Tag: Music

  • What makes a ‘survivor?’

    What makes a ‘survivor?’

    Are you a survivor? We are not, luckily, all Gloria Gaynors. She declared in 1979: “I’ve got all my life to live, and I’ve got all my love to give/ And I will survive.” Gaynor has, so far, made good on her promise.

    Surviving afflictions unscathed is not always an unmixed virtue. “She would be earning a good living somewhere… The Mary Taylors of the world were natural survivors,” wrote P.D. James in Shroud for a Nightingale in 1971. Now, even a new biography of Lady Margaret Beaufort (1443-1509) is subtitled Survivor, Rebel, Kingmaker. But what of those poor people who have gone through the misery of child sexual “grooming?” Are they victims or are they survivors? Or should they be neither?

    Last week, after he withdrew his name for consideration as the chair of Britain’s national grooming inquiry, the thoughtful retired policeman Jim Gamble made a comment using both terms: “The police have understandably lost the trust of victims and survivors because some were corrupt.”

    In 2021, this sense of survivor was noticed by the Oxford English Dictionary as: “A person who has experienced a traumatic event or past abuse, especially of a sexual or psychological nature.”

    In 1975 there was an example in the Los Angeles Free Press: “Welcome all survivors of rape, child molestation, welfare lines, botched abortions, unemployment and typing pools.” There’s a certain bathos in “typing pools,” oppressive as they might have been. As for victim, in the sense of “a person who has been intentionally harmed, injured, or killed,” the OED notes that “in some contexts survivor is now used in preference to victim.”

    There has been a recent trend to turn misfortune into victimhood, as in the #MeToo and Black Lives Matter campaigns. Donald Trump presents his prosecutions as evidence of his victimhood, but when a bullet nicks his ear, he brands himself a survivor.

    This article was originally published in The Spectator’s November 24, 2025 World edition.

  • Drowning in the neon swamp of Tron: Ares

    Drowning in the neon swamp of Tron: Ares

    Sitting in the nearly empty movie theater at which I saw Tron: Ares, I found myself swamped by neon. Its hues are unappealing in real life – redolent of dive bars, arcades and other unsavory venues – but neon is downright unbearable when experienced in a movie theater, where you have no choice but to stare at the screen unless you want a perfectly good $21.51 to go to waste.

     As a rule, the Tron films – this is the third, following the somewhat inventive original film from 1982 and the delinquent sequel from 2010 – are ugly in the same way the videogame Pong, the A-ha music video “Take On Me” or Keanu Reeves’s “virtual reality” thriller Johnny Mnemonic are ugly: they substitute for actual humanity a simulacrum of the same, and the simulacrum is often clunky, choppy and weird. Of course, having been produced with a high budget in 2025, Tron: Ares is smooth as silk. But its technical proficiency makes it even less inviting than its antecedents. The more effectively movie producers imagine a scenario in which humanoid computer programs fight within computer worlds (the gambit of Tron and its progeny), the more off-putting the product is likely to be.

    The plot here is likely to be comprehensible only to those familiar with the previous entries which, given their irregular timing as well as the general lack of Tron-ness in popular culture, fail to meet the definition of a cult. The lead character in the new movie is a computer program called Ares (Jared Leto). A programmer manages to bring the digital construct into the non-computer world for brief stretches of time. Ares perceives the world through RoboCop-like vision, speaks with a soft, empathetic voice and sports facial hair that would invite the condemnation of Secretary of War Pete Hegseth. That Ares is sensitive, inquisitive, and played by the star of Dallas Buyers Club suggests that he may not be content to remain ensconced inside a computer forever. But the forces of Dillinger Systems want to bring him to terra firma primarily to fight wars on the evil company’s behalf.

    This is about to get a lot more boring. Here we must attend to the corporate rivalry between Dillinger Systems and ENCOM. Not since Super Nintendo dueled with Sega Genesis for the attention of adolescents everywhere have the video-game wars raged so brutally. The quest to make Ares permanently available in the real world sets Dillinger CEO Julian Dillinger (Evan Peters) against ENCOM CEO Eve Kim (Greta Lee). What commences is a conflict of hacking and coding that quickly becomes wearisome, but at least these characters are flesh and blood with flesh-and-blood motivations.

    That’s more than you can say for Ares who, even when liberated into the material world, is an entirely uninvolving “character.” HAL 9000, the disembodied computer from Stanley Kubrick’s 2001: A Space Odyssey, was written more engagingly, though Tron: Ares surely has that film beat as for the number of chases and explosions.

    Director Joachim Rønning will never be mistaken for a master of subtlety. One potentially interesting thread involves Dillinger’s depositing Eve into the digital realm, where he attempts to wrest the sought-after code from her brain. Predictably, Ares and Eve develop puppy dog-like feelings for one another. “Being human is hard,” Eve says to Ares, though much of the dialogue is often barely intelligible under the barrage of sound effects and music by Nine Inch Nails (which, at various points, caused the seats in my theater to rumble, presumably on purpose).

    That I have semi-coherently recounted the plot of this distressingly long two-hour mess is something of a miracle, though I will admit I perked up when the inaugural star of Tron, Jeff Bridges, logged an appearance at the eleventh hour.

