It’s been over three years since Lorde released Pure Heroine, her precocious, grazed-knee debut LP. She was just sixteen years old when she became a household name, and now, having recently emerged from the teenage-hood that was so intrinsic to her sound and appeal, she’s apparently about to make her grand return. Lorde now has an incredibly broad, high platform from which to speak and create – no mean feat for a young Kiwi artist – and she’s consistently used it to break down stereotypes and encourage young women to be unapologetically themselves. Sure, every pop idol tends to preach some brand of empowerment these days, but Lorde’s unapologetically dark, raw approach is a far cry from say, Taylor Swift‘s ultra-shiny, pre-packaged brand (yes, they’re friends. We’ll get to that later).
Once called “the future of music” by David Bowie (an accolade most artists would have killed for), Lorde made her debut as a jaded, devil-may-care teen, with sparse production providing a canvas for her to spill her guts onto, painfully self-aware and critical of absolutely everything: We’re hollow like the bottles that we drink. It’s not uncommon for young women in pop to sing about partying and drinking; what set Lorde apart from her peers was her fascination with the uglier side of these things. Despite this, along with her refusal to transform into a sexual object, Lorde excelled. Five singles in the Billboard Hot 100 Chart. An album that debuted at #1 on the ARIA chart and reached #3 on Billboard. Top ten charting in eight additional countries. A Grammy. She became a mainstream pop artist, and she didn’t look or act like anyone else around her in that same sphere.
Not to say Lorde is a bastion of representation. She’s a white girl from a middle-class Auckland suburb – hardly a revolutionary inclusion in the mainstream, all things considered. But for many young women, repeatedly judged and bullied for not voraciously adhering to trends – the kind of women who grew up with Daria as their hero – Lorde was a breath of fresh air. A living, breathing, singing Daria.
After a whirlwind of festival slots, headline tours, and smash singles, she went largely quiet. There was her (fairly underwhelming) contribution to the Hunger Games soundtrack, and her (much better) collaboration with Disclosure, but that was about it. Until her name began appearing on festival bills again, that is, indicating new music on the way. Not just any festivals either, but the biggest in the world: Coachella. The Governor’s Ball. New Orleans Jazz & Heritage Festival. Free Press Summer Fest (FPSF). Fuji Rock (and let’s be real, the chances are pretty good she’ll be announced for Splendour too). Oh, and her label Republic Records publicly listed a release under her name on the agenda of a recent meeting. With the date “3/7″ – March 7th for anyone who writes dates the correct way – listed next to it, looking mighty like a release date, that means we have just over a week before we hear new music from Lorde.
But what is it? A single? An album? A single and a video? It’s listed alongside Ariana Grande’s Everyday and Julia Michael’s debut single Issues, both of which were officially released in January, so safe to say we are incredibly close to hearing new music from the goth-pop ingenue.
In the past few years, which not releasing music, Lorde has been busily propping up and validating a culture where girls can be “not like the other girls” but also actively love and support other girls. She’s been relentlessly unafraid to broadcast her humanness – see Exhibit A below, where Lorde uses Instagram (a platform notorious for its heavily-filtered endless stream of unattainable perfection) to broadcast her teen skin woes.
She was critical of the overt sexuality she saw being sold as an intrinsic part of any young woman in music’s career, and spoke out against it repeatedly. When Selena Gomez hit back at Lorde for “not supporting other women” after the latter criticised the way the former’s single Come And Get It portrayed women, Lorde refused to back down. Insisting that she wasn’t about to abandon her “strong morals and opinions” just because she was being called a “hater”, it was refreshing to see such a young woman be so steadfast in her conviction when criticising something that was, admittedly, pretty problematic:
y i k e s
But let’s be clear. Lorde’s criticism was “I’m sick of women being portrayed this way” not “Selena Gomez is Bad For Being Sexual”. To suggest that it’s anti-feminist to critique a piece of art just because a woman made it is reductive and, quite frankly, ridiculous. Perhaps realising this, the pair buried the hatchet the following year, and became fast friends. Which brings us right back to another one of Lorde’s high-profile friends: Taylor Swift.
