Open main menu

Deluxe Edition ArtworkEdit

Someone could put the image of the deluxe version in the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.5.15.170 (talk) 00:07, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Album possibly a transition from country to pop?Edit

I know Taylor's genre is mainly country-pop but her first single, We Are Never Ever Getting Back Together, is actually under the genre of pop and bubblegum pop which is quite different from her last singles that she released which had country influences in it. Should we state something like Red is Taylor's transition from country to pop in the near future? Bleubeatle (talk) 01:58, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

If there's a source saying such a thing, of course. Statυs (talk) 02:29, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Wait until the album comes out. A lead single is usually the poppiest song of the album. Noreplyhaha (talk) 08:01, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
  • We have to use sources for the genre. we always use Allmusic for that but someone reverted my edit and said we agreed on Allmusic while i can't find any discussion about that. so now we can talk about it. in This Page you can find a GENRE and STYLE in the left side of the page. and as Allmusic is one the most reliable sources for music, it think we have to include them in the article. Allmusic is not just about review and directing us to artists albums, it also includes album's credits and we sometimes use it as source in a personnel section. it includes everything about an album. so i think we should go on with that. Reza (Let'sTalk) 02:12, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Two new songsEdit

dpastern

2 new songs for Red:

Begin again (Taylor tweeted it) Holy Ground (mentioned by Taylor in a Rolling Stone interview after the iHeart festival

Dave Dpastern (talk) 23:24, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

  Not done: {{edit semi-protected}} is not required for edits to semi-protected, unprotected pages, or pending changes protected pages. You can add it yourself, although I strongly encourage you to find a reliable source. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 11:57, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Promotion: Countdown to RedEdit

http://taylorswift.com/news/98581 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.58.11.202 (talk) 22:06, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Begin AgainEdit

Information from the iTunes download: Length: 3:58 Composer: Taylor Swift — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.58.11.202 (talk) 06:22, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Not next single nine sources contradict three sources that say it is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taylor_Swift_discography#endnote_note_n1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.58.18.72 (talk) 14:11, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Just for the record all of these "contradictory sources" are simply articles from before it was announced as the next single. Afireinside27 (talk) 17:57, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

The Song "Red"Edit

It is NOT a single! Taylor Swift has stated clearing on Good Morning America, that Red serves as the 2nd promotional single, from the album. NOT A SINGLE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.188.220.96 (talk) 03:00, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, could somebody with a little more experience please get this page protected? I should probably learn how to go about doing that myself but am entirely too tired to do so tonight. Afireinside27 (talk) 03:19, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Irish Release date.Edit

I checked in my local music shop and "RED" is coming out in Ireland on Monday 22nd October 2012 normal and deluxe.

Should we add it to the article or leave it be because Ireland And The United Kingdom often release records and other things together and we have included the United Kingdom release date already. --Bella##Fan##262 (talk) 18:20, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

MisquoteEdit

Under reception, it says "...said:"Red puts Swift the artist front and center with big, beefy hooks that transcend her country roots for a genre-spanning record that reaches heights unseen since Shania Twain's Up! please it was released with two discs' worth of pop and country takes of its 19 songs.""
It should probably say "...heights unseen since Shania Twain's "Up!" - a 2002 release so tireless in efforts to people-please it was released..." (as that was the actual quote)
Since I can't edit it, it'd be great if someone else did that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.187.97.22 (talk) 13:50, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Vandalism in 'Reception' section.Edit

There's some uncaught vandalism at the end of the first paragraph in the Red_(Taylor_Swift_album)#Reception section which says:

"please it was released with two discs' worth of pop and country takes of its 19 songs."

This isn't part of the original quote ending that section. Furthermore, the source for the true quote (Ref 15: http://www.billboard.com/new-releases/taylor-swift-red-track-by-track-review-1007986122.story#/new-releases/taylor-swift-red-track-by-track-review-1007986122.story) is a broken link. --Alainbryden (talk) 19:06, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

  Already done Looks like it's already been caught. Thanks, Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 10:53, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

What do you have to say about this?Edit

http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_mccizrV9dM1rq5q3eo1_500.jpg - The link to the pic

https://twitter.com/GMA/status/260720168903249920 - Link to the tweet

LOL, 4 Million in one day? That's BS right? Penpaperpencil (Talk) 14:00, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Probably just how many they shipped out for sale. Zac (talk · contribs) 14:04, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
LOL it was meant to be 4 million collective sales of the songs. Not sales of the album. Penpaperpencil (Talk) 16:13, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

CategoriesEdit

Precedent is that we don't use "Albums produced by X" unless X produced multiple tracks on the album. Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 20:59, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

I already added the categories back, I didn't know you started a discussion about this. Anyway, where is this precedent even listed? QuasyBoy (talk) 22:17, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
It's not listed; it's a silent consensus that came about merely by other editors' actions when a bunch of "Albums produced by X" categories were deleted. Also, does it make sense to call it an "Album produced by X" when X produced a whopping one track? Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 00:54, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
How does one enforce "silent consensus"? If you want to take the title so literal, nobody should be added to the category unless they produced the entire album. Zac (talk · contribs) 02:09, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
"Silent consensus"? So by your theory, only producers who did the entire album should be added? Penpaperpencil (Talk) 03:50, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
No, only producers who did a significant portion. Again, does it make sense to call it "Albums produced by X" if X only did one track? If they did several tracks, I can understand calling it "produced by X". But just one? Come on. (Did you miss the part where I said "multiple"? I never said it had to be all or none.) Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 07:57, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

GenreEdit

As a minor revert thing has gone on, I'm opening this up to enable discussion about genre. The main issue seems to be if the Allmusic source is the best for genres, or if broader consensus among reviewers is. I'd be fine with cutting down to one source per genre, but limiting to two options which are scarcely mentioned elsewhere doesn't seem ideal to me. Allmusic is the only one to label it as 'pop/rock', which is actually a very broad category on that website which includes everyone from pure pop acts like Katy Perry to hard rock/metal bands like Children of Bodom, a death metal band. Toa Nidhiki05 02:43, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Broader consensus among reviewers combined with critic sources would be best; better if the critics state why it is what genre they classify it as. Allmusic is horrible for genres. Noreplyhaha (talk) 01:18, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

This album is not only pop. It is a mix of genres. It has pop, pop rock, country pop, folk pop, alternative rock, arena rock, heartland rock and dubstep. [1], [2]; [3] —Preceding undated comment added 07:20, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Australian release dateEdit