    Alas, Bridges’s performance does not suggest a continuation of his actual role as much as a bizarre homage to Marlon Brando’s performance as Jor-El in Superman (as has apparently been noted across the internet, they are wearing virtually the same white costume) and, inevitably, the Dude. “Classic humor, man,” Bridges says to Ares with appreciation after the latter tells a joke of some sort. The real joke is the film’s conclusion, in which Ares, at last liberated, is seen living out of the country and with his hair grown out.

    I was dazed and confused by all the neon in Tron: Ares. However, the lasting damage was not done to my eyes – but to my remaining brain cells.

    This article was originally published in The Spectator’s November 10, 2025 World edition.

  • Has Los Angeles killed America’s imagination?

    Has Los Angeles killed America’s imagination?

    The magnificent Griffith Park Observatory turned 90 this year and, as fans of nonagenarians, my wife and I hiked up the south slope of Mount Hollywood – well, our rental car did the hard work – to pay our respects.

    The city of Los Angeles sprawled out before us; the Hollywood sign loomed ominously above us. I suppose I should hate this city, the Typhoid Mary of cultural imperialism, infecting and deadening imaginations from Bangor to Bend. As Morrissey crooned: “We look to Los Angeles for the language we use/ London is dead.”

    But I dunno: it’s my wife’s hometown, I love her Armenian relatives and I’ve always been a sucker for the movies, at least in their pre-CGI, pre-Marvel, pre-woke, pre-franchise age.

    Griffith Park is something of a sentimental spot for us, as Lucine and I once reenacted the Observatory knife fight scene from Rebel Without a Cause here, sans cutlery, way back where the past was. So the first thing we did on this visit was scoot toward the Kenneth Kendall-sculpted bust of James Dean on the west side of the Observatory lawn.

    Several dozen gamesome schoolchildren were horsing around on the grounds, none paying the slightest attention to the brooding Hoosier overactor’s bronze visage, but it’s hard to score the LA School District for deficiencies in teaching film history: Rebel was released 70 years ago, so teenagers today are as unlikely to know, much less idolize, Dean as I would have been to have drooled over Florence Lawrence at their age.

    Then again, kids these days listen to the Doors and wear Beatles T-shirts, digging the pop music of threescore years earlier, though I rather doubt that many flowerchildren of the 1960s were grooving to “Yes, We Have No Bananas” or the “Swanee” stylings of Al Jolson.

    The James Dean bust – which the actor himself commissioned – is accompanied by an inscription that calls him “an American original who on a basis of high school honors and in a period of five years time rose to the very pinnacle of the theatrical profession and through the magic of motion pictures lives on in legend.”

    Speaking of the very pinnacle, Lucine snapped a shot of me standing in front of the Griffith Park Observatory’s Astronomers Monument, a 35-foot high sculpture featuring likenesses of the stellar sextet of Galileo, Isaac Newton, Copernicus, Kepler, Hipparchus and William Herschel. I titled the photo “Seven Great Astronomers.”

    I share a birthday with Herschel, discoverer of Uranus – and isn’t the seventh planet from the sun the favorite planet of every giggling 12-year-old boy? Uranus has not yet been canceled by planetary puritans – unlike its little brother Pluto, victim of microphobic astronomers. The erstwhile ninth planet’s demotion to the demeaning status of “dwarf planet” (no offense to little people) still pisses me off.

    I once interviewed David Levy, the greatest comet hunter of our age. He knew Pluto’s discoverer, Clyde Tombaugh, whose biography he wrote. Levy told me that the elderly Tombaugh feared that his ejection from the exclusive Planet Discoverers Club was only a matter of time. At least the members of the International Astronomical Union had the minimal decency to wait until Clyde was dead before they committed their foul deed. (Mike Brown’s How I Killed Pluto and Why It Had It Coming is a lively account by the chief murderer.)

    Yet I was glad to see that the Pluto plaque remains firmly in the ground of Griffith Park’s Solar System Lawn Model. It hasn’t been dug up by the planetary precisians yet.

    The eccentric musician Sufjan Stevens, who once claimed – tongue somewhat in cheek – the extraordinarily inspired ambition of devoting an album to each of the 50 states, recorded an instrumental, “For Clyde Tombaugh,” as part of his Illinois effort. Stevens only musicalized two states, the other being his native Michigan, but his was a rare pop-culture recognition that the states are not just administrative units of a national behemoth, as nanny-state progressives and power-mad Trumpsters seem to believe. They are real places with real histories, distinct and individuated and idiosyncratic and tragic and funny.

    In one of his best tunes, the late folksinger Phil Ochs hymned “Jim Dean of Indiana” and I suppose Stevens would have packed Dean into an Indiana album, standing at a cool remove from his fellow subjects Larry Bird and Kurt Vonnegut and Theodore Dreiser and the Jackson 5 and Eugene V. Debs and Booth Tarkington.

    We do not need to look to Los Angeles for the language we use – or to Washington, DC, for that matter.

    This article was originally published in The Spectator’s November 10, 2025 World edition.

  • Taylor Swift’s new album balances glitter with grit

    Taylor Swift’s new album balances glitter with grit

    With The Life of a Showgirl, Taylor Swift set out to do the opposite of her previous record, The Tortured Poets Department. Critics had called that sprawling 31-track project “unrestrained” and “imprecise,” and Swift herself admitted it was a “data dump.” This time, she wanted precision: a lean, 12-track pop record where every beat and lyric fit “like a perfect puzzle.”