Right off the bat, Lorde pinpointed the issue with figures like Swift – that they peddled something “flawless and unattainable”. The two later ended up as friends, with Swift even organising Lorde’s 20th birthday party, and it’s tempting to read this change as an abandoning of former ideals on Lorde’s part. But this is exactly what makes Lorde so important to her audience of (primarily) young women. She has spent a significant portion of her press time critiquing structures and cultural norms, but refuses to lay blame at the feet of another woman. She will make her thoughts known, and embrace and love her fellow women unequivocally. This is the lesson that mainstream pop needed to learn, though it can’t be said that it’s been entirely learnt yet. That’s what this impending release carries on its shoulders – scores of young women who never had their strong opinions and pimply skin validated in the mainstream before are waiting for Lorde’s next move. And so are we.
Taylor Swift has been known to change her styles in the past, shocking critics with her bold move from country to pop back in early 2010s, but nothing has been as drastic as what may come next. According to The Sun, which isn’t necessarily the most reputable of sources, T Swizzle is exploring a “new urban sound” alongside the current king in the scene Drake.
The unnamed source in the article went on to say, “Taylor is always looking at ways to grow as an artist…she’s not afraid of experimenting so is working with a lot of different faces to see if she suits a new sound.
Well, okay then.
The source went on to explain that Drake is both producing and featuring his own vocals, making for “a real mix of edgier hip-hop and R&B sounds”, which they compared to her 2014 hit Bad Blood. “[It] had a less pop vibe, especially once Kendrick Lamar featured on it, and was a big hit, so she thinks her fans will like her going in this direction.”
At this point in her career Taylor Swift could do literally anything and sell it for millions. Now, we hardly think she’s going to start spitting bars and appropriating culture a la Iggy Azalea (we hope not, anyway), but this isn’t great news. And we probably don’t need to explain why.
Regardless of our, or your, opinion of this fateful coming together, Taylor Swift and Drake are the biggest artists in the world. If they do indeed release music together, it will be fucking huge. Both artists are inexplicably endlessly popular, with billions of streams and dollars between them. Whether or not their music will be any good remains to be seen, but it sure as hell will be unavoidable.
We do not want an urban Taylor Swift album.
Earlier this year Taylor Swift was seen rapping Future and Drake’s Jumpman in an advertisement for Apple Music, prompting sales to increase by a whopping 431%. Considering Drake’s relationship with Apple, it may well be possible that they’ve been working on a new ad rather than a new album. We’re hoping so, anyway.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QcIy9NiNbmo
Image: Stereogum
The fight between musicians and services that provide music for free has been a long one. Last year, Taylor Swift penned an open letter to Apple Music, asking them to reconsider the three month period during which artists go unpaid while their music is being streamed. As a result, Apple Music changed their minds.
She now joins 180 artists including Paul McCartney, Vince Staples, Carole King, Kings Of Leon and more, along with 19 companies, in signing a petition that is set out to change the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.
The petition alleges that the Act gives YouTube too much power when copyrighted music is posted on their website and “has allowed major tech companies to grow and generate huge profits by creating ease of use for consumers to carry almost every recorded song in history in their pocket via a smartphone, while songwriters’ and artists’ earnings continue to diminish.”
They sign the petition to ensure that they are given power when it comes to the protection of their work by encouraging the creation of a “sensible reform that balances the interests of creators with the interests of the companies who exploit music for their financial enrichment.”
Trent Rezor recently had spoken out about YouTube and their ability to allow people to listen to music free of charge. He received this response from the platform:
“The overwhelming majority of labels and publishers have licensing agreements in place with YouTube to leave fan videos up on the platform and earn revenue from them. Today the revenue from fan uploaded content accounts for roughly 50 percent of the music industry’s YouTube revenue. Any assertion that this content is largely unlicensed is false. To date, we have paid out over $3 billion to the music industry–and that number is growing year on year.”
Last week, we wrote an investigative feature asking whether the music industry is abandoning the platform that gives them exposure and a place to upcoming artists share their voices with the world. This petition sheds more of a light on the other side of the debate, which is just as important.
Will anything change? We shall find out.
Image: Pitchfork
Father John Misty is one helluva dude. From his hilarious Instagram account to fake Pandora ads, from made-up dreams about Lou Reed to live-tweeting a Tinder date, from starring in Lana Del Rey vids to covering Rihanna, you can’t help but love his personality, regardless of your thoughts on his wistful folk tunes.
