1989: Emory's Version (Album Review)

I am not a Swiftie, even if I may never beat the allegations. I do, however, enjoy my fair share of it, and I'm a bit too familiar with the stuff I dislike. And so, as a fun exercise in sharing opinions nobody wants to hear and nobody agrees with, I am once again reviewing a Taylor Swift album. 1989: Emory's Version. Vault tracks first!

Wait! Before we begin, please acknowledge that you will not like my opinions. I know I'm in the minority, and I expect disagreement, so please just remember that this is my opinion! Also forgive me if I have trouble finding unique things to say about some of these songs; there's over 20 of them, and a lot of them sound quite similar. I'll try to be as interesting as possible. If you don't feel like reading every single song review in its entirety, a full list of ratings song by song is provided at the end of the post. I also preemptively apologize for how long this post will be. Now, without further ado:

"Slut!" -- 3:00

Maybe I didn't think this through. I forgot that, in order to review an album, I have to subject myself to every song on that album multiple times. In some cases, that's alright! I can bear it. And in other cases, I worry for the lasting impacts this may have on my mental health.

This song should be higher energy. I have a hard time reading a title like this and reconciling it with the content, which is slow, spacey, and Midnights-reminiscent (common theme, as you'll see). It's not criminally offensive, but there are annoying aspects here: first and foremost, the use of "clink, clink" in a serious context in the second line is a great way to lose my attention for the remainder of the song. Sitting in a room filled with Swifties, I noticed a viscerally disappointed reaction upon hearing that line, and for good reason. And yet, predictably, the refrain arose: "I just gotta listen to it more. It'll grow on me."

Well, I'm here to tell you that "Slut!" should've remained in the vault. It's dry, low-energy, and not emotionally compelling. The chord progression is basic (not saying this again, you can just assume that about a Taylor Swift song), and the instrumental is synth-heavy and thin. The focus has to be on Swift's vocals, which are uninspiring and formulaic; it's the typical mix of metaphors here.

Got love-struck, went straight to my head

Got lovesick all over my bed

....

Love thorns all over this rose

I'll pay the price, you won't

Not gonna dwell on the lyrics too much here. Good on Swift for not releasing this one with the initial album.

Rating: 3/10

Say Don't Go -- 4:39

Certainly an improvement here, as she regains her stride with a catchier chorus and a bit more energy. Say Don't Go is, once again, the typical mix of metaphors. The chorus is one big dramatization of a broken love affair.

Why'd you have to lead me on?

Why'd you have to twist the knife? Walk away and leave me bleedin', bleedin'?

I want to call this the best of the vault tracks, but that's more of an indictment on the tracks than a statement regarding the quality of this song. And yet, gauging the reaction of the Swifties, this is supposed to be a very good vault track. I just don't think the songwriting is anywhere near her highest standards, nor does it reach the bar for this album. I won't diss this one too much because there isn't much to criticize, but it's just not compelling to me. There are too many tracks to listen to anyway.

Rating: 6/10

Now That We Don't Talk -- 2:26

This song is shockingly short, thank goodness. The problem with Now That We Don't Talk, at least in the beginning, is that Swift just should not be singing this low for this long. For the chorus, that rule should only be amplified. She goes higher for the verse and it sounds a bit better, but let's be real about the point of this song: to act as yet another post-relationship dramatic statement of finality, this time (according to people online who know more than me) referring to Harry Styles.

There's two schools of thought here: 1. Swift and Styles did actually date briefly, or 2. It was just one big publicity stunt. I don't care either way, but the fact of the matter is that this track is basic, boring, short, and undeveloped, just like, presumably, their relationship. I understand that modern pop music is supposed to cater to a shorter attention span, but the level of simplicity is truly shocking here. I'm sorry that you and Harry don't talk anymore, Taylor, but if the emotional impact of this breakup is accurately represented by the depth of this song, then I don't feel bad about saying that this wasn't a big deal, and it therefore does not deserve to be immortalized in a song.