In Australia it was released as both standard and deluxe editions on October 23, 2012, not October 26. Could someone change the release section to this? Thanks. (I don't know how to) Sources: http://www.jbhifionline.com.au/music/pop-rock/red-deluxe-edition/671703 and http://www.sanity.com.au/products/2215798/Red_Deluxe_Edition Noreplyhaha (talk) 05:19, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Red (Taylor Swift album)Edit

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Red (Taylor Swift album)'s orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "acharts":

  • From Crazier (Taylor Swift song): "Taylor Swift – Crazier – Music Charts". aCharts.us. Retrieved November 6, 2006.
  • From Take Me Home (One Direction album): "One Direction – Take Me Home". Acharts.us. Retrieved 16 November 2012.
  • From You'll Always Find Your Way Back Home: "Hannah Montana – You'll Always Find Your Way back Home – Music Charts". aCharts.us. Retrieved November 27, 2006.
  • From Speak Now: "Taylor Swift — Speak Now — Music Charts". . αCharts.us. acharts.us. Retrieved November 7, 2010.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT 05:53, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Why?Edit

Why is there a separate page for every song on the album?? Penpaperpencil (Talk) 04:38, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I came here to ask this as well. Normally, only notable songs released as singles get their own articles. These pages should probably be deleted or merged. IndigoAK200 (talk) 09:44, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Non-singles by big name musicians à la "Pearl" by Katy Perry sometimes get their own articles, and considering all of the songs on Red charted, if not exceptionally well in some cases, it's not a stretch to consider them noteworthy enough to warrant it. My issue with it is that no thought or effort was put into many of the articles, and they are blatant copy/paste jobs. Songsteel (talk) 05:53, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

File:Taylor Swift - Red (Deluxe).jpgEdit

Why is the deluxe edition cover not included in the article? This passes all the test that I see, and we must include it so that Wikipedia is the "sum of all human knowledge".HotHat (talk) 04:22, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

WP:NFCC#3a fail. One cover art is fine when the other is not significantly different and does not aid in any understanding of the article. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 07:27, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
Well, what do you think of the Eye on It article that has the deluxe cover, and no one has found it violated the policy that you surmise that it does?HotHat (talk) 03:04, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted from there as well. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 04:28, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
It was reinstated by another user.HotHat (talk) 05:07, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
Most arbitrary decision on the planet. Restoring this one as well. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:28, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
Now that it has been restored, which point in Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria did you feel was being violated? (see WP:BRD) --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:35, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
I would advice you, like in my edit summary, to educate yourself on WP:NFCC and then call my edit as an "arbitrary decision". Any extra cover art for any article requires ample third party reliability, notability and reasons as to why the second cover can be added. Plus, they need to be significantly different from each other. Please see examples like MDNA, The Fame Monster etc. The violations are ample, including WP:NFCC#8, WP:NFCC#3a. There is nothing in this extra cover that a simple text illustration won't suffice, and it is not even different from the main cover, sans a red hue on top of it. So WP:NFCC#8 fail and WP:NFCC#3a fail since one cover is enough to warrant and describe the album and the cover art commercially released. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 06:49, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
No they don't. And you're breacking WP:BRD and there is currently a discussion about this at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content, and the discussion currently is going against your stated position. Perhaps you should learn to edit properly. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:54, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
The discussion is going currently against my stated position? Yeah, right. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 06:57, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

───────────────────────── This discussion ain't getting anywhere, so I've nominated File:Taylor Swift - Red (Deluxe).jpg for deletion. --George Ho (talk) 17:51, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Flat lists in infoboxEdit

The infobox's documentation clearly states that genres and producers should be separated by commas. A discussion is ongoing at Template talk:Infobox album#flat list. No changes should be made to the lists away from comma separated values until it has been approved at the template documentation. No discussion should occur here either. Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:46, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Songfacts.comEdit

Too much content has been added from Songfacts.com, a non-reliable website based on user's inputs ala Examiner.com or About.com. Either they need to be replaced or removed. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 03:59, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Taylor Swift proposalEdit

Just a reminder that there is an ongoing discussion regarding the potential creation of WikiProject Taylor Swift. All comments are welcome and appreciated! MaranoFan (talk) 06:17, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

RfC: Genres (Pop, rock)Edit

The votes are in: pop it is. Drmies (talk) 16:55, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

There has been some edit-warring over the genres in the infobox of this article, even though there are several sources cited in the article's "Critical reception" section, verifying the current revision, listing "Pop, rock". Should this revision be kept or changed? Dan56 (talk) 16:55, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Votes
  • Keep - Most of the professional reviews for this album seem to agree that this is a pop album, along with one reviewer describing it as "a modern rock makeover". Dan56 (talk) 16:55, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Use what sources say - Based on the below, "Pop, rock" appears to be correct. If other editors wish to present other findings, those should be taken into consideration. DonIago (talk) 14:50, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Pop (first preference) or Pop, rock (second preference) - Per sources below; sourcing for rock is significantly less strong than for pop, but perhaps still sufficient. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 00:53, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Pop - Per the sourcing for rock being weak and not specific to majority of the album. Noreplyhaha (talk) 09:41, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Pop - Since there is significantly less support from reliable sources indicating that this is a "rock" album, I think we should solely characterize it as pop. Per WP:DUE we want to keep the article in line with what the majority of sources say, and pop seems to be the case here. Cheers, Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 00:09, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Discussion

My findings, emphasis added. Dan56 (talk) 16:55, 18 October 2015 (UTC)


The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Pop album, yet nominated for Best Country album?Edit

That doesn't make sense. Adding the country genre would make sense considering it's nomination, plus sources stating 1989 was her official pop transition. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 04:51, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