He recently revealed that the inspiration for the aforementioned Lana Del Rey video, Freak, was inspired by seeing taylor Swift live, while tripping on acid. He’s now detailed that experience a little more – and the results, obviously, are wonderful.
In a recent interview with Rolling Stone, he divulged (vie Stereogum):
“The last time I took a hero’s dose of LSD was at a Taylor Swift concert in Australia. She was playing in Melbourne, and I met a bunch of people from her crew at a bar, and they invited me to the show. I got my tour manager to get me some acid: “This is written in the stars. I’m supposed to go take acid at this Taylor Swift concert…
I experienced the show like an eight-year-old girl — as much as that’s possible for a 35-year-old man. It was holy. It was psychedelic. She fully impregnated my dilated soul with her ideology. I remember laughing uncontrollably. I remember going outside for a smoke and thinking, “I need to get back in there.”
But there was a disturbing aspect — this insistence on telling girls, “I’m normal, don’t let anyone tell you what you should be.” Meanwhile, there are 60-foot-high images of her on screens. If you wanted to curate an evening with the Grand Leader, this is what you would do. It’s a very, very false normal. And that’s dangerous.”
Last year (at least two months before the Taylor-in-Melbourne-on-acid incident, for the record) saw FJM release two covers of Taylor Swift songs – or, rather, covers of Ryan Adams’ covers of Taylor Swift songs, done in the style of The Velvet Underground. He then took them down, having claimed that Lou Reed told him to do so in a dream, and then came out with a hilariously anti-establishment explanation about how it was all one big joke on the media and music industry.
To be honest, we’re cool with not knowing or understanding pretty much anything going on here. That’s how Father John Misty rolls, and that’s why we love him.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=khk77JHALmU
Image: Billboard
With the release of his next album Views From The 6 peaking over the horizon ahead of its “April release,” Drake’s iTunes sales have over the past week soared in the lead up. Though it was just yesterday that he released two new tracks, Pop Style featuring Kanye West and Jay Z, and Faithful with Pimp C, this boost was given by an unlikely but not so surprising source.
Do you remember last week when Taylor Swift was in that ad for Apple Music where she was singing along to Drake and Future’s Jumpman on a treadmill? Yeah, that’s why. So far the video has racked up more than 11 million views on Youtube, and ‘Gymflow’, the playlist it was featured on, is up by 325% and now in the top 5 of the week. Drake and Future came out of it the best though, with those sales boosts coming from purchases of Jumpman, which have risen by a whopping 431%. Apple have definitely hit the nail on the head with what is a very simple but effective advertisement. Utilising both humour (spoliers: with Swift tripping on the treadmill at the end), and of course tapping into the fanbase of one artist to help another – they’ve made something which is easily sharable both among fans of Drake and Future, and of Taylor Swift, who have obviously gotten very into the king of Toronto.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fK_zwl-lnmc
This boost really couldn’t have come at a better time for the 6 God. With it just ticking over the April 6th in the Northern Hemisphere, the world has been gripped yet again by a severe case of Drizzy fever. With the release of Summer Sixteen back in February, we saw the artwork of a hand in the shape of a six, done by Commes des Garcons’ Filip Pagowiski. Today, we’ve seen photos of the same artwork being projected on the side of London’s Royal Opera House of all places. Whether this is just a simple reminder about the album, or maybe a tease to Drake’s signing and potential collaboration with grime kings Boy Better Know, remains to be seen.
A projection in London appears to show Drake's cover art for 'Views From The 6' https://t.co/GVWRSTIoFV pic.twitter.com/GlnV86NLX2
— Complex UK (@complex_uk) April 6, 2016
Read up on how Hotline Bling is a meme dream here.
Check out our exposé on Boy Better Know here.
Image: Apple Music
It is alleged that during a backstage meet and greet in 2013, someone sexually assaulted pop star Taylor Swift, by lifting her skirt and groping her. There is no doubt in Swift’s mind that the act -which we will call exactly what it is, sexual assault- was committed by then-radio host David Mueller. However, since Swift’s allegations, Mueller has held steadfast in his insistence that he never touched the singer and last last year, he served a counter-suit to her’s of assault and battery, claiming that her accusations resulted in his being let go from his role at KYGO two days following the alleged assault.