In terms of the quality of the actual song, it's once again inoffensively basic pop, characterized by 4/4 drum machine and shimmery synth effects in the background. Belongs in the vault, unfortunately. Rating: 5/10

Suburban Legends -- 2:51

I have no qualms with the length of these tracks because I'd rather not dwell on them, but if I had been eagerly anticipating the release of this album, I would be extremely disappointed. Suburban Legends is a continuation of Now That We Don't Talk, even if it wasn't intended to be. The drums and the effects are, no joke, basically identical. It remains a lamentation of love lost, but this time she throws in some terrible lyrics to spice things up, such as:

I am standin' in a 1950's gymnasium

And I can still see you now

Sigh. Next song.

Rating: 4/10

Is It Over Now? -- 3:49

Bit more content here, but not substantially improved. How on Earth is it still worth it to Taylor to talk about Harry Styles? What did he do to her? Why must we dwell on this? I'm not gonna entertain that whole thing anymore.

If you tune out the relationship drama, this is a slight improvement over the other tracks. The bridge is high energy and well pieced together, even if it's overly dramatic. I don't enjoy the intro sequence with the bizarre birdcall-type sound. I don't enjoy her lyrics about how this guy (pretending we don't know who it is) looks for her in everyone else he dates, because she's being hypocritical by criticizing someone else's dating habits, something she very obviously hates when it comes back around to her. I don't enjoy publicly shaming former boyfriends, especially ones that seemingly did no real wrong. I don't enjoy basic drumbeats and overly dramatic tambourine. I don't enjoy this song, and yet it's slightly more compelling than others on this album, and so I'll give it credit where credit is due.

Rating: 5/10

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

We made it through the vault tracks! If those ratings were any indication, I found the vault tracks to be entirely uncompelling. The good news: now we can listen to some decent songs! (No, I will not review "Bad Blood feat. Kendrick Lamar" because that sounds awful. And no, that's not because of Kendrick).

Welcome to New York -- 3:32

Do you think that, maybe, Swift is trying to welcome us to New York? I find this track infinitely annoying to listen to for many, many, many reasons. The drum machine is the most artificial rendition of a drum machine that I've ever heard, like, near-trap remix standards. The four-note keyboard riff that repeats endlessly, burning itself deep into your neural passageways until you can no longer think without the riff pulsating out of control in the forefront of your mind? Yeah, I find that somewhat annoying. Swift singing the chorus on essentially one note the entire time is definitely a bit monotonous (literally monotone; it's a G most of the time). I would compare Taylor's Version to the original, but I don't want to listen to the original any more than I want to listen to the new version. The lights are so bright, so I'm just gonna turn them off and move on.

Rating: 4/10

Blank Space -- 3:51

Now, finally, we can do some real analysis! Blank Space is one of her most popular songs ever, if I remember correctly. It's definitely not deserving of that, but there's some fun stuff happening here.

So it's gonna be forever, or it's gonna go down in flames?

You can tell me when it's over, if the high was worth the pain

Got a long list of ex-lovers, they'll tell you I'm insane

Cause you know I love the players, and you love the game!

I don't find the lyrics particularly intriguing, but I think the delivery is solid. It's catchier than catchy, a classic earworm that everyone knows even if they don't know where it came from. I tapped my foot for a second listening to this one!

Still, I think in terms of lyrical ability and unique sound, 1989 has much more to offer further down in the catalogue. Blank Space is certainly an improvement, however, and a demonstration of what Swift can do when she actually completes the song.

Small critique: I don't love the layering during the bridge. I love chords and I love unique layering, but she does a bit too much, in my opinion, in terms of pure volume. It sounds overproduced. I think that issue is far less noticeable on the original, which I enjoy more generally, but production remains an issue on the rest of this album as well. Overall, Taylor does a good job here.

Rating: 7/10

Style -- 3:51

I can hear the guitar, faintly playing a repeated line in the back, calling to me like an old friend that I miss dearly. Style is, to me, a vast improvement to this point. The gap between this track and any of the vault tracks, even the two songs on the original album I've reviewed thus far, is astronomical. It's catchy but unique in its feel, with slightly less obvious lyrics that add to the uniqueness. The beat drop is really awesome, actually. The guitar riff right before it drops creates a fun contrast between the heavy pop-feel and the old Taylor that had some acoustic guitar thrown in there every so often. I still don't know who James Dean is, but the lyric sounds cool, and that's all I can ask for at this point.

