Comments by "TeeKay" (@teekay_1) on "NYT Says Taylor Swift Is Bigger Than The Beatles!? WTF" video.

@Mindphaser1 But The Beatles also has a much smaller competition lol.
4
@MikeM-uy6qp Do you understand the number of bands in England and the United States in the early 1960s? Apparently not. Thousands of bands played in bars and small clubs hoping to create a buzz. The record companies did not invest in bands, they had AOR guys who went out and offered a contract to the best of these bands. The bands who don't get this treatment release their stuff on Spotify and Bandcamp and a few other platforms, some find their way, most don't. That's not a knock on Swift, she's clearly talented, she has great stage presence, and she has a top-notch band to back her up. My wife loves her, my daughter loves her. But the Beatles? Nah. Closer to a Madonna. Modonna had a huge impact on pop music, too.
1
@MikeM-uy6qp Which means that it's really easy to find talent now. You point and click. I'm on Bandcamp and Spotify all the time. It's trivial to find a new band that I like. However, very few are great. Back in the 1960's it took detective work to find really great acts.
1
The Beatles changed the culture. Taylor Swift (and no issue with her or the Swifties) makes a lot of money and has a lot of fans. TV was relatively new for many people, we all watched the same shows (Ed Sullivan), and the culture was more unified. In fact, Madonna in her prime had a bigger impact than Taylor Swift. As to Taylor Swift or any big act... a couple million dollars in writing and production could make anybody sound good. Katy Perry proved that on every album.
1