Recording Artists vs. Performing Artist Vol. 2

Artist development. Its as simple as that.

Taylor Swift is the epitome of what happens when labels aim to turn the quick buck off an image and/or trend of an artist opposed to investing in the artist and artist development.

Taylor Swift has all the potential in the world to be a great artist. She's a dope writer, she connects with people through her music but she isn't the complete package - yet. Her album won the grammy for album of the year; she won a recording artist award, not a performing artist award. The award wasn't based on how well she performed the album, but rather how well put together it was conceptually, emotionally, musically, etc. Although her performance at the grammys may have tarnished her career in the eyes and ears of people who know and understand music and music theory--that doesn't matter. It doesn't matter because her fans sang along just as off-key as Taylor was, and loved every moment of it. Granted, there is going to come a time when her young audience will grow up and mature --as will their taste in music -- and thus the true test of Taylors sustainability will be dependent on her ability to adapt, change and grow with her audience/fan base.

If her label --ideally her A&R, since this is supposed to be their role...or used to be their role when that position did what it was intended to do-- invests in cultivating her and developing her as a complete performing and recording artist, Taylor Swift will be a dominate force in the music industry. Supposedly Taylor is in charge of her own career and calls the shots, well even professional athletes have coaches! She needs a vocal coach, or a newer/better vocal coach.

If not, I mean she is still a dope song writer and could probably make lucrative career off of that alone, and she'll still be able to tell her grandchildren that she won the grammy for best album of the year in 2010.