You've got that James Dean daydream look in your eye

And I got that red lip classic thing that you like

And when we go crashin' down, we come back every time

Cause we never go out of style, we never go out of style

Wait, let me know if I get it. Swift is listing things that are out of style, vintage, and yet they keep reentering modern fashion because they never go out of style. Just like their relationship! Snaps for that one, guys. Really cool metaphor.

She has yet to impress me with the lyrical choices, but at least it's fun to listen to.

Rating: 7.5/10

Out Of The Woods -- 3:13

It was fun while it lasted, but alas! Here lies one of the worst choruses I've ever heard, accompanied by one of the worst backing tracks and effects that I've ever heard. I cannot sit here and lie to you, tell you that I don't like it, but I can understand why you might. No, I genuinely do not understand how this song was ever enjoyed by a single living soul. That idiotic effect, the dude shouting on loop with an obvious cut and restart every two beats. That drumbeat, featuring more awful soulless drum machine that amps up the drama wayyyyy too much for a track this horrible.

It's an extended metaphor, again, for a relationship. Oh, and guess what? It's still about Harry Styles! (probably, if Genius is correct). More unnecessary drivel.

Speaking of drivel, that's what the chorus is! Swift says "are we out of the woods" at least 36 times over the course of this song. "Are we in the clear yet" is said almost as much. And guess what? It's all sung on a C! You thought you were past the monotone chorus? Joke's on you!

All jokes aside, my friend thinks I'm being too polarizing, so here's something about this song that could be improved upon: the chorus should not be the main component of this song. Singing "Are we out of the woods yet?" over and over again on the same note is not compelling, but using that as something to support a more unique chorus would give her something more to showcase her abilities (also, just ditch the sample at the beginning).

Rating: 2/10

All You Had To Do Was Stay -- 3:13

My qualms with this song are more personal than objective, and so I'll try not to be too mean. The draw of this song is the rhythm of the chorus emphasized by the high-pitched, heavily-adjusted "STAY" that jumps in every so often. Subjectively, I don't love that. Objectively, I can see how someone would think of it as catchy and fun, breaking up the otherwise-monotonous nature of the chorus. I think the chord progression of the chorus is better than usual, descending slightly every two bars until it repeats. Not much to say about this one, to be honest.

In terms of Taylor's Version vs. the original, I think the effect comes across a bit clearer in the "STAY", which gives it a bit more impact; Swift also sounds a bit clearer generally, just as she does in most of the original tracks compared to the re-release. Other than that, differences are minimal and production-based. Overall, it gets much worse, but it also gets much better than All You Had To Do Was Stay.

Rating: 4/10

Shake It Off -- 3:39

Brass representation! I can hear horns in this one, even if it's hard to tell exactly what they are. Oh, yeah, and they sound pretty bad.

I could rail against this one for awhile, but I think it's generally agreed upon that Shake It Off is wildly overrated, and so I won't bother. This song would be better if Taylor Swift wrote an actual bridge with some fun cool transitional lyrics rather than the wacky rap section where she pleads with us to get down with this "sick beat", which is actually the same beat as the rest of the song without the bad brass section and chords. The little "whoo-oo-oo!" thing is fun, at least. TV and the original are almost indistinguishable. Moving right along!

Rating: 3/10

I Wish You Would -- 3:27

This is the only track on the original album that I have no recollection of. It's relatively unremarkable in my opinion, with the dramatic drums of Out Of The Woods without the risky stylistic choices, which makes it more bearable but less catchy. Not sure if that's an improvement or not.

What I will say: I felt that the middle section of this song was far more compelling, in terms of pure musicianship, than most of the bridges on this album. It's a shame that the rest of the rhythms in this song are pretty uninteresting, but there's one section in the first half of the song where the drums play double-time and you actually feel a solid groove. Props to Taylor for that, I suppose. Not much else to say.

Rating: 5/10

Bad Blood -- 3:31

Bad Blood feels like Reputation before Reputation. That's not just me, right? It's very much a basic drum machine beat (I gotta stop saying that) with somewhat angry, charged lyrics that just say vaguely negative things about some unspecified target. You know what? I prefer the unspecified target. I can't find any references here that point to anyone particular, so points for that, I guess.