It also was sold and promoted as a country album, so it seems fitting that country be included. Cajalden (talk) 22:30, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Cajalden, true. Also take into the account the article, at the end of the lead states "highest-grossing tour by a country artist". -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 20:33, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
@Cajalden:, it does make sense. Swift was marketed early in her career as a country artist, in the country music market, and the NARAS chose to still consider her as such. Please read WP:SUBJECTIVE and reconsider what you're saying, because record labels who promoted their products and award show organizations (made up of people who also have a conflict of interest because they also have a stake in promoting their industry's product) aren't experts on the topic of genres. Music journalists and scholars are, and as you can see in the preceding section, they are who Wikipedia considers to be reliable, third-party sources. Those who sell and promote an album and recording industry organizations such as the NARAS are inferior sources because they are not independent of the topic of this article ("A third-party source is one that is entirely independent of the subject being covered, e.g., a newspaper reporter covering a story that they are not involved in except in their capacity as a reporter.") Dan56 (talk) 17:41, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
  • The RfC is what it is; I don't really see how one can quibble with the result. That a pop album is nominated as best country album can mean a lot of things--that there's not a lot of good country albums, or that genres don't mean that much. Sorry, Joseph Prasad, I have little to add here. Drmies (talk) 02:16, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
That aside, it also charted on the "Top Country Albums" chart, which means that is what Billboard considers it. Isn't that pretty much enough to call it country? -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 06:55, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
No. Charts measure airplay in a particular market. If she's given airplay or promoted in the country market or popular among consumers in that market, she will chart in the chart associated with that market. It's not based always on the music unfortunately @Joseph Prasad: Dan56 (talk) 01:40, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

ContradictionEdit

Since apparently Red is a pop album, there is a contradiction in the final paragraph of the lead. "Red became the best-selling country album of 2012, making it her third consecutive top-seller and the second best-seller overall across all genres despite being out only for two months."

Either country needs to be added to genres, or that needs to be changed. A pop album being the highest selling country album doesn't make any sense. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 04:43, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Addressed in the above section, sir. Dan56 (talk) 04:32, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 February 2016Edit

everything has changed was released at june 5th 149.78.247.144 (talk) 18:01, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

  Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. --allthefoxes (Talk) 18:16, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

2016: Addition of "country"Edit

Adding back "country" which should have never been removed in the first place. Despite a handful of reviewers who dismiss its country elements, it is mentioned by others like Entertainment Weekly and Spin ("Is it country? Country fans and country radio seem to think so. The question usually just reveals the ignorance of its asker"). Billboard, widely regarded as a reliable source for music articles, classes the record as a country album for its charts. Nominated for Album of the Year at the Academy of Country Music Awards (the Grammys of country music) and Best Country Album at the Grammys. No reason this should have been removed, and I've added it back. Chase (talk | contributions) 16:07, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Your arguments were made, addressed and refuted in the previous section #Pop album, yet nominated for Best Country album?. A consensus was established at the #RfC: Genres (Pop, rock) and reiterated in the other section following it. If you'd like the issue to be taken up again, please establish another consensus. If not, please do not restore your changes. Dan56 (talk) 16:21, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
Consensus occurs through discussion, something you're apparently not willing to take part in and even trying to limit. Chase (talk | contributions) 18:35, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
With accusations like that, you can bite me, sir Dan56 (talk) 23:15, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
Please check my talk post underneath, sir — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thijn23 (talkcontribs) 21:42, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Add country as a genre to the albumEdit

Although a handful of reviewers called Red “just” a pop album, several critics noted country as either the genre or having an influence on several songs. I have made an overview of several songs on the album where several critics mentioned country as the genre or having an influence on the song. All of these critics are reliable sources that have been used as sources on Wikipedia pages for Swift’s songs and albums.

- Red

Billboard – "Red's" title track returns Swift to her tire swing (indicating country), (...) [1]

Taste of Country – The song ‘Red’ will be a country hit, (...) Less-than-organic instrumentation keeps this single from being a perfect country song. [2]

The Hollywood Reporter- The opening ganjo lick establishes this as one of the few songs on the album that’s really ripe for a country radio remix (...)[3]

Rolling Stone - Certainly more country-fried than the massive pop thump of first single "We Are Never Getting Back Together," the twangy "Red" does sneak in some Top-40 tropes – the chopped and repeated last syllable of "red" in the chorus, for example – but is overall more reminiscent of Swift's break-out broken-hearted anthems. With banjos flying, strings swelling and guitars wailing, (...) [4]


- Treacherous

PopCrush - There is enough twang in the guitars of this tender ballad to satisfy Swift’s country fanbase. [5]


- I Knew You Were Trouble

Billboard – (...) watching Swift try her hand at electro-country is darn entertaining. [6]

MTV News – (...) the song touches on all genres of music, with moments of straight-up Top 40 pop, country and even dance, with its grinding effects, especially on the bumping chorus.[7]


- All Too Well

Billboard - Just like that, Swift snaps back to her core demographic: "All Too Well" is sumptuous country, (...) [8]

New York Times - Strikingly, though, each moment of pure pop breakthrough is tempered immediately afterward by a contemplative country moment. I Knew You Were Trouble” is followed by “All Too Well,” (...)[9]

Rolling Stone - Swift's bedrock is driving, diaristic post-country rock – see the breakup flashback "All Too Well," (...) [10]

PopCrush - It’s another country moment for ‘Red, (...) [11]


- 22

PopCrush - There is some requisite twang, which again might appeal to her country base, (...) [12]


- I Almost Do

New York Times - Strikingly, though, each moment of pure pop breakthrough is tempered immediately afterward by a contemplative country moment (...) 22” is chased by “I Almost Do,” the song here that could most convincingly be delivered by a more traditional country singer. [13]

The Hollywood Reporter - At heart, this acoustic standout is the most country-ish number -- especially in the lyrical conceit,[14]

PopCrush - In this twanged out, country song (...) [15]


- Stay, Stay, Stay

Billboard - Boasting one of "Red's" most straightforward country arrangements, (...) [16]

New York Times - Strikingly, though, each moment of pure pop breakthrough is tempered immediately afterward by a contemplative country moment (...) After “We Are Never Ever Getting Back Together” comes “Stay Stay Stay,” which features the most gratuitous mandolin on the album. [17]

Taste of Country - After the first single, country fans will find the most nourishing material (...) ‘Stay, Stay, Stay’ is an outrageously contagious story of a love (...) (Song mentioned in the same part, indicating country) [18]


- Holy Ground

Billboard - Another country-rock stomper, (...) [19]


- Sad Beautiful Tragic

Taste of Country – After the first single, country fans will find the most nourishing material (...) ‘Sad Beautiful Tragic’ is an eerie, depressing ballad (...) (Song mentioned in the same part, indicating country) [20]


- Begin Again

Slant magazine – “Begin Again,” something of a mea culpa to the format that gave Swift her big break (indicating country).[21]

Entertaiment Weekly - Swift’s new song is by far the most country thing that we’ve heard off of Red so far.[22]

Taste of Country – (...) a huggable, inspiring, acoustic country ballad that is everything country fans wished her first single ‘We Are Never Ever Getting Back Together’ was (...) [23]

PopCrush - Swift’s country-tinged, soft ballad (...)[24]


There are far more reviews that support my argument to add country but I think this gives a pretty good overiew. I know Dan56 has been quite defensive of the genre on the Wikipedia page of Red but the country influence on the album is undeniable, I agree with Chase on that. More than half of the songs on the album have been identified as country or having a country influence by several reliable sources. I get your point of view based on the reviews you picked, however for such a multi-genre album as Red, “Pop” as the only genre looks inaccurate.