    When Swift announced that music industry legends Max Martin and Shellback were producers on her 12th studio album, fans wondered whether this might herald a repeat of her 2014 smash-hit album 1989. The duo helped craft that album’s glittering, synth-pop hits, including “Blank Space,” “Style” and “Wildest Dreams” and guided Swift’s transformation from awkward and endearing country sweetheart to New York It girl. For many fans, the album is her best work. When Swift said that her goal this time was to write songs with “upbeat,” “infectious” melodies, comparisons were inevitable.

    These comparisons did not inspire me with confidence. 1989 is boring and shallow. Swift’s virtue lies not in her pop persona but in her songwriting, a craft she nurtured on her indie-adjacent pandemic albums, folklore and evermore – the records that convinced skeptics that maybe, just maybe, Swift possessed rare musical talent.

    Fortunately, Showgirl is conceptually mature and compelling – a victorious celebration of love, an examination of the contradictions of fame and a feisty settling of scores, although it is not as lyrically polished as folklore and evermore. But perhaps that’s just the curse of pop.

    The opening track, “The Fate of Ophelia,” is a return to form. As on her early hit “Love Story,” where Swift gave Shakespeare’s star-crossed lovers a happy ending, she again draws on classic tragedy – this time comparing herself to Hamlet’s doomed Ophelia and celebrating the fact that she has been saved from meeting the same fate: “If you’d never come for me / I might’ve drowned in the melancholy,” she sings. The song, of course, is about her fiancé, Travis Kelce: “Late one night / You dug me out of my grave and / Saved my heart from the fate of Ophelia.” Swift has always been shameless about how much she loves love.

    On “Wi$h Li$t,” Swift pokes fun at people who “want those three dogs that they call their kids.” She sings, “I just want you / Have a couple kids, got the whole block looking like you.” Kelce has got her “dreaming about a driveway with a basketball hoop.” Swift wrote Showgirl while on the biggest tour of her life, which spanned five continents – and all the while, she was dreaming about a life in the suburbs.

    It’s a curious paradox, one that exists in the album’s exploration of fame. Swift loves and hates celebrity. She wants what really matters, but at the same time, she just can’t bring herself to suppress her ambition. “What could you possibly get for the girl who has everything and nothing all at once? / Babe, I would trade the Cartier for someone to trust (just kidding),” she sings on “Elizabeth Taylor.” The closing track, “The Life of a Showgirl,” ends with a victory lap: all the “bitches / Who wish I’d hurry up and die / But, I’m immortal now, baby dolls / I couldn’t if I tried.”

    The album meditates on balancing a normal human life with a superhuman legacy and persona. Swift asserts her right and desire to have both fame and family, immortality through her art and her future children.

    Despite her maturity, she isn’t above being catty. “I heard you call me ‘Boring Barbie’ when the coke’s got you brave,” she sings on “Actually Romantic,” allegedly about brat -singer Charli XCX: “And I know you think it comes off vicious / But it’s precious, adorable / Like a toy chihuahua barking at me from a tiny purse.” I, for one, love the snark. Is this simply a personal feud, or a battle of celebrity archetypes (and their fans)? Brat vs Boring Barbie? Charli co-opted the word “brat” last summer to mean someone who is confident, free-spirited, rebellious, cool, sexy. Swift isn’t “brat.” She’s too earnest. But that’s her strength.

    The most surprising song is “Ruin the Friendship,” which tells the story of a crush in high school and Swift’s regrets when this friend passed away. “When I left school I lost track of you / Abigail called me with the bad news / Goodbye, and we’ll never know why / … I whispered at the grave / ‘Should have kissed you anyway.’” It’s Swift at her best – merging tragedy with a beat and transforming a specific and personal memory into a lesson on love and -mortality.

    The Life of a Showgirl balances glitter with grit. It’s not a flawless record. “Wood” is awkward, “Eldest Daughter” is opaque and unengaging; darker cuts such as “Father Figure” and “CANCELLED!” will divide listeners. The songwriting doesn’t reach the poetic heights of folklore, evermore or The Tortured Poets Department.

    But such tracks as the cinematic “The Fate of Ophelia” and the joyous “Opalite” alongside “Ruin the Friendship” prove that pop precision and personal storytelling can coexist. It’s an album that has enough to please both fans and casual listeners. And it’s better than 1989.

    This article was originally published in The Spectator’s October 27, 2025 World edition.

  • The Who’s farewell tour marks the end of an era

    The Who’s farewell tour marks the end of an era

    The Who are our last great rock ’n’ roll band. More than 60 years after four working-class boys from west London formed a humble R&B combo, the two surviving members look to be hanging up their spurs for good. The Who have named their latest string of engagements – a farewell tour which concluded early this month – “The Song Is Over.” When I caught them in Long Island, rumors of geriatric struggles were soundly put to rest: Pete Townshend, 80, and Roger Daltrey, 81, were in cracking good form. Most concertgoers that night were male, working-class and in their late fifties or early sixties. This was not the generation that first greeted the Who on these shores: these were the younger brothers who were too young to thumb a ride to Woodstock in 1969, or who got into the band during their arena-rock glory days in the 1970s or via MTV in the 1980s.