As far as the actual music goes, yeah, it's another catchy 1989 pop hit. Shake It Off, Bad Blood, Blank Space, and Welcome To New York all appeal to broad audiences because they're easy to listen to. That's what it comes down to. That does not correlate, however, with the quality of the music, at least in my opinion. Bad Blood is nowhere near the musical pinnacle of this album, regardless of popular opinion. The metaphors are somewhat creative, but the chorus lacks a unique aspect to make this song stand out from others on 1989.

Cause baby now we got bad blood

You know it used to be mad love

So take a look what you've done

Cause baby now we got bad blood, hey!

Not only does this chorus say nothing of substance, but it also relies on weird grammatical forms like "mad love" and "take a look what you've done" just to make it fit. There was more work to be done here, and I don't think Taylor Swift felt like messing with it when she knew it had the elements it needed to be a smash hit.

Comparing it to the original, Bad Blood (TV) lacks quite the same impact, just like most of the other tracks on the new 1989. Production kills, just as it did on the new GVF album I reviewed a few months ago; Swift's voice isn't as intense as the original, and it's hard to tell whether that should be blamed on production or age. Either way, the differences are subtle enough that it shouldn't matter much, but I have a hard time justifying listening to this over the original simply because Taylor Swift wants to take her music back, considering it's obviously produced more poorly than before.

Oh, yeah, Kendrick Lamar's Version! Why does this exist? I don't know, but I'd like to pretend it doesn't, please and thank you.

Rating: 5/10

Wildest Dreams -- 3:40

In my opinion, this is where 1989 hits its stride. I appreciate this one more than I thought I did. The strings in the background, the bass drum consistently pushing the track forward, creating a sense of urgency in Taylor's voice that contrasts brilliantly with the peaceful vibe of the lyrics and melody.

Two critiques, and I'll let this song have its flowers. First, Taylor's Version is still slightly less enjoyable, although that tapers off a bit over the course of the song. I think, by the end of the song, the differences are buried enough to make them irrelevant. Second, I don't like her delivery of the end of the verses, especially the "he's so bad, but he does it so well". I've never liked her stylistic choices there, and they didn't really grow on me here. Her voice is strong enough that she doesn't need to do all that extra manipulating to get the point across.

That's it, though. It's hard to find real issues with Wildest Dreams, and I'll enjoy listening to more songs like it over the rest of the album. The transition into the final chorus is brilliantly done and emotionally compelling, and the lyrics are (mostly) interesting enough to maintain the strength of the song's sound.

Rating: 7/10

How You Get The Girl -- 4:07

My sister is gonna get mad at me when she sees how my opinion has changed on this one. There was a time where I thought How You Get The Girl was a really, really bad song. That's not the case, and I'm not sure why I thought that to begin with, but it's certainly one of the best on 1989.

It starts with the lyricism. It's still basic, but it's basic in its simplicity, not in its reliance on cliches and poor metaphors. And, if you know me at all, you know that simplicity in music is something I love, when done correctly. The melody is simple, the lyrics are simple, the rhythm of the lyrics in the melody is simple. But when Taylor puts it all together, How You Get The Girl is an exceptionally fun, high-energy song with an aesthetically pleasing sound. Something about the final line of the chorus, when she says "and.. that's how it works", when she drags out that first syllable out? That's well-executed emphasis on the line she wants to bring out to the audience.

The backing track fits the 1989 vibe, but I (personally) find it less repetitive and more interesting. The production is nearly identical to the original, so extra points there. How You Get The Girl is criminally underrated, and I will die on that hill.

Rating: 9/10

This Love -- 4:10

This Love is a necessary change of pace in 1989, a shift back to a more melancholy vibe supported by the same 1989 sound that permeates the rest of the album. There's a lot to like about This Love, even if it doesn't appeal to me. The backing track is still mostly drum machine, but the light guitar gives the track a bit more harmonic diversity (not sure if that's the right phrase, but the fundamental idea is that the rhythms carry more tonality).

The lyrics aren't her best work, even if I know this song is meant to convey a very clear message without ambiguity. Still, I think she could've done better than she did in the chorus.