I think Pop • country • pop rock is the best way to label the album. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thijn23 (talkcontribs) 21:40, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

@Thijn23:, you're literally connecting A with B to arrive at C (WP:SYNTH). One critic believing song A to be country (or country-influenced, the wording of which makes your case even more problematic) does not mean another critic who believes song B to be country will agree song A was country. There's also no C (i.e. "this is a country album"); how can any of this be added to the article, particularly when there are sources that explicitly state this album has almost no trace of country or that Swift departed from country towards pop here? Dan56 (talk) 00:10, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
@Dan56:, If you, for example, only take a look at the review of Billboard. Several songs are being mentioned having country as the genre of the song. There might be critics calling it a pop album but there are a lot of critics that qualify multiple songs on the album as country. Pop can still be the first genre on the page but country should also be there. I am not the first person who complains about this based on reliable sources and valid arguments and it should be changed back. I have been looking at page since that start and country has always been noted as a genre until a few months ago when you changed it. As I said, I get your point of view based on the reviews you picked but there are enough reliable sources indicating multiple country songs being present on the album and for that country should be listed as a genre on the page. Critics also agreed '1989' was Swift's first pop album. Red was significantly less country than her previous albums but that doesn't mean there was no country on the album at all, and most critics agree on this. Again, please change it back to either Pop · country or Pop · country · pop rock.


I have to agree with above—and in any case, critics might be having hasty generalizations about the album. Basing the genre on track-by-track reviews, only the three Max Martin/Shellback-produced songs (or singles) are the legit pop songs and the rest of the album falls under country. If this is the case, I vote for country to be still included in the genre. Red is not a purely pop album as far any casual listener is concenrned. Riot kiddo (talk) 11:40, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
@Riot kiddo: I wouldn't say the rest of the album is country but the album is a mixture between pop, country and rock. If you look at the genres of the songs on the album itself that seems to fit but certain reviews say it is a pop album, which in my opinion is more in the context of popular music just like Views by Drake was called 'one of the most important releases in pop' while the content on the album is hip hop. I think some critics were shocked by the Max Martin songs but, especially after 1989, would realize there was still country on this album. Dan56's arguments are not that strong though since there is not a critic specifically stating there is no country on the album but that there is "almost no trace of country" while other critics state that half of the album would still work perfectly fine on country radio or leaving it up to the perception of the listener (About the genre. Is this a country album? If your notion of country music involves the occasional banjo or mandolin, then absolutely.) Anyway, changing the genre to Pop • country • rock, would still put Pop at the forefront, unlike the albums before Red but at the same time give a better overview of the actual content on the album. Bjork138 (talk) 23:12, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
The synthesized mess you presented above is not that strong. Some of the sources you're citing are of little repute (The Hollywood Reporter? Popcrush?), and you're taking isolated instances where one critic merely mentions country in reference to a certain song ("electro-country", "country-tinged", "post-country rock") and reaching to your own conclusion about what the general picture is, when instead what you should be doing is researching the best sources available on the topic, which is the album. You're also ignoring a number of top critics who've considered the album Swift's transition to pop, many of them cited here. An RfC reached its consensus on this matter already, but you're free to open another one and see if what you're citing above convinces editors otherwise. Dan56 (talk) 23:46, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

  1. ^ http://www.billboard.com/articles/review/1066798/taylor-swift-red-track-by-track-review
  2. ^ http://tasteofcountry.com/taylor-swift-red/
  3. ^ http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/earshot/taylor-swift-red-track-by-382145
  4. ^ http://www.rollingstone.com/music/videos/taylor-swift-drops-twangy-title-track-for-red-20121002#ixzz46OyRSQOI
  5. ^ http://popcrush.com/taylor-swift-red-album-review/?trackback=tsmclip
  6. ^ http://www.billboard.com/articles/review/1066798/taylor-swift-red-track-by-track-review
  7. ^ http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1695154/taylor-swift-red-i-knew-you-were-trouble.jhtml
  8. ^ http://www.billboard.com/articles/review/1066798/taylor-swift-red-track-by-track-review
  9. ^ http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/28/arts/music/no-more-kid-stuff-for-taylor-swift.html?_r=0
  10. ^ http://www.rollingstone.com/music/albumreviews/red-20121018#ixzz46Ohqqt2W
  11. ^ http://popcrush.com/taylor-swift-red-album-review/?trackback=tsmclip
  12. ^ http://popcrush.com/taylor-swift-red-album-review/?trackback=tsmclip
  13. ^ http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/28/arts/music/no-more-kid-stuff-for-taylor-swift.html?_r=0
  14. ^ http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/earshot/taylor-swift-red-track-by-382145
  15. ^ http://popcrush.com/taylor-swift-red-album-review/?trackback=tsmclip
  16. ^ http://www.billboard.com/articles/review/1066798/taylor-swift-red-track-by-track-review
  17. ^ http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/28/arts/music/no-more-kid-stuff-for-taylor-swift.html?_r=0
  18. ^ http://tasteofcountry.com/taylor-swift-red/
  19. ^ http://www.billboard.com/articles/review/1066798/taylor-swift-red-track-by-track-review
  20. ^ http://tasteofcountry.com/taylor-swift-red/
  21. ^ http://www.slantmagazine.com/music/review/taylor-swift-red
  22. ^ http://www.ew.com/article/2012/09/25/taylor-swift-begin-again
  23. ^ http://tasteofcountry.com/taylor-swift-begin-again/?trackback=tsmclip
  24. ^ http://popcrush.com/taylor-swift-red-album-review/?trackback=tsmclip

RfC: Changing to genre for Taylor Swift – “Red” to Pop • country• rockEdit

There are not a lot of votes here but there is a clear majority. The many citations given do not seem to bear out Dan56's contention that there was significant cherry-picking going on, with the suggestion that the results are trivial. Bjork138's proposal carries the day. Drmies (talk) 03:48, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Ever since the last RfC concluded Pop was going to be the genre, and the only genre for the current revision of Red, there have been numerous discussions, edit wars and complaints. Even though a lot of them were inaccurate (using the nomination for Best Country Album at the Grammy's or Swift claiming it's country as an argument), the essence of the rejection is in the right place, so I started a RfC.