    It’s like watching a tribe of warriors armed with spears obliter­ated by a single battalion with a Gatling gun

    The Who have, in essence, always been for the boys. While the Rolling Stones carefully concocted a formula for maximizing female attention, the Who were more concerned with having fun. Sure, Daltrey’s look – shirtless, blond, messianic – was of no slight heterosexual appeal. And yet unlike Mick Jagger gyrating about in his lipstick and women’s clothes, Daltrey was always stiff-backed and unambiguously masculine. The Who’s ethos was less about getting laid and more about smashing things and dropping cherry bombs into plumbing fixtures. Magic buses. Post-apocalyptic survival fantasies. A bloke called Happy Jack who lives in the sand on the Isle of Man. A spider named Boris. It’s the stuff of sci-fi mags and comic strips and Saturday–morning cartoons. They even recorded the Batman theme on their first EP.

    Adolescent angst and joy permeate every inch of the band’s catalog. “Pictures of Lily” (1967) concerns a boy’s infatuation with a vintage pin-up girl. Their epic live covers of Eddie Cochran’s “Summertime Blues,” about drudging away at a summer job, and Mose Allison’s “Young Man Blues,” are teenage cris de coeur.

    Or take “Tattoo” (1967), about a boy and his brother who, eager to assert their masculinity, logically deduce that manly tattoos are the way to go. But then things go wrong:

    My dad beat me because mine said “Mother”

    But my mother naturally liked it and beat my brother

    ’Cause his tattoo was of a lady in the nude

    And my mother thought that was extremely rude.

    Welcome to my life, tattoo

    I’m a man now, thanks to you

    I expect I’ll regret you

    But the skin-graft man won’t get you

    You’ll be there when I die.

    Who but Pete Townshend could have pulled off something as poignant and naive and funny as this? Sonically speaking, the Who exploded the parameters of rock music in every direction. It’s often said that they were four lead musicians in one band: lead drums, lead bass, lead vocals and lead guitar. It’s true: listen to a Who track four times, keying into a player each time, and you’ll discover something new every go, whether it’s John Entwistle’s thunderous yet melodic bass, Keith Moon’s stochastic drums chasing Daltrey’s muscular tenor like a pack of beagles, or Townshend’s electric guitar crackling like heat lightning above it all. The result is a soundstage stacked as high as a skyscraper: “I Can See for Miles” (1967) sounds like it was recorded in the Chrysler Building’s stairwell.

    When most of their contemporaries were busy embarking on flights of postmodern psychedelic fancy, the Who never lost sight of what first made them great, and what made rock ’n’ roll great: music by teen-agers, for teenagers. In fact, they doubled down again and again, from the pinball-savant hero of Tommy (1969), the world’s first rock opera, to the mod nostalgia of Quadrophenia (1973). That youthful spirit kept them from taking themselves too seriously and gave their live act an unmatched energy and light-footedness. If you have any doubt, watch the Who perform “A Quick One,” their mini rock opera, as guests on The Rolling Stones Rock and Roll Circus television special in 1968. Performed in the presence of members of the Stones and Beatles, who were both at something of a spiritual nadir at that moment, the performance gives the effect of watching a tribe of warriors armed with spears obliterated by a single battalion with a Gatling gun: absolute carnage delivered with maximum efficiency, as the Who massacre the competition with their melodicism and sheer delight in their work.

    With the Who calling it quits, it’s just the Rolling Stones left. No doubt, the Stones are the last great rock band of the 1960s. But for much longer than you’d think – maybe as far back as that performance in 1968 – the Who have been our last great rock ’n’ roll band. An era has come to an end.

    This article was originally published in The Spectator’s October 27, 2025 World edition.

  • A Neil Young concert in the waning days of summer

    A Neil Young concert in the waning days of summer

    By the time we got to Woodstock… actually, we never got to Woodstock. Bethel, the town in which the fabled festival of mud and myth took place, is about 50 miles as the crow flies from the famous musical happening’s eponym, and it was at the Bethel Woods Center for the Arts that we saw and heard Neil Young in the waning days of summer, when melancholy always spices the air.

    It boggles the mind that half a million kids – the youngest of whom are now hoary-headed septuagenarians – flooded Sullivan County on a rain-soaked weekend in August 1969, but it is almost as remarkable that despite the drugs and unhygienic conditions, only three concertgoers died. (Meanwhile, more than 500 US soldiers and an untold number of Vietnamese were killed in action that month on the other side of the world.)

    Ole Neil has become something of a scold ever since he dumped Pegi, his late wife, trading in the earthy waitress for the spacey actress Daryl Hannah, but anyone who creates “Powderfinger,” “Pocahontas” and “Like a Hurricane” has earned a lifetime of free passes.

    We’d seen Young last summer in Toronto, where he bashed it out with his longtime backing band Crazy Horse, but this summer he was accompanied by the Chrome Hearts. Alas, he hadn’t changed his opening act, Reverend Billy and the Stop Shopping Choir, whose anti-consumerist hectoring is so heavy-handed that a ten–minute exposure thereto would send Greta Thunberg running to Prada, Oscar de la Renta or maybe just to the nearest Victoria’s Secret to splurge on a sealskin halter top.

    Reverend Billy is a mock preacher, a sort of Jimmy Swaggart without the sense of mischief, and though I agree with much of his critique I’d rather throw an empty beer can from a gas guzzler than join in his chant of “Earthalujah.”