This love is good

This love is bad

This love is alive, back from the dead, oh

These hands had to let it go free, and

This love came back to me

It's catchy and memorable, but the creativity she displays by personifying love as a character is not matched by her creativity in writing the lyrics to carry out the actual personification. This song is good, this song is bad, and this song is mediocre. Sorry!

Rating: 6.5/10

I Know Places -- 3:15

Reputation is sneaking in here a little bit, but I don't mind. The theme here is a consistent "them" chasing down Taylor and a love interest, "my love".

They are the hunters, we are the foxes

And we run

Swift's core issue is her constant, and I do truly mean constant, reliance on metaphors. If she talks literally on 1989, it's because she's directly dissing Harry Styles; otherwise, it's all metaphorical. Metaphors are a common and necessary piece of songwriting, don't get me wrong. The problem is that Swift uses them every single time, and the quality of each song rests, therefore, on the quality and creativity of the core metaphor. I enjoy I Know Places just because it's a fun song to listen to. There's nothing particularly annoying or ear-wormy that makes it unlistenable, and I'll rate it accordingly. But as I progress through this album, it grows increasingly clear that 1989 is made to cater to an audience that doesn't care much about the creativity of any given metaphor; the fact that Taylor Swift uses metaphors to convey shared human experiences is enough to give 1989 a rabid fanbase.

I Know Places is a perfect example. Swift makes it unclear who the "hunters" actually are. She paints a picture of her and her lover being persecuted, seemingly; maybe "they" are the media or the public? Still, saying "loose lips sink ships all the damn time, not this time" is like saying, "yeah, it's the media's fault that my relationships never work out, but not this time!" I am not qualified enough to render judgment on the media's impact on her relationship, but "loose lips sink ships" seems like an overdramatic, inaccurate characterization.

Songwriting choices aside, I Know Places is a fun song. Taylor's Version lacks some of the energy of the original, but it's not a dramatic difference.

Rating: 7/10

Clean -- 4:31

Clean is the first song that I listened to on 1989 and enjoyed, stemming back my car rides to school with my sister the Swiftie. And, in direct contrast with the metaphorical choices Swift made in I Know Places, the metaphors in Clean are her very best work on 1989. It's still about relationship drama because that's seemingly the only thing Taylor wants to discuss in 1989 (which is an issue that I won't address out of fear for my life), but her songwriting is evocative and compelling.

The drought was the very worst

ah, ah

When the flowers that we'd grown together died of thirst

It was months and months of back and forth

ah, ah

You're still all over me like a wine-stained dress I can't wear anymore

Hung my head as I lost the war, and the sky turned black like a perfect storm

The depiction of a dying relationship as a starving, stained monstrosity is vivid and clear in Clean. The following redemption Swift describes is equally vivid.

Rain came pouring down, when I was drowning

That's when I could finally breathe

And by morning,

Gone was any trace of you

I think I am finally clean

I love the juxtaposition between drowning and breathing, supported all throughout by the dual abilities of rain to flood, drown and destroy as well as to revitalize and wash away. That's wonderfully executed metaphor.

The actual music is "clean" (aha). It's catchy, it's simple enough, and it supports the themes with appropriate dynamic contrast. Swift does everything right here. But, of course, there has to be an issue.

Taylor's Version is significantly worse than the original. Most of the songs aren't too different, but Clean is a notable exception. Her voice is not the same, and on a song as exposed as Clean, every difference in tonality is laid bare. Especially noticeable is the difference in tone when she does the "ah, ah" between lines of the verses. I could list off differences in how lines of this song sound because of poor production, but that would take forever. Just know that I'm angry with the producers of this song for messing with things that did not need to be fixed. Clean, outside of any production errors, is the best song on 1989, in my humble opinion.

Rating: 9.5/10

Wonderland -- 4:05

Wonderland would be a bearable song if you removed two things from it. First and foremost, you have to change the backing track to not sound like a chase scene from a Disney movie. The pounding drum machine is rough, and the synthwave bass is pervasive and overdone. Revamp the backing track, and you're halfway there

Secondly, Taylor needs to drop the weird "eh, eh" thing. It sounds like she wants to start a freestyle halfway through her chorus, but she's never rapped before, so she gives up. I don't love her overall singing on Wonderland, but that piece specifically is obnoxious and annoying. Sorry!

