.

I was mainly kidding about the "to avoid hiring another actress" part. I agree with you that it's part of a gimmick, but I think that the gimmick pulls on a lot of symbolism that's unconsciously buried in all of us...which it sounds like you agree with as well. We'll look at that symbolism to answer...

I think its significance has more to do with Taylor's vanity and the medium's emphasis on novelty/gimmicry. Now, to your point: This vanity showcase for her "range" defines "range" utilizing certain cultural myths (red/white; glasses/no glasses)--which means the video supports those myths. (A myth is not inherently good or evil btw.) The emphasis on gimmicry/novelty for tis own sake as opposed to its expressive potential explains why that novelty is being utilized to the service of ideas about femininity and romance that the culture accepts as Truth (i.e. myth). However, I think the point is supposed to be: they are both equally beautiful outside (once the glasses come off ) but that one of them is ugly inside.

What evidence do we have that one is ugly on the inside? Let's look at what we really know about this girl. The song lists a lot of positive assets about Taylor, but I'd rather look at the negatives about the other, the drawing of the whore archetype. The comparisons they draw between the two girls are...

She doesn't get your humor like I do.

Okay, this could be a personality thing. They're not right for each other.

She'll never know your story like I do.

Why? We're not really sure, but it could be personality, too! Okay, I'm on board! Tell me more, Taylor.

She wears short skirts, I wear t-shirts.

Woah. Hey now. Let's look at the pattern. We've seen so far that Taylor is showing us a negative about that girl then a postive about herself. So short skirts? A negative! Might this explain why the whore'll never know his story? Let's listen on.

She's cheer captain and I'm on the bleachers.

Negative and a postive: she puts herself out to be ogled, I'm just a nice little girl who knows her place and cheers for her team. I'm half way there, take it home.

Final comparison: What are you doing with a girl like that? She wears high heels, I wear sneakers.

Yup, I get it. She's got you because of that body of hers, whereas me, the little girl next door who would never show off like that, well, you should be with me because you'd like my mind.


If the girl isn't sleeping with him, she's certainly tempting him with sex. It's all we know about her, and apparently all she has going for her. Taylor, well, she's just not that sort of girl. You belong with her!


Let's compare this to a few Stevie Nicks lyrics, just to bring this home...

Rhiannon rings like a bell through the night, and would you love to love her?

The ringing is powerful. It's active. This is a woman who can't be ignored.

She rules her life like a bird in flight, and who will be her lover?

She RULES her life. She doesn't stand around waiting at some man's backdoor, and it's a competition to take her to bed, rather than a competition between two women over who is least likely to go to bed.

[TrueFaith77]

^^^^Oh, you listened to the lyrics of the song! My bad.

I totally agree with how you broke down the difference between Stevie's writing and Taylor's.

Taylor wouldn't know a metaphor, a symbol, simile, or a sign if it rang like a bell through the night.

For a great film dealing with many of the subjects that seem to interest you (and even have two parts played by the same actress), I HIGHLY recommend my second favorite film of the 2000s: Femme Fatale.

It might inspire you.

[LikeAWillow]

Originally Posted by TrueFaith77

^^^^Oh, you listened to the lyrics of the song! My bad.

I totally agree with how you broke down the difference between Stevie's writing and Taylor's.

Taylor wouldn't know a metaphor, a symbol, simile, or a sign if it rang like a bell through the night.

For a great film dealing with many of the subjects that seem to interest you (and even have two parts played by the same actress), I HIGHLY recommend my second favorite film of the 2000s: Femme Fatale.

It might inspire you.

Sweet. I'll check it out. Thanks!

[goldustsongbird]

I understand people like Stevie serve as mentors to the up-and-comers, but it still seems a bit backward for them to be writing the praise articles. Taylor and Gaga should be the ones writing about Stevie Nicks and Cyndi Lauper's influence, not the other way around.

[michelej1]

Originally Posted by TrueFaith77

Taylor wouldn't know a metaphor, a symbol, simile, or a sign if it rang like a bell through the night.