    The stop-shopping shtick is especially rich given the $50 Neil Young T‑shirts and $16 beers on sale. What ideologues lack in self-awareness and humor, they sure make up for in fervor. This sour note’s for you, Neil. (To be fair, Young insists on the presence of local concessionaires and vendors at his concerts. He is not indifferent to place.)

    Neil Young’s politics, as explicated in Jimmy McDonough’s superb biography Shakey, are far from the caricature you might imagine. I’m not just referring to his pro-Reagan noises in the 1980s and his consistent support of America’s small farmers. His loyal manager, the late Elliot Roberts, gave this marvelous description of his client’s orientation: “Neil is more American than anyone, even though he’s Canadian… Neil’s an isolationist. I mean, if it were up to him, we’d have no foreign aid, we’d talk to no one, we’d really deal with no one else – ‘If they can’t cut it, fuck ’em.’ Neil is extreme…. One minute he’s a leftist Democrat, and the next minute he’s a conservative.”

    C’mon: the guy’s father was a Canadian hockey writer. Do you really think he posts “In This House We Believe…” signs on his ranch? Admittedly, Young has a serious case of Trump Derangement Syndrome – those who thought Trump might offer something other than the usual rancid diet of perpetual war and centralized control are no longer quite so dismissive of that condition – and this year’s show had a political tinge.

    Highlights included two songs (“Be the Rain” and “Sun Green”) off his excellent album Greendale, a family-values Earth First! saga, and a blistering “Ohio,” his 1970 response to the killings at Kent State. I still puzzle over the line “Soldiers are cutting us down / Shoulda been done long ago.” What the hell does that mean? Ah, well, I do like an ambiguous lyric.

    Neil’s stage patter is mostly limited to periodic ejaculations of “How ya’ doin’ out there?” He did exhort the crowd to “take America back!” and who doesn’t agree with that? But when Young launched into “Southern Man,” his safely anachronistic denunciation of slavery, lynching and the Ku Klux Klan, I got up to take a piss. It would have taken balls for Stephen Foster to sing this song to an audience in Charleston, South Carolina, in 1858, or for Faron Young to warble it in Philadelphia, Mississippi, in 1957, but Neil Young on the Woodstock festival grounds in 2025? Gimme a break, Old Man.

    A brilliant meteor – a fireball, perhaps – blazed through the Summer Triangle early in the show, eliciting oohs and aahs and apolitical cheers. The heavens understand that we must accept people as they are, even when they exasperate.

    Neil Young calls this his “Love Earth” tour, and for all the petty annoyances and out-of-the-blue gut punches in our lives, this really is a wonderful world, isn’t it?

    This article was originally published in The Spectator’s October 27, 2025 World edition.

  • Taylor Swift is increasingly horny and increasingly mean

    Taylor Swift is increasingly horny and increasingly mean

    Time was, posting anything negative about Taylor Swift would be personally dangerous, given the famous passion, obsessiveness and sheer numbers of the Swiftie fandom. In recent years, the great and the good have also piled into Swiftiedom. Her 2024 Eras tour was a must-attend photo opp for royals, senators and prime ministers’ wives. (When British Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s wife accepted two concert tickets for free, it was a national political scandal.)

    The V&A in London hired a curator for Taylor Swift ephemera. Academics have lauded her: Harvard poetry professor Stephanie Burt taught a class on Swift last year and has a forthcoming book out called The Poetic and Musical Genius of Taylor Swift.

    But with the release of her 12th studio album, The Life of a Showgirl, the once-impermeable barricades defending Taytay’s honor and brilliance have developed cracks. Indeed, there is a growing consensus among fans that the album kinda maybe sucks. This is huge.

    “The life of a showgirl is as if Dubai, matcha, pistachio chocolate, Colleen Hoover books and labubus all had a baby with AI,” wrote one Swiftie on X (139,000 likes). Another put it just as succinctly: “I said Taylor Swift’s new album sucks and I didn’t even get a single death threat from a Swiftie. That’s how bad it is.”

    There are two main problems with this album, apart from its uninspired sound. One is the way Swift now comes across as a person: bored, self-pitying and mean, rehashing old gripes about friends and powerful music-industry executives, and taking merciless potshots at what is thought to be sub-rival singer Charli XCX in “Actually Romantic.” The song opens, “I heard you call me ‘Boring Barbie’ when the coke’s got you brave,” and only gets worse from there.

    Then there is the gross, non-lyrical way she sings about her fiancé Travis Kelce and his anatomy. She refers, to the horror of critics and fans, to his “redwood,” making sexual puns about Kelce’s podcast, and topping it all off with what might be the worst line not just in Swift’s canon but the whole pop canon: “His love was the key that opened my thighs.”

    While some critics still appeared to feel an obligation to swoon, others let rip. “She doesn’t sound like she’s having fun,” snarked the Atlantic. “She has the team captain, the cushion-cut diamond, the fans who will shell out for yet another branded cardigan – but Taylor Swift’s The Life of a Showgirl, and the life it seems to portray, is a charmless chore.” The Cut, a usually pro-Swift section of New York Magazine, noted: “Even now, during the most commercially successful period of her life, when she is the most universally liked she’s ever been and seemingly in the happiest, most healthy relationship of her life, she still thinks she’s the victim. It’s evident in so many of these songs, and that story line is t-i-r-e-d.”

