I think these performers mainly want to break out of their adolescent demographic because they want to be taken “seriously” as artists. Kids, as we all know, tend to showboat from object to object based only on what’s popular at any given time. Adults, seeing this trend and feeling that their adolescent times are behind them, think of these artists as below their current pay-grade because they’re older and too “mature” for such trivial things. This automatically casts a shadow over these artists and other entertainment ventures that are seemingly geared towards children or teenagers. For some reason, entertainment that has a target audience that isn’t middle-aged is viewed as shallow.

Take video games, for instance: it still amazes me when you hear about a parent getting offended at the content of the newest title on the market and screaming for censorship. These people seem to take no mind of the huge MATURE rating on the box, instead using their own “logic” that video games are for kids and thus shallow and lacking objectionable content. Take “Grand Theft Auto V” as an example: I don’t have to watch the news to know that somewhere, SOME parent is mad at the developers because they were too ignorant to research the game before buying it for their 10-year-old son. While the content restrictions don’t apply in quite the same way for music, I feel that your average parent or adult is equally quick to dismiss Taylor Swift, Miley Cyrus and the rest simply because of the average age of their fans, which causes a bit of backlash from the performer in the form of fabricated controversy.

They want to show that they’re “mature” enough for an older audience, but the majority of these individuals confuse maturity with obscenity or a lack of taste, such as Cyrus. That’s my 2 cents, anyway. Interesting article. I totally agree with your premise, but I’m not sure if it holds up when you actually look at the music of these artists. What did we hear about Taylor Swift all throughout the adolescent phase of her career? That she should be praised for writing her own songs, that her songwriting had surprising depth if you actually took the time and listened, and that she was so appealing because moms and daughters could listen to her songs together.

Now you can make the case that Taylor Swift is putting out the most shallow singles of her career with songs like “We Are Never Ever,” “22” etc. That are total bubblegum anthems. If she was releasing Carly Simon-type caliber material, I would agree, and in fairness to Taylor, she has those songs, it’s just not what is being featured. If you want to court a more mature audience and be respected for your artistic integrity, your lead single is not “We Are Never Ever Getting Back Together.” Likeever. I agree, but I never said that her music was shallow, then or now (regardless of whether it might be or not). I’ve always felt that she was a strong songwriter, I was referring to the general perception that is formed about artists such as Taylor that have younger demographics.

Best Auto Tune Software Free. This Pin was discovered by Zoe Becker. Discover (and save!) your own Pins on Pinterest.

The actual facts of the case have less to do with perception, a la my video games example. As an opposite example, you could refer to the fact that many teenagers and young adults don’t care for music, movies, etc. That were created before their time, simply because the demographic is “old people”. Crap, I even remember the time when I was a kid listening to some classic rock and my sister told me that I “shouldn’t be listening to that music because it’s for adults and not cool”. Does that mean the music was/wasn’t shallow? No, that’s just the facts, Jack. Back on Taylor Swift, even though her material is family-friendly and frequently of substance, that doesn’t necessarily alter her perceived target audience.