{"id":2281,"date":"2014-10-30T09:06:24","date_gmt":"2014-10-30T09:06:24","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/192.168.3.178\/?p=2281"},"modified":"2014-10-29T17:14:36","modified_gmt":"2014-10-29T17:14:36","slug":"taylor-swifts-1989-what-are-the-critics-saying","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.musicmagpie.co.uk\/blog\/2014\/10\/30\/taylor-swifts-1989-what-are-the-critics-saying\/","title":{"rendered":"Taylor Swift\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s 1989: What are the critics saying?"},"content":{"rendered":"

Taylor Swift has released a new album, 1989. <\/i>The album sees Taylor ditch her country roots and embrace 80s pop, which sounds quite strange but could also be brilliant.<\/p>\n

So, what have the critics been saying about the pop-country<\/span> star\u2019s latest opus, and \u201d\u201c more importantly \u201d\u201c should you buy the album?<\/p>\n

\n

Absolute Punk<\/h4>\n

Like many Taylor Swift fans, the folks at Absolute Punk<\/a> (yes, they really are reviewing a Taylor Swift album despite their name) were worried that Taylor\u2019s leap into full-blown pop would backfire in her perfectly-made-up face.<\/p>\n

Luckily, they needn\u2019t have worried. They give it an 8.5\/10, praising Swift\u2019s honesty regarding her dislike of the celebrity lifestyle, her trademark catchy choruses and the brilliant production.<\/p>\n

There is one negative though: Bad Blood<\/i>, which the reviewer describes as \u201d\u02dcarguably the worst track Taylor has ever put on an album\u2019.<\/p>\n

\n

The Guardian<\/h4>\n

The Guardian\u2019s Kitty Empire<\/a> describes 1989<\/i> as a \u201d\u02dcbold, gossipy confection\u2019, although you probably shouldn\u2019t try to eat the album.<\/p>\n

As with other reviews, much attention is paid to Swift\u2019s new style, which the review describes as Swift \u201d\u02dcclaiming the 80s \u201d\u201c gated drums, synth-pop \u201d\u201c as a formative influence.\u2019<\/i><\/p>\n

Giving the album 4 stars out of 5, Empire claims that 1989 <\/i>plays to Swift\u2019s strengths \u201d\u201c \u201d\u02dcstrengths which pretty much define modern pop<\/i>\u2019. So far, so good.<\/p>\n

\n

Rolling Stone<\/h4>\n

According to Rolling Stone<\/a>, Taylor spends most of 1989<\/i> trying to \u201d\u02dcturn herself into the Pet Shop Boys<\/i>\u2019, which would be a remarkable feat considering she\u2019s a 24 year old woman and they\u2019re a pair of blokes in their late 50s\/early 60s.<\/p>\n

Still, even though Swift doesn\u2019t manage to achieve a biological first, she does manage to turn out an album of \u201d\u02dcsupercatchy Eighties pop gloss\u2019<\/i> that earns 4 stars out of 5. Rolling Stone call 1989 <\/i>\u00a0\u201d\u02dc…deeply weird, feverishly emotional, wildly enthusiastic\u2019<\/i> and claim that <\/i>it <\/em>\u201d\u02dc…<\/em>sounds exactly like Taylor Swift, even when it sounds like nothing she’s ever tried before.\u2019<\/i><\/p>\n

\n

NME<\/h4>\n

It\u2019s all about reinventions in the NME\u2019s review<\/a>, with Swift planting her flag \u201d\u02dcfirmly in pop soil\u2019<\/i>.<\/p>\n

Luckily, NME describe this flag-planting as a \u201d\u02dcsuccess\u2019, <\/i>giving the album 7\/10 and again referencing the album\u2019s debt to 80s pop.<\/p>\n

\n

The A.V. Club<\/h4>\n

\u201d\u02dcWith 1989, Taylor Swift finally grows up\u2019 <\/i><\/p>\n

Well, that\u2019s certainly one way to start a review<\/a>. Taylor\u2019s growth seems to be the main focus of The A.V. Club\u2019s review, with particular praise paid to her changed view on relationships (\u201d\u02dcthank God, because that cloying optimistic romanticism was getting a little annoying<\/i>\u2019, as the review puts it).<\/p>\n

The A.V. Club give 1989 <\/i>a B+, describing it as \u201d\u02dc…like something Haim, Lorde, or Lana Del Rey might have already put out.\u2019<\/i> Not bad!<\/p>\n

\n

Should you buy it? <\/b><\/h4>\n

There are three kinds of people who should consider buying 1989: <\/i><\/p>\n