    The New Yorker noted the album’s “weak lyricism” and that, rather than being about happiness and love, it is about “resentment – of basically everyone besides Kelce – [that] is present throughout the songs. She’s got enemies in Hollywood, in the music industry, and all over the internet.”

    For those of us who have never understood the appeal of Taylor Swift, despite listening on repeat to the most lauded songs, this is all very satisfying. It’s not just that she has done a bad album. It’s not that she has indulged in experimentation gone wrong, as sometimes happens with Madonna. Rather, what we have here is the slippage of a mask of fine-tuned girlish authenticity, revealing an algorithmically boastful, horny, aggrieved, spoiled woman.

    The question of whether Swift has a real, human heart seems a fair one. After all, Swift’s soul is surely reflected in her fans, many of whom seem to see the world in the hostile, memetic cadences that her Very Online generation have made their own. Their traditionally brutal – and feared – approach to those who so much as criticize the work of their queen speaks volumes about their sensibilities and worldview, as well as the weirdly humorless, totalizing nature of candy-floss feminist fandom today.

    One song of Swift’s that I have listened to a few times (and quite like) sticks with me: “Bad Blood”, from her 2014 album 1989. Musically it soars, but I find the way it uses the language of clan warfare for a fallout with a mate quite unsettling. “Now we got bad blood,” she roars menacingly. “Now we got problems / And I don’t think we can solve ’em… I was thinking that you could be trusted / Did you have to ruin / What was shiny?”

    Swift has got millions of young women of all shapes and sizes stepping into sequins. She’s got them behind a dazzlingly standard fairytale ending with a huge football-playing hunk. But what it seems she can’t get them behind this time is derivative, unpleasant music – and the emerging implication that their beloved may not be so worthy of their love any more.

  • The closest look yet at David Bowie’s mind and imagination

    The closest look yet at David Bowie’s mind and imagination

    What would David Bowie say? The much-missed musician – dead a decade next January – is the beneficiary of a new, bespoke space inside the Victoria & Albert Museum’s East Storehouse outpost. Although Bowie is by no means Britain’s most commercially successful rock star, he is surely its most interesting – and certainly the most chameleonic, making his legacy ripe for serious re-evaluation. Now, thanks to the David Bowie Centre, the curious public can get its closest look yet into the artist’s mind and imagination. And as a bonus, it’s free, too.

    The space is composed of one room with nine rotating displays showing about 200 items. There are, however, another 89,800 items available in the various archives (all of which are on display in gray folders on shelves, in a splendidly Nineteen Eighty-Four-esque touch that no doubt would have amused Bowie), which can be requested by the curious.

    Since Bowie died in 2016 he has only strengthened in repute and popular standing

    What can be readily seen in this inaugural display is fascinating. There are a few crowd-pleasing objects that any Bowie aficionado will readily recognize: his Alexander McQueen-designed tattered Union Jack frock coat, which he wore for his 50th birthday celebrations, for instance, and the original lyrics for “Heroes.” But this gallery also provides a deep dive into Bowie obscurity, which is likely to make prospective scholars and biographers feel a mixture of excitement and panic at the sheer onslaught of the material available.

    There’s a letter from Apple Records curtly turning Bowie down in 1968 – “We don’t feel he is what we’re looking for at the moment” – and another from his father, Haywood, rather sweetly providing a reference for his son, saying that the 19-year-old David has “a good name in showbusiness as a performer, as a person and as a real trooper.”

    There’s an emotional fan letter from Lady Gaga – “I feel as though my entire career has been an artistic plea for you to notice me” – and some random notes of Bowie’s, in which, inter alia, he assesses his place in the British music firmament, claiming that he feels closer to Marshall McLuhan, who coined the phrase “the medium is the message,” than he does to Robbie Williams.

    In another note, he remarks that the reason Oasis never broke America was that “swearing, fighting and doing drugs are de rigueur” already there. All the while, a giant screen plays suitably fragmented snatches of Bowie videos and live performances on a two-hour loop. Designed by the London and Paris-based architectural company IDK, the center is bold and adventurous and of a piece with Bowie’s aesthetic daring.

    You see a restless, questioning intelligence that never faltered until Bowie’s extraordinary exit stage left

    Since Bowie died in 2016 he has only strengthened in repute and popular standing, continuing to inspire filmmakers, musicians and artists from beyond the grave. A particularly nice touch in the archive is that Bowie kept a vast number of fan-made objects and trinkets that were sent to him. For a man who often seemed remote, even disengaged from the world, especially after the 2004 heart attack that led him to quit public performance, it is an affecting reminder that he genuinely cared about being liked. While there are no missteps – because there couldn’t be – I would question the emphasis in a very brief exhibition of an entire display devoted to “Jungle and Drum & Bass,” which ended up inspiring Bowie’s weakest album of the 1990s, Earthling. Here, there seems a curatorial reach to marry Bowie with the diverse East End setting of the center, and it might end up being a reach too far. More attention is paid to the forgotten late 1990s gangster film Everybody Loves Sunshine than, say, The Prestige or The Last Temptation of Christ.