Ok, so now this song is bearable. It's still not good, and I'll tell you why. The song is one big metaphor, based on Alice in Wonderland turned into a (guess what?) love story. Please stop co-opting various metaphors and turning them into love stories. Alice in Wonderland has so many themes that could be used to write so many different kinds of songs, but it has no place in a song that's just about another failed relationship. If Swift wants to write about Alice in Wonderland, she should do so in a song unrelated to a past boyfriend.

Oh, yeah, and Taylor's Version is still somehow worse production-wise. Moving right along!

Rating: 2.5/10

You Are In Love -- 4:27

I mean, it's just another love song with another shocking twist: she writes in the second person this time! WOW!

All jokes aside, she gets back to really, really good singing here. Her songwriting is also indicative of a slightly more creative look at the same thing she writes about in every song. Instead of the infatuation-type love that she often characterizes, instead of using base-level, extended metaphors to describe how a relationship feels, Swift chooses to personify love as a quieter, tangible emotion felt in the regular, mundane times of life. I won't go out of my way to listen to You Are In Love, but I do think Swift does a much better job of characterizing love vividly and without overdramatization in this song than she does on the rest of this album (see: Out Of The Woods, Wonderland, etc).

As far as sound and production go, production is actually strong on this song, even in Taylor's Version. The backing track is necessarily subdued, and it serves its purpose. The focus is on the vocals.

Credit where credit is due: Swift closes out 1989 strong with two good songs. The last one is up next, finally.

Rating: 7/10

New Romantics -- 3:50

I wanted so badly to hate this song. I did, for a while. And then it came on in the climbing gym, and I realized that it's just so much fun to listen to. Again, Reputation is leaking in here, but, once again, she harnesses that slightly bitter edge correctly and comes off as energetic and bold rather than frustrated and overly dramatic.

Cause baby I could build a castle

Out of all the bricks they threw at me

And every day is like a battle,

And every night with us is like a dream

Baby, we're the new romantics

Come on, come along with me

Heartbreak is the national anthem, we sing it proudly

We're too busy dancin', to get knocked off our feet

Baby, we're the new romantics, the best people in life are free

I like listening to this song, and the more I read the lyrics, the more confused I get. She characterizes "freedom" as being free to enjoy all the short-sighted flings and temporary attractions of young adulthood without consequences. I like to think this song is satirical, and I believe it is; I read New Romantics as a criticism of a glorified lifestyle, especially amongst young celebrities. It's conscious, self-aware, and interesting to listen to. The song itself is a blast; the lyrics and vocals are catchy, not to mention the beat drops, which are electric, and the backing track, which is driving and powerful. New Romantics is, without a doubt, one of the better tracks on 1989. Taylor's Version is definitely a bit lacking compared to the original, but that's to be expected at this point.

Rating: 8.5/10

All in all, there's a lot to like about 1989, and not a ton to hate. There's a lot in between, in my opinion. Here's the tier list:

FINAL RANKINGS (ties determined by my personal opinion)

BANGERS

1) Clean (9.5)

2) How You Get The Girl (9)

3) New Romantics (8.5)

Solid enough (perhaps add to a playlist)

4) Style (7.5)

5) Blank Space (7)

6) You Are In Love (7)

7) I Know Places (7)

8) Wildest Dreams (7)

9) This Love (6.5)

Almost solid (barely unworthy of a playlist spot, persay)

10) Say Don't Go (6)

11) Bad Blood (5)

12) Now That We Don't Talk (5)

13) I Wish You Would (5)

14) Is It Over Now? (5)

Bad

15) Suburban Legends (4)

16) All You Had To Do Was Stay (4)

17) Welcome To New York (4)

18) "Slut!" (3)

19) Shake It Off (3)

Almost Atrocious

20) Wonderland (2.5)

ATROCIOUS

21) Out Of The Woods (2)

That took SO LONG so please let me know your thoughts, questions, and gripes if you made it this far. By the time the next album releases, I'll probably still be on a Taylor Swift detox, so let me know when that happens. I'm gonna go listen to My Morning Jacket now, so see y'all later!

Emory "not a Swiftie" Huffman