Adding to his claim, Mueller has stated that an assault did take place – at the hands of his former boss Eddie Haskell. He alleges that Haskell not only groped Swift, but bragged about it that night and told Mueller that “he and one of his friends in the industry think Ms. Swift must wear bicycle shorts under her stage outfits.”
In a counter-suit, served in October, Swift’s attorney J. Douglas Baldridge wrote that, “It was Mueller — and she is not confused in the slightest about whether her long-term business acquaintance, Mr. Haskell, was the culprit…. Resolution of this Counterclaim will demonstrate that Mueller alone was the perpetrator of the humiliating and wrongful conduct targeted against Ms. Swift, and will serve as an example to other women who may resist publicly reliving similar outrageous and humiliating acts.” At the time, she had requested a jury trial, adding that any money she might receive involving the lawsuit would be donated to charitable organizations “dedicated to protecting women from similar acts of sexual assault and personal disregard.”
Now, Mueller is has added a further two claims of slander to an amended complaint filed last Thursday in which he claims Swift’s statements during their legal battle are false and have caused harm to his reputation, profession and standing in the community. Mueller’s attorney, M. Gabriel McFarland, added to the amended complaint that: “The contention that Mr. Mueller lifted up Ms. Swift’s skirt and grabbed her bottom, while standing with his girlfriend, in front of Ms. Swift’s photographer and Ms. Swift’s highly trained security personnel, during a company-sponsored, VIP, backstage meet-and-greet, is nonsense.”
This much is clear: someone -be it Mueller or Haskell- violated Taylor Swift in a professional environment in 2013, leaving her “surprised, upset, offended and alarmed.” She has every right to seek justice, as anyone confronted with assault does, particularly in the workplace. Taylor Swift is one of many who have spoken out about the sexism women face in the music industry, with an entire blog (This Industry Ain’t Safe) dedicated to the many and varied forms of physical, sexual, emotional and mental violence women in the music industry face. Most recently, Sony has claimed to be “legally unable” to terminate the contract of recording artist Kesha, who has allegedly suffered a decade of abuse at the hands of her producer and collaborator, Dr. Luke. As well as fighting her own legal battle against Mueller, Swift (along with many other public figures) showed support for Kesha, donating $250,000 to her fellow singer “as a show of support” to help with her financial needs during this “trying time.”
Image: Hollywood Reporter
Taylor Swift is currently in Australia for her 1989 tour, and as expected the media is going insane. Amongst all the fanfare surrounding the singer, however, is one very unhappy news team. Channel Seven’s Sunrise were recently left fuming after being denied entry into T-Swift’s birthday bash, which took place on a privately owned resort in Hamilton Island (of course).
After being told to fuck off by security (probably not in those exact words, but whatever), and having their bags and equipment confiscated, the Sunrise crew took to the waters to film a live cross from a boat near the island. But, as Swift obviously has legal right over not only the island, but the entire ocean surrounding it- they were promptly asked to leave again, by security. Journalist Michelle Tapper argued the legality of being forced to leave open water, and also referred to the incident as ‘outrageous’, telling News Corp that she’d “never encountered anything like this in 20 years of journalism”.
This probably doesn’t come as a surprise to anyone. While Taylor Swift has consistently tried to embody the ‘good girl’ aesthetic throughout her career, certain tactical moves she makes prove her to be the kind of powerful artist we love to hate. She is a juggernaut in the pop music industry, in the worst kind of way. No matter what she does, no matter what media outlet she pisses off, she’s impossible to get away from. Due to this, and our collective annoyance at her insistent presence on our news feeds, we’ve compiled a list here of the five most annoying things T-Swift has done this year.
1. Her excessive use of trademarking.
Trademarking is a normal, if not necessary way for artists to retain their original work. There’s no issue with that. However, when Swifty is involved it gets a little bit ridiculous. Earlier this year, she applied for a list of phrases from her 1989 album to be trademarked, mainly in relation to their use in merchandising. All sounding good so far, right? That is, until you take a look at the list of quotes she wanted to trademark. Phrases like “This sick beat”, “‘Cause we never go out of style” and most confusingly, “nice to meet you. Where you been?”, have all been requested- the latter of which one could argue is a considerably generic phrase that doesn’t really SCREAM Taylor Swift when heard. The trademarking only covers merchandising, including but not limited to T-shirts, skin cream, bean bags and christmas stockings… which leads me to my next point.