The genre of an album page on Wikipedia is not like iTunes, in which it is considered which genre section the album fits in best. It is supposed to give a good overview of the genres present on the album. I am not trying to change the genre from pop to country so I am not dismissing the previous RfC. However, I do think that country and rock should be added as genres to give a good overview of the actual content on the CD. Since pop will be the first genre, which usually indicates the genre most present on an album, it will still showcase a transition in comparison to the previous albums of Swift (going from Country to Country pop to Country pop • pop rock to Pop • country • rock to Pop • dance-pop • synthpop).

So should the current revision being kept or changed? Bjork138 (talk) 20:20, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Votes
  • Change Bjork138 (talk) 20:20, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep Dan56 (talk) 21:04, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Change Based on the sources listed here, adding country and rock seems legit to me. I added some more comments in the discussion. ChadTF (talk) 15:18, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Change In my last vote i noted there were not enough RS to change it - you have gone out of your way this time around to cite quite a few, and I appreciate that.Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 19:49, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

DiscussionEdit

Unlike what it looks like in the current revision, Red is not an album full of just pop songs (“...the pop sheen is limited to a handful of tracks...”). Neither is it a country album. Neither a rock album. It is a multi-genre album full of Swift experimenting with a new genres besides her usual country sounds. This is supported by most of the reliable sources reviewing the album, most of which are even listed in the previous RfC. For example, a review of the Los Angeles Times is listed there supporting pop. The same review states that “...versatility is the album’s most striking characteristic. Beginning with the aspirational rock song “State of Grace,” which sounds like a U2 cover circa “The Joshua Tree,” and moving through dance pop of the Max Martin-produced “I Knew You Were Trouble” to the soft-rock gem “The Lucky One,”...”

Apart from the “AllMusic" review which states that ””Red” barely even winks at country’ most other reviews always seem to address the album containing pop music within the context of it supposedly being a country album stating things like "...Swift is on the same middle-of-the-road path that Shania Twain and the Dixie Chicks blazed long before her.", "... each moment of pure pop breakthrough is tempered immediately afterward by a contemplative country moment." or "... a genre-spanning record that reaches heights unseen since Shania Twain's "Up!". Compare these reviews to the reviews her latest album 1989, where critics stated the music sounded “nothing like her previous work” and recognized it to be her “first pop album”.

What critics "recognized it to be her 'first pop album'"?? According to Sam Wolfson from Noisey (one of the sources that are a part of your argument), 1989 was"pitched to Swift's fans as her first 'non-country' album", meaning marketed as, by her marketing team/record label. Dan56 (talk) 23:44, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

With the Max Martin produced pop hits on “Red”, no critic will state this to be a country album, however they do recognize country being present on the album and that seems enough to me to add it as a genre.

Saying an artist “can no longer be claimed by the dark world of the CMT” or is a “pop superstar” doesn’t mean there is no country on the album. The same thing was said about Drake in context to hip hop culture and him being one of the biggest male pop stars in a review of Views yet the same review qualified the music as hip hop.

Based on the reviews and the content on the album, Pop • country • rock seems the best way to define this album genre wise in my opinion.

Wolfson points out that Red found Swift "freeing herself from the confines of mainstream country and embracing the notion that, yes, Swift was one of the biggest stars in pop, and should make a record that reflected that." Dan56 (talk) 23:40, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

My findings, above this RfC there can be found a list of seperate songs on the album that are recognized to be country by critics. Bjork138 (talk) 20:20, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Your findings--which seem to cherry-pick any and every mention of the word "country"--indicate a handful of reviewers found elements of other styles in some songs (or in elements of some songs, i.e. "arrangements") and combining descriptions of specific songs and reducing them to country ("country-rock" --> "country, "electro-country" --> "country)... and you've misread or overlooked some of your own sources; the Spin critic was unsure of what the music is himself: "Whatever it is, this music ..." Dan56 (talk) 21:04, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
That is not true, that only goes for the Billboard review which I purposely put there since it is in line with their general description of the album. I never reduced any of them to country, I just made them bold. Again though, this only goes for the Billboard review, the other reviewers were more specific about the album in general and were speaking about country. Besides, I presented more reviewers than you did to support pop, so dismissing them as a 'handful of reviewers' is nonsense. Bjork138 (talk) 21:20, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
It is true; even Caramanica's review in THe New York Times cites examples of the "country moments" as elements such as the mandolin on one of the songs, while the Sputnikmusic bit you quoted ("traditional sound") relies on your own interpretation of what he meant by that. Your entire list of cherry-picked quotations is too long too make sense of; you're combining one person's point of view (that it was "genre-spanning") with isolated instances in other sources where the reviewer focuses on a particular song; the one's that discuss the album with respect to country are ambiguous at best (that songs on the album can be played on a country radio playlist, for instance, just means that, but you're using it to support something it isn't saying explicitly; same with The Boston Globe and Billboard, which you highlighted for it said about Shania Twain's album, not this album!). And your response is nonsense: Stephen Thomas Erlewine said it completes her transition from country pop ingénue to pop star while calling the album a "pop monolith" while "barely winking at country"; Spin's Michael Robbins said "most of these songs go down like pop punch spiked by pros"; PopMatters said it abandoned her country-pop roots in favor of contemporary rock ([4]); Sputnikmusic said "Swift is a full-fledged pop artist now and can no longer be claimed by the dark world of country music, no matter what CMT would have you believe" ([5])... and most, if not all, the reviews verify "pop". Dan56 (talk) 00:44, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
You're also performing poor research by (I'm assuming) Googling "Red", "Swift" and "country" to find such as The Hollywood Reporter and "Renowned for Sound"... who would otherwise use these for professional review sources? Dan56 (talk) 00:02, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
I have performed actual research but I only used reliable sources. If I would've listed all the reviews citing country as a present genre on the album, the list would be more than twice as long now. So why instead of dismissing my research, probably because it weakens your consensus of this being a pure pop album, acknowledge the fact that I have reliable sources like "Vice" that specifically state that the album finds a balance between pop and country, finding the country songs to be the best songs on the album. Also, how is a source like "The Hollywood Reporter" not usable for providing professional reviews that source is used for reviews by Metacritic [6] , explain that to me. Bjork138 (talk) 13:57, 1 July 2016 (UTC)


