The inevitable downfall of Taylor Swift: Not if, but when

Swift is undeniable in the modern day. She exceeds the reach of Michael Jackson, Madonna and any other pop star traditionally used as barometers of success. She is now a billionaire, a rare feat for an artist in the music industry. Her presence manages to seep into social and cultural life regardless of context. She’s a titan, a goliath.

This has given the impression that her success is iron-clad, eternal, due for infinite growth. But infinite growth is a fantasy that corporations tell shareholders, it’s hardly relevant to the fickle nature of culture and celebrity.

Read more:

Derek McArthur: Pitchfork folding and the death spiral of music discovery

One telltale sign of this predictable decline is sheer oversaturation. She clearly has the best public relations team in the game, calculating every move and cleaning up anything incendiary that might harm her image and the huge financial interests backing her. But good public relations can only go so far, and she will likely encounter a career moment that will shatter the illusion so delicately crafted. The constant bombardment of Swift in our lives is ripe for backlash, and the curated spectacle of it all will have to pivot dramatically.

Swift is known for her narrative-led songs about real situations, the little details that only a great pop song can say about how someone thinks or feels. This has given her an air of authenticity, and this authenticity is then pushed out into her marketing and branding. It shows just how influential these forces are, and how much goodwill can be generated from a curated public image. The unfortunate side effect of today's celebrity though is that the mystery unravels, all the details come out, and the public anticipates a downfall like ravenous dogs. The many songs of hers that rely heavily on a personal connection with the listener could soon reflect an inauthenticity.

Taylor Swift won Album of the Year for a fourth time at this year's Grammys, taking to the stage to announce her new album The Tortured Poets Department (Image: free)
Swift positions herself as an advocate for the downtrodden artists of the music industry. She is currently in the process of re-recording most of her discography, under the banner of ‘Taylor’s Version’, so she can gain a level of control over her old songs and render the versions that she doesn’t own obsolete. Her reason is personal, unhappy with the sale of her record label and catalogue to manager, and famed architect of Bieber Fever, Scooter Braun. But of course, as always with Swift, there was altruistic concern also. She is passionate about artists owning their work.

The music industry survives on the blood, sweat, and tears of under-compensated artists, it’s a tried-and-true system that never changes. Swift is in the very rare, very privileged position of being able to pull off this type of manoeuvre. In the end, Swift will own a version of her old songs (good for her), and musicians without that privilege will still be at the mercy of label exploitation. That she feigns ignorance of how her industry works is contemptuous of a wholly dedicated fanbase that strives to give her the benefit of the doubt in every situation. Every move is positioned as an attempt to improve the whole, yet it only ever seems to benefit Swift in the long run.

Extensive interviews are hardly given, helpful for maintaining a public relations illusion, but when she does, the main motivation of her self-interest is revealed. She appears too detached on the pedestal to understand her place in wider culture. This is a precarious position, opening her up to criticism and reaction she won’t even see coming.

In an interview with TIME, where she was named Person of the Year, Swift comments on her role as a woman at the top of the chain in a male-dominated industry: “What has existed since the dawn of time? A patriarchal society. What fuels a patriarchal society? Money, flow of revenue, the economy. So actually, if we’re going to look at this in the most cynical way possible, feminine ideas becoming lucrative means that more female art will get made.”

Read more:

Hip Hop Turns 50: From a Bronx community room to conquering the world

Do I really have to explain how patronising this weak justification for her immense wealth is? That her own career being highly lucrative will somehow smash ceilings and provide resources for women artists? Swift does not generate billions with feminine ideas, she generates it through her brand, the entity that has taken on a life of its own. Swift is worlds away from the issues women in the arts face. She is in a unique place, an exception. Some humility towards that fact would go a long way in the eyes of many.

Wishing for the downfall of those who find success is a symptom of a sick, unsatisfied society. And Swift’s downfall will certainly not be a positive thing, but the seeds are planted. It is intentional on Swift's part to infiltrate every thread of existence and be seen around every corner, but she should probably reconsider this approach – clearly, she's unprepared for what will come.