2. Suing her own fans.
The fact that these trademarks were still pending didn’t stop Swift’s lawyers from issuing takedown notices to poor Taylor Swift fans on Etsy. Fans that were selling candles and apparel with Swift’s lyrics on them were forced to take down their merchandise in fear of legal retribution, despite many of them making little money from their art. One such fan spoke to Buzzfeed about the debacle, stating that she “originally made the item for fun, we love Taylor and we had friends that love Taylor. We never intended for it to be a profit making item. The cost of the item covered shipping costs, and production costs with very little left over”. So unless you’re willing to spend $41.99 on a Taylor Swift ‘kitchen package’, or $49.99 for a pillow from her official merchandise store, it looks like you’ll be going without.
3. Going hard on copyright claims.
From her infamous battle with Spotify and Apple Music, to actually sending a cease and desist letter to a radio host for briefly reciting her lyrics– Taylor Swift doesn’t fuck around when it comes to copyright. This culminated in her legal team taking down audio from a popular Youtube couple’s wedding video for use of her song. The couple had their entire 30-minute wedding video, including vows, muted because their first dance was to Shake It Off. As sad as that is, it did lead to Taylor Swift’s own fans mocking her copyright claims and essentially turning this into a meme, so at least one good thing came out of it… Sort of.
4. Her misuse of feminism.
While she did apologise for this one, her beef with Nicki Minaj is hard to look past. As we’ve reported before, Minaj’s outcry at her lack of nominations at the VMAs came across less as a valid argument than it was an entitled tantrum. However, with those problems aside, Swift completely missed the point. Responding to an argument that has been clearly defined as one pertaining to racial issues, Swift pulled out the ol’ faithful “Don’t pit women against each other.” It would be easier to dismiss this as a one off incident (especially considering how absurd the whole fight was), if it wasn’t something she’d done before. I’m referring of course to her oft-quoted statement of, “There’s a special place in hell for women who don’t help other women,” which was a result of a pretty innocent joke made about her by Tina Fey.
5. THIS FUCKING VIDEO.
[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QcIy9NiNbmo&w=560&h=315]
This fucking video. There’s too much to say here. This is probably a personal one, as there was a point where I genuinely couldn’t go a day without seeing it somewhere (my tram trip to work was spent looking at Bad Blood posters on every single street), but it’s so ridiculous. What is the plotline? Why did so much money go into making it? What do Lena Dunham and Hayley Williams have in common besides from being part of this unnervingly weird girl group? Is Selena Gomez meant to represent Katy Perry? And for the love of god, why is Kendrick Lamar involved?!
All jokes aside, Taylor Swift’s work ethic is an inspiration to us all, and in the event that she reads this, I’m sorry for any times I may have misused the phrase ‘this sick beat’ (Taylor Swift™ No copyright infringement intended. Property of TAS LLC Management 2008 ©).
It feels like ever since Robin Thicke‘s disgusting hit track Blurred Lines, barely a week goes by without a lawsuit filed relating to one artist ripping off another. Last week, it was Drake ripping off D.R.A.M’s Cha Cha, and now it’s Taylor Swift stealing 92% of Shake It Off from a rapper named Jesse Braham. Apparently.
Braham, recently attempted to sue T-Swift for an absolutely reasonable sum of $42 million, because of the similarities between her banger, and his own song Haters Gonna Hate. Obviously, all of Brahams’ loved ones neglected to tell him that there is quite literally, nothing similar about these tracks (except for their defence against haters, of course) before he walked into the court of law and subsequently got slammed by the judge… using Taylor Swift’s lyrics.
Braham claimed that his song Haters Gonna Hate which he apparently copyrighted in 2013, had the same 22-word phrase that Swift used in her song. United States District Court judge and probable T-Swift mega fan, Gail Standish dismissed the case, citing that “at present, the Court is not saying that Braham can never, ever, ever get his case back in court. But, for now, we have got problems, and the Court is not sure Braham can solve them”.
The fun didn’t stop there however, as Standish went on to write, “As currently drafted, the Complaint has a blank space – one that requires Braham to do more than write his name. And, upon consideration of the Court’s explanation … Braham may discover that mere pleading BandAids will not fix the bullet holes in his case. At least for the moment, Defendants have shaken off this lawsuit.”