    The real coup here is the “Unrealized Projects” section. The revelation that just before he died, Bowie was planning an 18th-century musical named – naturally! – The Spectator is fascinating, as is his desire to preview the Outside album with a lavish theatrical show in Mumbai. You see a restless, questioning intelligence that never faltered until his extraordinary exit stage left.

    This is not merely a major coup for the V&A – just imagine how many American institutions would have killed to get their hands on the Bowie archive! – but probably the most thrilling venture into the psyche of a great artistic figure in recent memory. Bowie may have sung of “a god-awful small affair” but this mighty, wholly rewarding venture is anything but. And I suspect that the erstwhile Thin White Duke would have loved it, too.

    This article was originally published in The Spectator’s October 13, 2025 World edition.

  • The lost glamor of New York nightlife

    Mark Ronson has one of the finest heads of hair in all showbusiness. The music producer’s coiffure is a dark, whipped and quiffed thing that makes it look as though he naturally belongs on a Vespa in Capri, being ogled by the belle ragazze as he scoots on by. As a cultural object, it certainly surpasses the Oscar he won for the songs in that Lady Gaga remake of A Star is Born; it probably equals his Barbie soundtrack; and maybe even approaches the hits he made with and for Amy Winehouse.

    But it wasn’t always like that. Back in the 1990s, Ronson’s hair was a standard-issue crop, while he was a gawky young club DJ looking to make it in New York. It’s this scene that he writes about in his memoir Night People, not the fame and accolades that would follow. He calls it “the Mark Ronson book nobody asked for” in the acknowledgements at the back, adding: “What, no Amy?!”

    Honestly, I turned to those acknowledgements after just a few sentences. My suspicions had been aroused, you see. The book’s first paragraph was an evocative description of a house party at 2 a.m., where “the diehards are smoking cigarettes like it’s still 1999, ashing into a cereal bowl that’s been sacrificed for the occasion” – and I wanted to check whether Ronson had used a ghostwriter, as celebrities so often do. Sometimes you can divine the truth from the nods and thanks in the back matter.

    But, no, I don’t think he did; at least not beyond a bit of polishing, perhaps. Night People appears to be Ronson’s text – and it’s really good. Nobody asked for it, but plenty of people should buy it, whether they’re interested in DJing or not.

    If that sounds patronising, it’s not meant to – it’s actually just raw envy on my part. Judging from this book, Ronson had a blast in the 1990s. From hanging out with his childhood friend Sean, John Lennon’s son, to rooting around record shops for obscure hip-hop, disco and funk releases. From hustling as a “gigging bar DJ” to presiding over dance-floors occupied by “Mike Tyson, Wesley Snipes and Leonardo DiCaprio, a young rap fanatic.” Booze. Coke. Models. Parties. Night People is no cautionary tale; it’s a celebration. It reads like a Bret Easton Ellis book in which almost everyone is nice and balanced.

    Not that Ronson is blind to the preposterousness of much of his old life, nor to its rougher edges. He just doesn’t make a big deal of it. Potentially tricky subjects such as class and race are dealt with – “Jewish DJs played for black promoters, DJs played for Jewish promoters, and we all hung tough” – and then moved on from; not, you feel, out of evasiveness, but because Ronson and his book are more interested in the cultural scene than in causing a scene. It’s the music that motivates him.

    There are times, however, when this approach does leave you wanting more. After all, Ronson wasn’t the only person chrysalizing in New York at the time. Night People contains a couple of tantalizing references to Donald Trump and, separately, his daughter Ivanka (“an underage blonde with exceptionally well-ironed hair”) showing up at parties – but neglects to go into details.

    Elsewhere, Ronson recalls performing at events hosted by the since-disgraced Puff Daddy where he’d see “people like Muhammad Ali, Martha Stewart, Denzel and the Duchess of York (ex-wife of the now-disgraced Prince Andrew) all mingling.” He adds nothing else about her, but perhaps this reflects the DJ’s lot: always overlooking the crowd, never actually joining it.

    Otherwise, the only problem with Night People is that you may end up believing – tragically – that its swagger and cool has somehow rubbed off on you. I realized too late, while nerdily constructing an online playlist of every song mentioned in the book, that I was only proving the point of its final chapter. That whole scene no longer exists.

    It used to take years of accumulated expertise and hours of crate-digging to discover tracks such as Weldon Irvine’s “We Gettin’ Down” or Tom Scott’s “The Honeysuckle Breeze,” whereas now any old tourist can dial them up within seconds on their phone. Even in the best cases – and the nightlife in 1990s New York really does sound like one of the best cases – subcultures can only ever hope to explode into the wider culture before burning out. 

    Which is why it’s astounding that Ronson himself shows no signs of burnout, despite what he put his brain and body through all those years ago. Amy Winehouse’s best songs, the Barbie soundtrack, an Oscar, Grammies, a great wardrobe, exquisite hair… and now, we discover, he’s a fine writer and cultural tour guide too? As some kid once said of Charlie Brown, how I hate him.

  • Nick Drake’s explosive creativity

    Nick Drake’s explosive creativity

    Nick Drake’s debut album Five Leaves Left (1969) had so much going for it. Supported by tasteful string arrangements and a cast of noteworthy musicians, Drake (1948-74) sang with a delicate croon that sounded like Chet Baker if he’d gone to Eton, and he played some of the finest acoustic guitar this side of Segovia. Joe Boyd, the impresario who’d launched Pink Floyd and Fairport Convention, produced the album, and it bore the imprimatur of Island Records, London’s hippest label.