I don't think you need to get too literal. When a critic says things like 'traditional sounds', 'her roots', 'element of twang', it's obvious they are referring to country in this case. When a critic says half of the album would work on a commercial country radio playlist, it's obvious that there must be some kind of resemblance to country music. If support pop is stronger than country and rock, than put that as the first genre, with the other two following. ChadTF (talk) 15:18 1 July 2016 (UTC)
@Bjork138:, @ChadTF:, The Hollywood Reporter is used only as a source for film reviews at Metacritic, and there's nothing in the Vice article stating "the album finds a balance between pop and country"; if anything, it's another source viewing Red as her transition from country to pop: "Red felt like the the perfect balance of sheen and progression, while retaining an element of twang that defined her early career." As you can see, there's no mention of country (are you sure you know what "sheen" even means, if that's your conclusion?), while "an element of twang" means what? An accent in her voice lol... Keep reading! The Vice article says Red found Swift "freeing herself from the confines of mainstream country and embracing the notion that, yes, Swift was one of the biggest stars in pop, and should make a record that reflected that." Dan56 (talk) 23:39, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Canvassing effort by Bjork138Edit

Bjork138 appears to have canvassed a chosen group of editors (based on their history here, favoring their position in this matter on this talk page, and other Taylor Swift articles), immediately after opening this RfC. ([7], [8], [9] You're undermining your own effort with this RfC buddy (Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment#Publicizing_an_RfC) Dan56 (talk) 20:17, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of the fact that that was against the rules however it is still inaccurate what you are stating since I notified the editors whom previously contributed to your RfC, who actually chose pop. I'd rather have you responding to the RfC concercing the actual discussion than trying to undermine it over something small, which has already been undone. Bjork138 (talk) 22:25, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
Why would you notify the same editors than? Your claims above are nothing new. Dan56 (talk) 20:41, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
Since one editor said "If other editors wish to present other findings, those should be taken into consideration." I was curious about their opinion concerning my RfC, I wasn't (purposely) trying to canvass. As I said before try to assume good faith and understand that it was not the intention. Hopefully we can leave this minor issue for what it is and go back to the discussion itself. Bjork138 (talk) 21:08, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

External links modifiedEdit

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 15 external links on Red (Taylor Swift album). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:32, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Genre in alphabetical order or notEdit

I thought that general edit wars over the genre were asinine but arguing over the (lack of) alphabetical order sets a whole new level. Why is there no discussion here? If there is a consensus then people who edit against it can be blocked. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 10:58, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

red is, first and foremost, a country album. Which happens to come first in the alphabet. Followed by pop and rock. It is purely coincidental that genres and the alphabet are the same. Musiclover75 (talk) 14:13, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
"Pop" is referenced nine times in the reception section; due weight is relevant here in determining what genre to list first. Dan56 (talk) 18:40, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
I wasn't here for the previous discussions. But, to my knowledge, the next album has always been considered her first Pop album. I even vaguely recall Brad Paisley, hosting one of the award shows, wishing her good luck as she branched out and left Country. This album was still considered Country. Although, like her previous albums not "traditional" country, and always with some pop "overtones". Kellymoat (talk) 18:50, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
Yes, yes. I've heard this argument before in the previous discussion. It still is considered country, thus the presence of "country" in the infobox. Dan56 (talk) 19:59, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)Edit

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Red (Taylor Swift album). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:04, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

RfC: Should "country" be kept as a genre in the infobox?Edit

New discussion and comments on this talk page have spurred revisiting the above RfC from a few years ago, which introduced keeping "country" in the infobox. So, should it still be kept? Dan56 (talk) 23:34, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

!VotesEdit

No - Per Template:Infobox album#Genre, "The field should include the music genre(s) that best describes the album." No reliable source (cited in the article or this talk page) supports "country" as the best, or even an adequate, descriptor of the album. Dan56 (talk) 16:06, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

No-ish - I support country-rock and country-pop being put in the infobox, per the below sources I provided, but support removing just country. However, I think in any iteration of this, it is relevant that Taylor Swift was still charting country and receiving country acclaim, and it should be referenced within the article (as the album's sound had something to do with it). --Jezebelle 18:17, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

No - While I personally think the album is partially pop, rock and country, none of the sources called it a country album. It wasn't even called country rock or country pop either. "Post-country rock" is only saying that it's rock, and the other one is saying she outgrew her country pop style. Billiekhalidfan (talk) 22:22, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes - Billboard classifies this as a country album. It was #1 on the Top Country Albums chart for 16 weeks. Richard Hendricks (talk) 03:57, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes - Kind of odd to say there are no sources in the article that support describing this album/music genre as country, just looking at the Accolades section, the most common music genre it has been nominated for and/or won supports the descriptor of country. And sources in the Year-end charts (Billboard), it is listed on US Top Country Albums for three years in a row, being #1 for two of those years, which also seems to support the music genre country. Isaidnoway (talk) 14:26, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes - Spin listed Red in their Best Country Albums of 2012 list. And according to this discussion, year-end lists are a reliable source for album genres. Billiekhalidfan (talk) 20:25, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes per Isaidnoway and Billiekhalidfan. Calidum 21:07, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

No Just no. Red is not a country album just because Swift began her career as a country artist. People really need to divorce these two concepts. Artists change. Red is pop-rock. Trillfendi (talk) 23:17, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes My comments below listed several commentators who found the album to be Swift's last country effort. Some described it as pop, but multiple retrospective reviews have been published. And that Spin listed the album among the "Best country albums" is a definite reason to not remove country from the infobox, (talk) 06:23, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Yes. A lot of sources describe this album as having a country or country-pop aspect, which is sufficient for the infobox, even though other sources say this album showed Swift leaving country behind. The contradictions must be described in the article body, of course. Binksternet (talk) 14:52, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes. Aside from every affirmative statement above, this Billboard cover story presents "I Almost Do", "Sad Beautiful Tragic", and "The Lucky One" as having country elements, while this track-by-track review says the same about "I Knew You Were Trouble", "All Too Well", "Stay Stay Stay", and "Holy Ground". The articles for the songs "Red" and "Begin Again" also list country as their genre. That's a lot of country music in the album for the genre to be left out of the infobox. KyleJoantalk 05:35, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

!DiscussionEdit

Where is country sourced in this article? Billiekhalidfan (talk) 16:00, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