I think Our Song is one giant metaphor and a lovely sentiment at that.

Michele

[michelej1]

Originally Posted by LikeAWillow

I was mainly kidding about the "to avoid hiring another actress" part.

It reminds me of Lindsey dueling with himself and his principles in Wrong.

Actually, the Holiday Road video had a similar premise. A part of him left the regimentalized, the prison of what is expected of you, behind.

I think some of the recent sex scandals have fit the Madonna/Whore theme. The men want to marry and raise children with one type of woman, but want to have affairs with another.

The red dress discussion reminds me of one of the best scenes in Gone With the Wind. Rhett made Scarlett wear red to expose her for what he thought she was. And the moment when Melanie walked across the room, ignoring the gasping crowd to embrace Scarlett was even more dramatic than when Scarlett entered the room in the first place. In essence, Melanie was saying, "I am not going to let you label her. I won't play by your social rules of good and bad. I refuse to let you make my pain your cudgel against a woman who has both harmed and helped me. None of us can be defined by our bad acts alone, much less by the color we wear."

Michele

[StreetAngel95]

ok, well Lyrically, i can relate INCREDIBLY to Taylor. Her style is straightforward and blunt. With Stevie, as much as she is, IMO, one of the best songwriters ever, i can't really relate. I've never had a boyfriend, much less kissed a guy, and don't know what it feels like to be in love. With Taylor, her lyrics are about wishing to be with a guy and the ups and downs of adolescence. That's my life right now. I think it's just her voice and her musicality that i don't really care for.

a couple excerpts:

Cory finds another way to be
The highlight of my day
I'm taking pictures in my mind
So I can save them for a rainy day
It's hard to make conversation
When he's taking my breath away
I should say, hey by the way

i listened to this song nonstop on my 15th birthday:

'cause when you're fifteen and somebody tells you they love you
You're gonna believe them
And when you're fifteen
Feeling like there nothing to figure out
Well count to ten, take it in
This is life before you know who you're gonna be
Fifteen

I took a chance, I took a shot
And you might think i'm bulletproof, but i'm not
You took a swing, I took it hard
And down here from the ground I see who you are


You could write a book on how to ruin someone's perfect day
Well I get so confused and frustrated
Forget what i'm trying to say, oh

[michelej1]

Originally Posted by goldustsongbird

I understand people like Stevie serve as mentors to the up-and-comers, but it still seems a bit backward for them to be writing the praise articles. Taylor and Gaga should be the ones writing about Stevie Nicks and Cyndi Lauper's influence, not the other way around.

True. But on the other hand, I wouldn't be all that happy to have Taylor Swift's input if Stevie was being profiled. Heck, I'm still mad about Sheryl Crow and the RRHOF. If Stevie was on the "Most Influential" list and Time asked someone to write about her, I'd want it to be someone equal to or above Stevie who commented. I wouldn't want it to be one of the newcomers.

So, I guess I can see their point in having a vet discuss why they think the newbie is deserving -- even if she may not be. It kind of gives the selection (undeserved) credibility. You don't want a lesser person to be the one speaking.

Michele

[chelluversu]

Originally Posted by StreetAngel95

ok, well Lyrically, i can relate INCREDIBLY to Taylor. Her style is straightforward and blunt. With Stevie, as much as she is, IMO, one of the best songwriters ever, i can't really relate. I've never had a boyfriend, much less kissed a guy, and don't know what it feels like to be in love. With Taylor, her lyrics are about wishing to be with a guy and the ups and downs of adolescence. That's my life right now. I think it's just her voice and her musicality that i don't really care for.

Same here, and her songs are completely understandable so that there's no need to interpret what she is trying to say because they are right there. With Stevie you have people arguing (or not arguing..just thinking differently) over interpretations of songs because the words/phrases are ambiguous. I'm not a screaming fan of Taylor but I have plethora of friends who are which is the reason why I know most of her songs (the Jonas Brothers though...I'll pass). I actually like her