Braham filed the suit in federal court without an attorney, and also requested that the court waive various filing fees as his last job was in 2006. It was ruled that he did not provide enough factual evidence in this case, however, he would be given the opportunity to file a new complaint if his lawsuit deficiencies were corrected. Here’s hoping that he gets the same judge next time.
When your polling is gauging at less than 1% and the White House is fading further and further into the distance, what else is there to do besides attempting to cover Taylor Swift on TV in front of millions of viewers?
Democratic presidential candidate Martin O’Malley may finally be able to glimpse out of the shadow of Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders, after he appeared on ABC’s The View. In front out a studio audience, and millions of home viewers, he he whipped out a guitar and attempted to sing Taylor Swift’s massive hit Bad Blood.
He was apparently inspired to dust off his vocals to match his rival Hillary Clinton, who has managed to pull Katy Perry to appear at her upcoming Iowa rally. As we all painstakingly know, Bad Blood is allegedly a dis track from Taylor Swift aimed at Katy Perry, so at least the song choice is appropriate considering the level of envy Martin O’Malley must be feeling towards Hillary’s blossoming campaign.
Although his vocals tell a different story, he is actually the lead vocalist and guitarist of the band O’Malley’s March and sometimes objects his supporters to abject cruelty treats his supporters by playing some of his tunes during rallies.
Alongside Martin O’Malley escapades, Hillary Clinton has appeared on SNL and Donald Trump is scheduled to follow her lead in coming weeks – quickly proving that the US Presidential Campaigns are more akin to a dog show than a debate of nuanced, intelligent policies.
Have a gander at O’Malley’s efforts below:
WATCH: @MartinOMalley covers @taylorswift13: https://t.co/IXaKC3NOiU https://t.co/InVONWlhMz
— ABC News Politics (@ABCPolitics) October 20, 2015
Taylor Swift seems to be constantly under fire recently, with her mis-judged white feminism directed towards Nicki Minaj landed her in hot water and her violent and her revenge fantasy music video Bad Blood stirring the ires of fellow pop stars everywhere (cough, cough Katy Perry anyone?)
But Swift’s biggest slip up to date may just be very strong colonialist undertones present in her latest video for Wildest Dreams. Premiered at the 2015 VMAs alongside the company of her “squad”, aka a bevy of inhumanely good-looking women, Swift’s video has come under heavy criticism for the alleged whitewashing that goes on in the clip.
Filmed in an undisclosed African location and looking like some sort of sequel to The English Patient (sans Ralph Fiennes) there is nary a person of colour in sight, despite it being like, you know, AFRICA. The video details the passionate and seemingly unrequited love affair of two actors filming a romantic epic in 1950s Africa.
Starring Clint Eastwood, the video is undeniably glamorous and well-produced, however the disturbing racial and colonial undertones manage to undermine the artistic credibility of the video. Despite being set in Africa, the clip features only two African American men in filler positions.
[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IdneKLhsWOQ&w=560&h=315]
Director of the video, Joseph Khan, has spoken out against the claims he whitewashed Wildest Dreams, saying it does include black people in it and was produced by a black woman and edited by a black man. Khan himself is Asian.
Khan, who also directed Swift’s other videos Blank Space and Bad Blood, said that, “We collectively decided it would have been historically inaccurate to load the crew with more black actors as the video would have been accused of rewriting history. This video is set in the past by a crew set in the present.”
But to depict a rose-tinged version of a colonial era is problematic on several levels. It romanticises the ‘best’ aspects of colonialism, that is the aspects which benefited the Whites ruling the colonies, and ignores the enormous suffering and brutality that imperialism wrought on their oppressed subjects.
Additionally Swift’s depiction of Africa objectifies the most iconic aspects of it: the wildlife, the animals, the golden sun sinking beneath the grassy planes of the savannah. This presents a troublingly narrow-minded and westernised view of Africa. Africa is not one big happy continent full of beautiful wildlife and untamed landscape; it’s a multicultural collection of 54 counties and 900 million people.
And it still suffers the consequences of colonial rule today, as evidenced by its poor economic performance, social discordance and the continual trans-generational trauma felt by those most affected. So for Taylor Swift to glorify one facet of Colonialism, while ignoring the irreparable harm it has caused to so many Africans, is understandably a little problematic.