It's not. The decision to add "country" to the infobox was the product of a few votes and vague passages in several sources cited by Bjork138 in the above RfC. Dan56 (talk) 16:38, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
'[In early 2012, Taylor Swift turned in 20 songs to her label for what would become her fourth album, Red. They were all further outgrowths of the pop-country sound she had mastered in her early years...Swift was trying to push her music outside of its traditional boundaries, to stray into the interzone between pop and country.]', '[traverses Swift's country roots and enters proper pop territory.....That's not to say Red completely strays from the country sounds of works past: Songs like "Stay Stay Stay" and "I Almost Do" are very much the sonic bread and butter of Swift's repertoire. Red just expands the range of sounds she's capable of embracing]', Swift’s bedrock is driving, diaristic post-country rock – see the breakup flashback “All Too Well,” where she drops the great image of “dancing around the kitchen in the refrigerator light” with her ex.. Even if it's not country as you're hinting, there is citations for country-pop and country-rock right here. --Jezebelle 18:12, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
No - None of the passages you've cited explicitly describe or categorize the album as a whole, which is what an infobox does in a sense: summarizes the article's topic in an overview (WP:IBX). To cite such passages as sources for any genre being that of the album violates WP:STICKTOSOURCE, which says to "summarize what [reliable sources] say in your own words, with each statement in the article attributable to a source that makes that statement explicitly", and to, "Take care not to go beyond what is expressed in the sources, or to use them in ways inconsistent with the intention of the source, such as using material out of context. In short, stick to the sources. Dan56 (talk) 20:05, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
Another point: "post-country" is an adjective describing the rock music that the writer heard on the album, not "country-rock", a different concept. Also, being an "outgrowth" of something is not the same thing as saying it still is that something. Dan56 (talk) 21:29, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

The reviews I've read altogether don't agree universally on the categorization of this album -- some dub it somewhere between pop and country, and while some other point out the dubstep thingy, they don't totally dismiss it as a country album either. Spin writes that "Red ... staying true to her roots as a country traditionalist and singer-songwriter confessionalist, but also charting ... new paths for her music." Another review from NPR notes that Red was transitioning to "pop" (which would later be complete with 1989), but also asserts "That's not to say Red completely strays from the country sounds of works past". Taste of Country finds it "inaccurate" to dub the album "pop". This album, in my honest opinion, cannot fit into any of the genre category currently listed in the infobox -- it's not pure pop, not country, and especially not rock. If one has to choose an overarching term to describe this album as a whole, it'd be a juggernaut. That said, the album does linger on to the country-crossover of Swift's previous repertoire while also delves into mainstream pop. I wouldn't remove "country" from the infobox just because of some pop material. If a consensus is to remove "country", however, I'd suggest removing all genres because, like I said, this album cannot fit into any of the genres currently listed. (talk) 03:57, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

To follow up, Swift recalled in a 2014 cover story with Rolling Stone (around the time when the buzz around 1989 was everywhere) that Red "straddled the line between country and pop" and "if you chase two rabbits, you lose them both". On Red she still identified herself as a country artist (which was both refuted to and acknowledged by certain publications -- some had always viewed her as a pop singer), and while Red as a whole cannot be described as country, can it be described as "pop" or "rock"? I'm afraid not. (talk) 04:32, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
You are misrepresenting what Taste of Country said. They said it's inaccurate to say Swift is "too pop" on the album, not that it isn't pop. Spin's view of Swift's "roots" being present on the album does not mean the music is country. NPR's view of it not "completely straying from the country sounds" of the past means what? That there are a few traces of it? And, so? The infobox's genre field is for genres that best describe the album, and there are sources, cited in the article, that unreservedly and explicitly describe the album as pop. That a few others are more reserved in describing the music clearly is inconsequential and doesn't mean we disregard writers capable of having a strong opinion. And we report/represent the opinion. In the same way we wouldn't exclude in the infobox a concrete date of release for an album, reported by say a more than a few sources, because a few others expressed uncertainty. "Pop" is identified as being on this album by most, if not all, the sources, in varying degrees: "a pop album", or "pop songs". There is not one source out there that calls it a country album. Dan56 (talk) 04:48, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
Taste of Country says it's inaccurate to describe it as "too pop", but also doesn't explicitly describe it as "pop" either. Spin's quote goes Red ... staying true to her roots as a country traditionalist and singer-songwriter confessionalist, so I don't know how that doesn't mean "country". We don't have to go too literal because NPR explicitly says that the album does not stride far away from the country sounds of Swift's previous albums, which means this album does incorporate country and is not pure pop. Writers with strong opinions who straightforwardly dubbed this album as pop do not represent the whole critical community. Would "pop" best describe the album, because a number of (or, most of the) reviewers dubbed so? If the article is meant to represent critical opinions, it should represent all opinions, including of those who consider this a country/pop crossover, and those who are unsure how to categorize the music (cue Boston Globe or Spin). The Rolling Stone cover story serves as a statement to the blurring lines between "pop" (which has been used to describe any commercialized genres whatsoever) and country on the album. If the infobox is left with "pop", readers will think of it as a pure pop album, which is not the case, (talk) 06:18, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Dan56 Shouldn't your latest reply to Richard Hendricks be listed here in discussion rather than votes? Billiekhalidfan (talk) 12:31, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