    On the cover, Drake cut a shy but handsome figure, nonchalantly clad in blue jeans and blazer, gazing wistfully out the second-story window of an abandoned house in Wimbledon. Bordered in billiard-table green and with Drake’s name written in fancy cursive with the album’s title in London Underground-style sans serif, the cover evoked something patrician but bohemian-cool, well-traveled yet distinctly English, like a letter from a posh friend who’d followed the hippie trail to Afghanistan. The album hit record stores in July 1969, and Drake appeared headed for success. Instead, Five Leaves Left went straight to the remainder bin.

    Drake cut a shy but handsome figure, nonchalantly clad in blue jeans and blazer

    Two more fine albums followed, but success did not, and Drake died in 1974 from an antidepressants overdose, an obscure footnote to the British folk scene. For the next 25 years, a circle of family and friends kept the faith. Of all things, it was a 1999 Volkswagen commercial’s inclusion of his song “Pink Moon” that finally vaulted his music to the fame it deserved. His records have now sold in the millions.

    Hagiographies of Drake long tended to fixate on his misery. This has not been entirely fair to the man. After Richard Morton Jack’s definitive authorized biography in 2023, our understanding began to change. Now, a landmark box set, The Making of Five Leaves Left, the first comprehensive repackaging of any of Drake’s albums, does justice to the musician, bringing his life and methods into focus and documenting his explosive creativity.

    In Morton Jack and Neil Storey’s detailed liner notes, a new figure emerges: energetic, keen, hopeful. Five Leaves Left was a collegiate endeavor, dreamed up in Cambridge University bedrooms while Drake hopped to London and back between classes. As a 19-year-old freshman, he summoned the courage to play at London’s Roundhouse in December 1967, where he caught the eye of Fairport Convention’s bassist, who called in Joe Boyd.

    Boyd, to his immense credit, saw no reason to rush Drake’s music. Disc one begins with their first studio session in March 1968. We hear the vaudevillian outtake “Mayfair,” and then guitar-and-voice run-throughs of various songs. Drake’s talent is close to fully formed, but it calls out for accompaniment. The box set homes in on the drastic evolution of the elegiac “Day is Done” to demonstrate the yearlong sweep of the sessions. We first hear an April 1968 attempt, for which Boyd brought in Richard Hewson, a professional arranger soon to work with the Beatles. The magic is absent: the tempo plods, and Hewson’s “Eleanor Rigby”-esque charts are too busy.

    Drake and Boyd then went back to the drawing board for a November 1968 session sans orchestra. This was Drake’s first meeting with a crucial collaborator, the double-bassist Danny Thompson. Thompson immediately tuned in to Drake’s wavelength, flowing in and out of his vocal lines and adding a jazzy flavor to the music. The final piece of the puzzle arrived when Drake suggested they invite his 20-year-old schoolmate Robert Kirby as an arranger. Drake and Kirby had spent months in their Cambridge rooms with guitar, pen and paper, sketching out orchestrations for Drake’s songs, and had assayed them live at university events. Disc two of the set draws from a newly discovered tape from Cambridge, giving us unprecedented insight into their working process. On an April 1969 session we hear the payoff: Kirby’s simple string quartet blends perfectly with Drake’s soft vocals, branching off into countermelodies that spring organically from Drake’s polyphonic guitar style.

    Though the newcomer would be better served buying the standalone LP, Drake fanatics will find The Making of Five Leaves Left revelatory. It’s a pleasure to revisit the finished album in remastered sound quality on disc four, reading along with the booklet, which reproduces the surviving manuscripts of Drake’s lyrics.

    Take the haunting “Three Hours,” which, we read, Drake first played to his friends among the rows of war dead in Cambridge’s American Cemetery:

    Three hours from sundown
    Jeremy flies
    Hoping to keep
    The sun from his eyes
    East from the city
    And down to the cave
    In search of a master
    In search of a slave
    Three hours from London
    Giacomo’s free
    Taking his woes
    Down to the sea…

    Drake, like T.S. Eliot, places his vaguely urbane characters in a landscape where the cosmological clashes with the quotidian. Formal and austere, his lyrics rise above the 1960s’ subpar songwriting, bogged down as it was in loopy psychedelic symbolism, Bob Dylan imitations, and political sloganism. Only “Fruit Tree” has something explicit to say:

    Fame is but a fruit tree
    So very unsound
    It can never flourish
    ’Til its stock is in the ground
    So men of fame
    Can never find a way
    ’Til time has flown
    Far from their dying day.

    He was, perhaps, prepared from the very beginning for what might happen.

    Drake’s story, like the stories of all artists unjustly neglected in their time, touches some chord within us. Perhaps it’s because we like to reassure ourselves of our good taste, that we would have known better than the benighted masses. Or perhaps it’s something deeper: we know that to be remembered is the closest thing to immortality this side of paradise. “Fame,” etymologically speaking, just means to be talked about.

    To listen to Drake is to answer the old riddle about the tree falling in the woods with no one around: it does make a sound, even if it takes half a century for people to hear it.

    This article was originally published in The Spectator’s September 29, 2025 World edition.