Taylor Swift
1989 (Taylor’s Version)


3.4
great


Release Date: 10/27/2023 | Tracklist

Review Summary: Nu-Disneyland billionaire pop will eat you all

I can remember the precise moment in 2014 that my social media feed blew up like a can of Coke in the paws of a ratty seven-year-old, informing me that Taylor Swift had graduated from a peppy teen idol widely viewed a singles artist to a celebrity auteur whose entire records were now prescribed as mandatory consumption by people with whom I'd never previously exchanged a word about music in my life. 1989 changed everything for Swift, blowing out all Nashville's claims on her through the back door in a barrage of bubbly hooks that opened the floodgates to '80s revivalism and 'poptimism' as a critical ethos, all while retaining a slick edge that belonged far more to the modern zeitgeist than retro pastiche. It's a great record – it sounded good when it dropped, and, shock of all horrors, it still sounds good now.

Flash forward one decade and one infamous masters dispute later, and 1989 (Taylor's Version) has emerged as an entirely different, somewhat more token pop milestone. Besides the number of sales and streaming records it has reportedly smashed, the most significant thing it represents on its own terms is a hardly-necessary reminder of the original's star value, but on a broader, more meaningful level, it represents a cautionary lesson for all artists to prioritise ownership of their work (which has already had a marked industry impact) and the relentless lengths Swift will go to advance her own capital (a familiar story for anyone who remembers her notorious trademarking spree of 1989's most quotidian taglines in 2015).

Both of these things are all well and good, but appraising either of them in terms of the product itself is a stretch: as Laura Snapes baldly observed in her review of Speak Now (Taylor's Version) for the Guardian, both the original and its pyrotechnic release cycle are far too recent landmarks in pop history to demand this kind of revisitation so soon, and sure enough, 1989 (Taylor's Version) is the project's most redundant offering thus far. It boasts nothing like the inspirational trip down memory lane that supported Fearless (Taylor's Version), or the redemption arc that brought Red (Taylor's Version)'s coming-of-age tangle the critical acclaim that had initially evaded it; its tracks are largely dutiful recreations rather than bold reimaginings, the then-and-now gap between the original is too narrow to provide the insight or revelation of its predecessors (especially given how closely Swift sticks to her original vocal style).

In this case the Taylor's Version label also comes with an ominously empty seat once occupied by the producer most responsible for the original's irresistible gloss: the absence of Swedish hit machine Max Martin has already proved a glaring Achilles heel on Red (Taylor's Version), as that record's pop hits, once deliciously crass, found themselves outright neutered by comparison to his originals, and the biggest takeaway to be had on 1989 (Taylor's Version) is the work done by returning Swift collaborator Christopher Rowe in filling his shoes. Tasked with the majority of the original tracklist, Rowe puts in a commendable shift, largely restoring the bouncy, polished snappiness that Martin brought in such spades to the entire run of tracks from "Blank Space" to "How You Get The Girl". It's not a complete knockout – "Blank Space" compresses its razor-taut backing instrumental a few fatal increments less than the original, obstructing the momentum of Swift's vocal performance to somewhat underwhelming effect as such, while the giddy heights of the "New Romantics"' chorus are now merely gaudy and blown out – but he makes up for this with the occasional surprise triumph. "All You Had To Do Was Stay" sounds particularly massive and might just have trumped the original for sheer ecstasy, while "Style" somehow sounds slicker than ever. Elsewhere in the mixing booth, Jack Antonoff goes some way to redeeming himself for last year's synth-flop Midnights with his watertight restaging of "Out Of The Woods" and "I Wish You Would", while the rest of the tracklist returns its original production teams to similar effect. As far as recreating those lavish heights of polish goes, 1989 (Taylor's Version) by and large overcomes its personnel issue, rebooting its original aesthetic with conviction.