@Richard Hendricks:: A record chart is not a reliable, third-party source for aesthetic opinions on music; public and scholarly critiques are (WP:SUBJECTIVE). Kenny G's Breathless appeared on the Top R&B/Hip-Hop Albums chart, but that doesn't make it an appropriate source to cite "hip hop" as its genre. Dan56 (talk) 04:32, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
@Dan56: A record chart is not reliable. LOL! That's a good one. I suppose getting a Grammy nomination for Best Country Album isn't a reliable source either. Thanks for the laugh! Richard Hendricks (talk) 15:25, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
You're welcome, you silly peasant. Dan56 (talk) 20:34, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
You don't need to resort to name calling. I just found your comment so absurd as to be laughable. Richard Hendricks (talk) 22:04, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
And you don't need to resort to condescending, anti-intellectual disregard of valid arguments. But hey, life ain't fair. Dan56 (talk) 02:11, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Billboard Magazine allowed (and is still allowing) Red to chart on its Top Country Albums chart. Billboard also ranks Red as the 72nd Greatest Country Album of All Time. The album received a nomination for Best Country Album at the 56th Annual Grammy Awards (2013). "Country" should be allowed to stay as a genre in the infobox. Richard Hendricks (talk) 16:42, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Once again, someone's not reading up on this site's encyclopedic standardsDan56 (talk) 20:34, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
I've read WP:SUBJECTIVE. Billboard Magazine and the The Recording Academy are experts with regard to genre and should be considered reliable sources. Richard Hendricks (talk) 22:04, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
They're not independent sources. Both are branches of the record industry's marketing of their product. Billboard's charts are based on radio programming, retail outlets, and their relationship with demographics and target audience (which in Swift's case had been country radio up to the point of this album). The generic chart titles and categorizations are not based on critical thinking or journalistic critiques, which are our standards as an encyclopedia. The Recording Academy is made up of industry insiders and musicians who stand to gain in the industry by being good members of the Academy. & award shows are just that: shows, meant to further promote the product; that is why news outlets report on album-sales increases immediately after the Grammys. All these things are interconnected ("Understanding the Music Industry"). Industry award titles and record chart names are not reliable as sources for aesthetic opinions and nuanced interpretations of creative works, because they have a stake in the product they are helping put out there. These are not impartial sources. Your thinking is uninformed and lazy, as you are not taking into account that context of the sources and the information matters in how we are to judge reliability. A record chart is reliable for measuring a record's commercial success; a critic's review is reliable for evaluating a record's aesthetic. Context matters. And I have cited enough relevant Wikipedia guidelines for my point to stand, so if it's not registering with you still, perhaps it's a problem of competence on your part. But I have said enough. Dan56 (talk) 02:11, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Kind of odd to say there are no sources in the article that support describing this album/music genre as country, just looking at the Accolades section, the most common music genre it has been nominated for and/or won supports the descriptor of country.

  • Academy of Country Music Awards - Nominated for Album of the Year
  • American Music Awards - Winner Favorite Country Album
  • Billboard Music Awards - Winner Top Country Album
  • Canadian Country Music Association - Winner Top Selling Album
  • Country Music Association Awards - Nominated Album of the Year
  • Country Music Awards of Australia - Winner Top Selling International Album of the Year
  • Grammy Awards - Nominated Best Country Album

And sources in the Year-end charts (Billboard), it is listed on US Top Country Albums for three years in a row, being #1 for two of those years, which also seems to support the music genre country. Isaidnoway (talk) 14:26, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

That the album was marketed as a country album does not make it a country album. (talk) 15:24, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

@Trillfendi: Yass! We stan an original researcher! Oh wait, I forgot, we don't... Stop using your personal opinion to vote against the addition of country instead of providing a real reason. And Red being pop rock is also original research. And it's called country because it is, not because she started out country. No one is calling 1989, Reputation, and Lover country. That's because they're pop. Billiekhalidfan (talk) 23:26, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

  • I am not in the camp of those who say the genre can come from an album being nominated for an award. The award categories are always much less descriptive and more inclusive than musical genres of which there are hundreds. Same for various sales charts: they have few chart categories but we have lots of genres. To answer the RfC question, we should be looking at the sources, all the sources. Here are a bunch of them:
    • AllMusic says the album is mostly pop, that it "barely winks at country", that it shows Swift transcending genre.
    • Today.com says Swift was country and country-pop until Red which showed her leaving "those roots in the dust." They say the album is "the most un-country album to be nominated by the CMA for album of the year."
    • Idolator says the title song on Red was given a "country-pop luster" by producer Nathan Chapman, but this review does not name an overall album genre.
    • The Washington Post says that "pop-heavy" Red was a signal that Swift was "moving in a different direction" than country. This source points out how country music awards have clung to Swift long past her move to pop.
    • Mic says that Swift the "country princess" went pop on Red, which shows her "expanding more fully into a world of pop" while not quite "shedding her country roots".
    • USA Today says the album is more pop than country. They note that there were two versions of the single "We Are Never Getting Back Together", one intended for country airwaves, and the album version which is pop. So that song does not add its country flavor to Red.
    • Time magazine says that Red is pop. They call Swift a country star who has changed to a new sound: pop.
    • People magazine says that her next album, 1989, was the album which showed Swift shifting to pop, which means by deduction that Red was still country, or country pop, or something in that vein. But they don't specifically call Red country.
    • Forbes says that Red was Swift's final album which could be called "semi-country", that afterward she was pure pop.
    • Entertainment Weekly says that Red is a pop album from a pop-country artist.
    • Treblezine says Red has no overall genre, that it's the "least cohesive collections of songs" in a Swift album. The source says that Red was a transitional album made when Swift was changing from country to pop. But it describes some tracks as having a country "undercurrent".
    • Glamour says that Swift's first four albums, ending with Red, are her country ones, all "heavily acoustic in their DNA."
    • The Nation says that Red is beyond genre, larger than music industry classifications. They describe the songs as bouncing all over the genre fields.
    • https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/earshot/taylor-swift-red-track-by-382145 Hollywood Reporter says] that Red is mostly pop, with touches of country. They deride iTunes classifying the album as "country & Western", noting that it should be labeled "country & Hyannis Port".
    • Spin magazine says the album is pop, and they also say that Red stays "true to her roots as a country traditionalist and singer-songwriter confessionalist, but also charting several exciting, new paths for her music."
    • Bilboard magazine says that Red was Swift's first pop album.
    • NPR says that Red is transitional, showing both country and pop. "Sonically, it traverses Swift's country roots and enters proper pop territory, a sphere she would eventually dominate with her colossal album 1989 two years later." They say that Red does not stray completely from country, shown by a few country songs on the album.
    • Rolling Stone magazine says that Red is an eclectic collection, that it "pinballs" from one genre to another. But they couch the whole project as a pop effort.
    • Pitchfork says that Red was a further outgrowth of Swift's country-pop sound.
  • Looks to me as if there are conflicting views, with some sources saying this isn't country any more, and others saying Red is the fourth and final country-tinged album from Swift. Binksternet (talk) 01:17, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

FolkEdit

Should folk be added as a genre? This review by Taste of Country says "The next five songs swing between dance-influenced jams and folk ballads." Billiekhalidfan (talk) 20:32, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Lol Dan56 (talk) 21:24, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
What? Billiekhalidfan (talk) 21:25, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Please make sure to link something when you start a discussion about it. And no, if you had read WP:SYNTH which was referred to you on the Lover talk page, you would know not to slap a genre on a whole album just because of a few tracks.--NØ 14:57, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
Return to "Red (Taylor Swift album)" page.