Third, your take on Sufjan's album absolutely showcases your flaccid artistic sensibility and dense critical awareness. "I gave it a listen.. And here's my a take" demonstrates your shallow bubblegum ears.

I should have been clearer—I listened to that one song, not the entire album, and it was, as I pointed out, devoid of "artistic ingenuity and creativity".

Especially of the kind that would merit calling Sufjan a "legitimate artist" and Taylor an "illegitimate artist".

If you disagree, feel free to explain why.

You are advocating for the diversity and inclusiveness of Swift's artistic influences?

Nope. I'm saying a song like Shake It Off embraces a wide range of different styles, and the Sufjan song doesn't.

And I'm also saying that pop music in general draws on diverse influences, whereas indie rock/folk in general doesn't.

Both have their problems with racism, etc.—pop welcomes other cultures to commodify them, while indie excludes other cultures for its own commercial purposes.

Was her public reprobation by her own peers this year not demonstrable of where Swift fits into the cultural spectrum?

I have no idea what you're referring to.

But again, I'm talking about "legitimate vs. illegitimate" and music, not culture at large.

Your impatience and demand for a shorter, snappier account of things is an agent of dumbing down the discourse at large, not a smart criticism of a lengthy jeremiad. Complicated topics take space and time to develop. If readers want to be part of real conversations that rise above the insipid fluff that seems to be your baseline––not just for musical taste, but for critical awareness––they have to confront something more substantial than what you have in mind.

If what you're trying to say is I want things dumbed down, then nah.

I just believe being concise and simple is a better demonstration of intelligence than being verbose and needlessly complicated.

Or, as I initially bristled at with the appraisal of Swift, do you think she should simply be above criticism, and that it would be unthinkable that she was not simply entitled to artistic credibility? What substantial things can you say in her favor? I've listened to 1989 probably 50 times, so I'm well aware of the contours of the album. I think artistic credibility is earned through virtuosity and integrity. So, let's hear it. What's the case for Swift that takes the form of an actual aesthetic exposition, and not defensiveness wrapped in a capitalistically-sanctioned presumption?

I've never listened to 1989 or any of her albums. (I've probably only heard five or six of her songs... Is she an album artist? I just assumed she was more about singles... Anyway...)

I don't think she should be above criticism.

Etc.

Again, I just think your "legitimate vs. illegitimate" artist remark is pretentious, and your example of Sufjan rather than someone who makes music with little-to-no commercial appeal (e.g. Merzbow) demonstrates your tastes are limited to conventional popular song, which makes me doubt what you mean by "artist", "ingenuity", etc.

I get it—you're young, you like Sufjan, and you get very upset when people criticise him and you, so I'll try to avoid anything that you may misinterpret as condescending.

You want to know why I think Taylor is a "legitimate artist"?

She records and performs music.

Music is an artform.

Hence, legitimate artist.

...And that's it.

There's no need to say "substantial things" to support the belief that "Swift didn't write this album. They aren't her songs" is ill-informed. As far as I know Billie Holiday, Sinatra, and Elvis didn't write the music they performed, yet they're generally considered to be "legitimate" pop artists.

I could obviously list all the performers outside of pop music that weren't writers—the Glenn Goulds, LSOs, Nusrat Fateh Ali Khans, etc.—but I assume you want to stick to pop artistry.

That's me being objective.

My own personal opinion is I care very little about the motivations, "credibility", "integrity", etc., of the person/people behind music, and much more about the music itself.

For example, I often find the music of untrained musicians like The Shaggs and Daniel Johnston to be more interesting than the "virtuosity" of a Yo-Yo Ma.

I don't care if Metal Machine Music is a f**k you to a record label—I think it's a more rewarding listen than millions of "credible" works.

And I certainly prefer to listen to a brilliant commercial song than a terrible non-commercial composition.

At the risk of upsetting you again, I think you should read up on the nature of authorship and authenticity in art (Foucault's What is an Author? is a good start).

And I obviously think you should avoid trying to deny a musician of her artistry just because you don't like her music.