The rest of the record follows a similar pattern of give-and-take in how it squares against the original. Some tracks make notable improvements – a subtle lift on "This Love"'s gorgeous arrangement boosts one of Swift's most forgettable ballads to a late tracklist highlight, while the new version of "Clean" emphasises producer Imogen Heap's vocal offerings so resplendently that it's a crime she doesn't receive a feature credit – yet others are misplaced in their adjustments. Perhaps the biggest casualty here is the deluxe-edition track "You Are In Love", for my money the most underappreciated track in Swift's whole discography. Once sublimely devoted to the understated facets of her choicest vocalisations to an extent we wouldn't hear again until Folklore's secret highlight "epiphany", the re-recording suffers from Antonoff overstating his ascending synth arpeggios in the chorus, walking headlong into the '80s kitsch that this album once craftily tiptoed around and robbing Swift's vocal of its original delicacy. The song's lull/rush relation with the burgeoning "New Romantics" suffers accordingly, though the latter track no longer bears the burden of dishing out a final climax for the extended tracklist. Instead, we are treated to a now-customary flurry of new-old songs from the 'Vault'. Among these, "Say Don't Go" stands out as Swift's most intrepid journey thus far into the '80s cheese cave, taking her commitment beyond mere synthpop and all the way to New Age in a gleeful series of Enya-esque backing vocals and grandiose pizzicato arpeggios, while "Is It Over Now?" soaks up the spotlight with a particularly lurid post-relationship narrative. However, these tracks boast more commonalities than distinctions, blurring together for their dutiful exhibition of standard Swift tropes (romantic headrush, knives twisted, and loves outgrown) and dishing out a victory lap mellow enough that their lack of major revelations hardly feels like a sore point.

Beyond this respectable string of archival B-sides, 1989 (Taylor's Version) is a faithful enough retread to play as moot from any perspective beside Swift's profit margins and her wider gesticulation against the industry. The more thought I've put into comparisons between the two albums, the less invested I've become over which deserves to be viewed as 'definitive'. The original 1989 probably gets the edge for housing superior versions of "Blank Space" and "You Are In Love", yet it, rather than any recent adjustments, is also the source of all the chief flaws that run through Taylor's Version: this album has always had a ceiling imposed on it by the odd duff chorus (no-one is going to tell me that "Bad Blood" has aged remotely well, while even in 2014, "How You Get The Girl"'s aggravating cheerleader schtick arrived dead on the scene from Everest-tier blood sugar levels and all the wrong hairbrush antics), a maximalist aesthetic slightly too homogenous not to droop from exhilaration to exhaustion across a 50-minute tracklist (pour another one out for the perfect refresher "You Are In Love" once offered), and Swift's ongoing presumption that relationship banalities somehow become more compelling the more fixatedly one explores them. As such, while 1989 was a defining moment for the Western mainstream, it never quite kept up with the likes of Emotion, Melodrama, St. Vincent or even Charli when it comes to raising the bar on '10s pop.

All of these points are in crisper focus than ever, courtesy of this shiny new album that technically offers more than ever but also sounds minutely worse than before. Great. The optics of vendetta in the Taylor's Version project are at this point far less significant than the opportunity it's given her to capitalise on her cultural stranglehold. Spin it whichever way you like, it all stems from the same enterprise: a crafty superstar pulling the strings of arguably the greatest sentimentalist soft power empire since Disney, backed up by a choice set of bangers and the only fanbase in the West that approximates the militaristic awfulness associated with K-pop factions. Treasure her, or

*despondent shrug of gratitude*



Recent reviews by this author
Keiichi Okabe + Shotaro Seo NieR Re[in]carnation Original Soundtrackiphi Sentiment Scrapyard
The Lounge Lizards Voice of ChunkHoplites Π​α​ρ​α​μ​α​ι​ν​ο​μ​έ​ν​η
Vladislav Delay MultilaThe Necks Chemist
user ratings (61)
3.4
great

