>Look What You Made Me Do >1.58 / 5.0 >Swish Swish

>>74839121
because the media has it out for verified snake taylor, whose parents are extraordinarily wealthy and bought a controlling stake in big machine records

>>74839239
it couldn't be the fact that her song is fucking awful and childish and that she is a "verified snake"? Nah, it's just the media out for her.

The Taylor score is correct but the Swish Swish score should be in the negatives

>>74839253
there's nothing stopping these reasons from coexisting, but let's face it, there's something fishy going on here

>>74839121
Who cares. Critics tend to make out of their ass ratings and adjust them afterwards.

Much more representative would be:
>Look What You Made Me Do
>53M views in a day

>Swish Swish
>49M views in five days and most are probably due it being a diss against the queen

>>74839266
Yeah, it's called making an objectively awful song and receiving proper criticism.

>>74839330
normally i'd agree but look at the rating discrepancy that OP pointed out. something just doesn't sit right with me

>>74839339
Taylor pisses of people by being perfect. Katy gets pity due clearly being on a downward spiral.

>>74839354
>Quasimodo giraffe-looking bitch
>perfect

>>74839354
i don't think that's it. there's gotta be more to this

>>74839339
I disagree. Swish Swish is pretty run of the mill pop trash. It's definitely a new type of low for Katy. Taylor's song on the other hand is not only topical but it's petty and musically abhorrent. This is why the response is not only more negative but also greater in magnitude. Nothing that odd is happening here, anon.

>>74839121
No one cares about RYM ratings. Look at YouTube views and comments.

>>74839417
Views and comments have no bearing on the overall quality of the song. Look at RYM ratings.

swish has a nice beat and the chorus is also cool
taylor has literally nothing good in that song

>>74839670
The pre-chorus is probably the best part, too bad it builds up to nothing and the lyrics are atrocious.

They're both bad but Swish Swish is way worse. It's one of the worst pop songs in years.

>While recording her new album, Swift requested a coffee to quench her thirst. Clearly expecting it to be iced, an intern asked just to make sure anyway. She responded in a dark tone, "Black. No sugar or creamer." The intern had to leave all studiowork until she was finished recording out of fear.
>Another day when she was coming to the studio, she wore her shirt inside out. When asked why, she gave a high-pitched cackle and said "We're all hiding our true insides, aren't we?" before walking away.
She's out of control, guys. Someone NEEDS to stop her.

>>74839457
>Views and comments have no bearing on the overall quality of the song.
Are you aware of the concept of a target audience? Hint: they have no idea what RYM is. Numerical ratings are pointless anyway.

>>74839121
A broken clock is right twice a day.

>>74839794
Jeez, if this is true she's even more perfect than she appears to be.

>>74839803
"Views" are pointless too. Many of them could be from people who absolutely hate the song.

>/mu/ is unironically discussing Taylor Swift and Katy Perry
I want to die.

File: 1443732783615.gif (446KB, 300x186px) Image search: [Google]

446KB, 300x186px

>>74839701
>Swish Swish is way worse
30 seconds was all I could take.

>>74839847
>posting in a thread about artists you don't care about
Yeah, you should end it already.

>>74839841
Bad publicity is still publicity. If it reached the target audience, it's done.

>>74839847
Have you been here since last month? This board is truly done for.

>>74839874
So it doesn't matter how good or bad the song is, just as long as it is consumed?

>>74839891
Uh, yes? Have you been living under a rock for the last 50 years? That's one of the ways how top 40 acts succeed.

>>74839701
>>74839850
Absolutely not. It's boring trash. Taylor's song however is particularly egregious.

>>74839841
Taylor is expected to debut at #1 on Billboard with this song, Swish Swish failed to even go top 40

>>74839902
I'm sure that a song needs to be good in some way in order for people to want to consume it in the first place.

>>74839923
I will explain in a couple of minutes.

>>74839891
you can't try to objectively critique and analyze a top 40 song because there's just nothing to analyze lol

>>74839955
this board is in love with pop boybands like beatles and beach boys, stop
>b-but it back in the d-
stopppppppp

File: 21150691_1491058090940295_720409971_n.png (269KB, 698x960px) Image search: [Google]

269KB, 698x960px

>>74839923
>I'm sure that a song needs to be good in some way in order for people to want to consume it in the first place.
Crafting a hit for top 40 acts relies on the nature of human ear and the intervals it perceives as pleasant. That effect is produced by sound waves. An octave sounds pleasant to human ears because of the note in the higher register vibrates twice as fast as the one in the lower register. The more mathematically complex these relationships between intervals are, the "worse" they will sound to human ears. Familiarity is another major factor, as evidenced here:
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0027241
Consonant intervals would be octaves, perfect fifths, major thirds, minor thirds, etc. Therein lies the structure of songs made to sell - major keys, major chords, I-IV-V chord progressions, familiar Western rhythms, avoidance of sharp notes, one and two note melodies, excessive use of the root note, etc. That's why you would rarely hear a 6th chord or major seconds and perfect fourths in such a song. However it doesn't stop there - lyrics have to invite the listener mainly with the word "you" in the first 30 seconds. That's just one example of audience manipulation.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7yykcoyMcw
Pic related - one and two note melodies in the chorus (F, G for the majority of it).

>>74839955
>there's just nothing to analyze lol
There's not much to analyze would be more appropriate.
>>74840162