Comments:Add a Comment 
Slex
October 31st 2023


16223 Comments


I don't like this album but some all-time bangers

pizzamachine
October 31st 2023


26483 Comments

Album Rating: 2.5 | Sound Off

Good zombie Jesus album if you worship the dead

Gavierra
October 31st 2023


400 Comments


She broke the stereotype of all country music being garbo, so that’s a plus

Sinternet
October 31st 2023


26504 Comments

Album Rating: 4.0

this album is like a half and half of better/worse than the original which is kinda to be expected. style is lifeless, i don't know wtf she did to shake it off, but wildest dreams and clean really shine. the vault tracks range from decent to great but no super standout. this is still a 4 for me because i adore this album, it's where i really bought into taylor as a whole rather than only sampling songs off the radio as a kid

Purpl3Spartan
October 31st 2023


8134 Comments


One of her worst albums and that's saying something

Get Low
October 31st 2023


14088 Comments

Album Rating: 3.0

Production on this is lifeless, vault tracks are mid. Don't really have a reason to return to this over the original.

deathschool
October 31st 2023


28462 Comments


Heartbreakers gonna break break break break break breakkkkcjdnskckdmakxm

neekafat
Contributing Reviewer
October 31st 2023


25624 Comments


i can't imagine this sounding a lick different or better than the og 3/5

porcupinetheater
October 31st 2023


10980 Comments


The amount of supposedly “eat the rich” “kill all billionaires” people I know that have started making stuttering excuses about “but not Taylor Swift now” since the news broke lmao

Girlboss 2.0

MoM
October 31st 2023


5994 Comments


“ eat the rich”

For all the times I’ve seen this said, there’s been a massive lack of cannibalism

Like, i don’t say “gonna cook this chicken!” and then not do it

Pheromone
October 31st 2023


21149 Comments


incred. writeup hugh

porc 2[]

gravityswitch
October 31st 2023


1831 Comments


Stellar review, will listen. OG is a 5 so I don't have much hope.
And props to highlight You Are in Love, one of her best song.

someone
October 31st 2023


6281 Comments


"The amount of supposedly “eat the rich” “kill all billionaires” people I know that have started making stuttering excuses about “but not Taylor Swift now” since the news broke lmao"

my only excuse is that she is too bony, i like the chunky, fatty, well-fed meats. she'd make for a good broth tho i suppose

SteakByrnes
October 31st 2023


29443 Comments


idk if I even wanna jam the new versions of the old songs lol

AnimalForce1
October 31st 2023


638 Comments


Possibly the most redundant Taylor's Version we'll ever get, until Reputation gets its time in the spotlight.

Startlingly, I actually think some of the songs are worse here than they are on the OG. Style especially, Taylor's vocals in the chorus are wayyy more staccato, and it kinda makes it sounds like AI

AnimalForce1
October 31st 2023


638 Comments


I respect the album from an artistic integrity perspective, but it just lacks some of the spark that OG 1989 had. It'll probably grow on me, but it's gonna take some time

Hendoi
October 31st 2023


725 Comments


i made the right choice

JohnnyoftheWell
Staff Reviewer
October 31st 2023


59359 Comments


Gonna do another back to back listen of Style - seen a lot of people single that one out as a dud here (and, in honestly one of his more forensic and overall convincing revs, Fantano heaped on it) but it didn't bother me nearly as much as Blank Space or New Romantics and I'm v much there for the added clarity they gave the rhythm guitar in the verses. Tbqh I've never been huge on the chorus to begin with, so maybe I just wasn't invested enough to pick up on the difference hm

SteakByrnes
October 31st 2023


29443 Comments


oh no did she kill new romantics did she kill my favorite song of hers

JohnnyoftheWell
Staff Reviewer
October 31st 2023


59359 Comments


Yup, You Are In Love/New Romantics was maybe my fav 1-2 on the original (that or the opening duo) and it bombs :[
Should start an in memoriam list alongside Red and I Knew You Were Trouble



You have to be logged in to post a comment. Login | Create a Profile





STAFF & CONTRIBUTORS // CONTACT US

Bands: A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z


Site Copyright 2005-2023 Sputnikmusic.com
All Album Reviews Displayed With Permission of Authors | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy