The “Great Replacement Theory” has surfaced as a contentious and widely debated socio-political concept in the last decade. At its core, it posits that there is a deliberate and systematic effort to replace white hetero Christian men with immigrants, Jews, people of color, women, and LGBTQ, often leading to heightened cultural anxieties. But what if I told you that similar sentiments can be observed in popular music? Specifically, predominantly aging white men are defending the music of their generation in an imaginary culture war, as if there is a nefarious plot to replace it with modern alternatives.
The Classic Rock Nostalgia Stronghold
For many, the music of the 60s and 70s is a cultural touchstone defining their identity. Iconic bands like The Beatles, The Rolling Stones, Led Zeppelin, and artists like Bob Dylan have become symbols of a golden era, an era viewed through rose-tinted lenses. The nostalgia associated with this music is powerful and often manifests as a staunch defense against any perceived threats to its primacy.
Taylor Swift: The Perceived Threat
Enter the modern music landscape, a diverse and ever-evolving tapestry of genres, sub-genres, and global influences. Many factors, including technology, social media, laws, and globalization, shape today’s music. For some, this new musical reality feels like an encroachment on their cherished cultural heritage. The rise of hip-hop, electronic music, pop, and other contemporary genres – especially those led by record-setting women and people of color – can sometimes be seen as an assault on the sanctity of rock ‘n’ roll. And the artists creating it are, to them, usurpers.
No artist is provoking the ire of classic rock purists quite like Taylor Swift. As she steadily ascends in cultural significance and chart success, surpassing many of the “the greats,” these traditionalists are fiercely defending their idols, often resorting to illogical arguments.
The latest volley was triggered by a piece in the NY Times comparing the Beatles with Swift (just as many magazines and newspapers have compared the Beatles to Elvis Presley since the 1960s.) The article didn’t conclude that one was more successful than the other, but apparently, any comparison to the Fab Four is sacrilegious if online discussions are any indication. So, the respected YouTuber and accomplished musician/producer Rick Beato picked up his proverbial shotgun to defend the honor of John, George, Paul, and Ringo.
Now, Rick isn’t just a music fan. He’s a seasoned industry professional who’s been around for years. And he should know better.
The New York Times is Correct
I’ll say upfront that the NY Times is correct when it states, “It may be impossible to do an exact, one-to-one comparison between Swift’s career and that of the Beatles… Besides music being personal and subjective, the nature of success (and how it is calculated) has changed drastically over time. “
So, there you go. The Times says it’s impossible to compare them outright, but they do in the same way people debate how various boxing legends or quarterbacks from different eras would fare against each other. “… the absence of a truly scientific comparison has never stopped the amusement that comes from the eternal sports and pop culture debates of our time.”
With Swift’s career continuing to peak well into its second decade (exceeding the average career span of performers), the Times analyzed data and reviewed her achievements thus far, comparing them with top performers in what Casey Kasem used to call ‘the rock era.’ And, in what might surprise many who are only referencing Beato’s video rebuttal, the article states the Beatles are the gold standard for #1 singles and “that almost all of the Beatles’ success — and their entire artistic output — happened very quickly.”
Do any Beatles fans have issues with those statements?
By comparison, Swift’s career has been a “much slower burn,” allowing her to evolve her sound. And that’s it. The Beatles were fabulously successful. And Taylor Swift has been, as well.
But I’ve got to get into Beato’s regurgitated knock on today’s pop music because it not only sounds like the rantings of an old guy yelling for kids to get off his lawn or someone lamenting the horse and buggy being replaced by automobiles, but it’s also misleading in most cases and utterly wrong in others.
The Beatles and Taylor Swift: #1 Singles
Beato’s first point of contention is the Times’ summary of Swift’s and the Beatles’ #1 singles. In his rebuttal, Beato emphasizes how many #1 hits each artist(s) had in their career and the length of time it took each to earn them. Beato and The NY Times agree—the Beatles scored their 20 number 1s between 1964 and 1970. Impressive! He then states it took Taylor Swift 12 years to get only 12 #1s. Huh?
You’re correct if you think Swift has had more than 12 #1 hits. She boasts 21 chart-toppers, one more than the Beatles: 12 on the Billboard Hot 100 and 9 on Billboard’s Top Country Songs. But Beato wants to dismiss her early Country music success. Why?
Since the inception of music charts, achieving success across multiple charts has been regarded as a hallmark of strength and influence. For instance, Elvis Presley had 18 #1 singles on Billboard’s pop chart but had others on Billboard’s Country chart. Michael Jackson placed 13 #1 songs on Billboard’s Hot 100 but garnered three additional ones on the Billboard R&B chart. Jackson’s songs hit #1 29 times across American music charts. Prince scored 13 #1 songs across two music charts, with music hitting the coveted top spot 21 times on US music charts. Recently, Beyoncé scored a #1 single and album on the Country chart.
Advertisement
Could it be that dismissing Swift’s country success is the only way the Beatles retain their #1 hits crown?
Beato dismissively says, “Anyone can have a #1 country song… they’re obviously not that hard to get,” discrediting not only Taylor Swift, Beyonce, and Elvis but also a wide swath of country greats like Dolly Parton.
Nevertheless, he tries to prove his point by stating HE had a #1 country single. And he did as a writer. So if we’re also going to include writers in our list of ‘most #1’s,’ Max Martin is second to only Paul McCartney in #1 songs, and that record will surely fall given the performers who utilize his songwriting prowess.
For the record, here are the current #1 song leaders by performers, focusing solely on Billboard’s Hot 100 charts. I’ll do Beato a favor: This list does not account for appearances on other charts, such as the R&B/Soul or Country charts, and includes only the performers, not the writers or producers. It’s worth noting that the Beatles #1s only appeared on Billboard’s Hot 100, while the other top six artists crossed over to multiple charts. Additionally, three of these artists can, and likely will, surpass the Beatles’ record of 20 #1 hits on Billboard’s Hot 100.
The Beatles – 20
Mariah Carey – 19
Elvis – 18
Madonna – 13 (although Billboard Magazine credits her with 50 #1 songs!)
Michael Jackson – 13
Taylor Swift – 12
The news isn’t as good for the Beatles when ALL #1s are counted. Let’s take this a little further. Neither Beato nor the New York Times discuss hit albums. From 1964 to 1970 (their “active” period), the Beatles charted 14 #1 albums. Taylor Swift also has 14 #1 albums and likely isn’t finished.
Why do Songs Today Have So Many Writers? It Must Mean They’re Not as Talented, Right?
Beato’s next argument revolves around writing credits. He points out that the band members themselves penned all of the Beatles’ hits, whereas Taylor Swift’s songs sometimes feature multiple credited writers. This is a common practice today, and Beato is undoubtedly aware of the reasons behind it. Chris Dalla Riva, a musician and technologist, explains this in detail, but here are the key points: the proliferation of writing credits in modern songs is influenced by samples/interpolations, financial considerations, technological advancements, avoiding lawsuits, and the evolving definition of songwriting.
“If The Beatles were writing music today, some of their songs would be credited to more than John Lennon and Paul McCartney,” Chris writes.
Let’s examine some Beatles songs that deserve additional writing credits beyond Lennon and McCartney. Dalla Riva highlights “I Feel Fine,” a 1965 #1 hit. Today, George Martin would be acknowledged for his contributions to the song. Likewise, Ringo Starr would likely receive credit for his essential rhythm work. This adjustment would increase the number of credited songwriters from two to four. And that’s not the only impact.
The guitar riff in “I Feel Fine” draws inspiration from Bobby Parker‘s earlier track “Watch Your Step.” Dalla Riva reveals that Parker told journalist Rob Finnis that “Watch Your Step” was influenced by Dizzy Gillespie‘s classic jazz piece “Manteca,” credited to Gillespie, Chano Pozo, and Gil Fuller. This connection extends the songwriting credits from Lennon-McCartney to Lennon-McCartney-Starr-Martin-Parker-Gillespie-Pozo-Fuller. While this may seem convoluted, it exemplifies a common phenomenon in music today, where a single song can involve numerous contributing writers.
Many feel the Beatles’ song “Back in the USSR” should have a Chuck Berry writer’s credit because of its similarities to his song “Back in the U.S.A.” Given that Berry’s song borrowed from older songs using a standard blues riff, specifically tracks by Blues legend T-Bone Walker, today, the Beatles would likely have Walker-Berry-Lennon-McCartney as songwriters on that particular piece.
The distinctive repeated opening chord in the Beatles’ “Revolution” is inspired by Pee Wee Crayton‘s “Do Unto Others.” “Lady Madonna” is remarkably similar to the 1955 British top 20 song ‘Bad Penny Blues” by Humphrey Lyttelton (ironically, Beato says in his video nothing Swift had done compares to this amazing song by Paul McCartney… hint hint… nudge nudge.)
John Lennon admitted to stealing a line from an old Elvis song in ‘Run For Your Life” because he felt pressured to finish a batch of songs for the Rubber Soul album. Although The Beatles never acknowledged any of this, recent court rulings on uncredited song usage suggest they might have faced significant legal challenges had disputes arisen. This underscores the importance of recognizing original artists’ contributions and reinforces the protection of intellectual property in the music industry.
But Artists Didn’t Have to Do This Back In The Good Ol’ Days!
The owners of Chuck Berry’s music catalog detected a subtle infringement of the song “You Can’t Catch Me” by John Lennon in “Come Together.” They subsequently filed a lawsuit, leading the Beatles to settle out of court. McCartney warned Lennon it was too similar to Berry’s original. This incident highlights another reason modern songs often have numerous writers’ credits: to preempt lawsuits.
Lennon wasn’t the only artist who could have sidestepped a lawsuit or potential one from Chuck Berry by simply giving the guitar legend a writer’s credit. The Beach Boys took Berry’s 1958 hit “Sweet Little Sixteen,” altered the lyrics, and released it as “Surfin’ USA” in 1963. Fearing legal action, the Beach Boys’ manager, Murray Wilson, promptly transferred the publishing rights to Arc Music, Berry’s publisher. Now, both Berry and Wilson receive credit for the song.
Lennon wasn’t the only Beatle sued for copyright infringement, either. In 1970 George Harrison topped the charts with his solo hit “My Sweet Lord.” Unfortunately, the song bore a striking resemblance to the Chiffons‘ 1962 hit “He’s So Fine,” penned by Ronnie Mack. Bright Tunes Music Corporation, which owned the rights to the original song, filed a plagiarism lawsuit in 1971. Harrison was subsequently ordered to pay $1,599,987.
Advertisement
In today’s music industry, listing multiple writers on a single song has become a strategic safeguard against copyright infringement claims. With the rise of music streaming and the subsequent decline in traditional royalties, artists and record labels have become increasingly vigilant about potential legal disputes over song similarities. In other words, everyone wants a piece of the pie.
By crediting multiple contributors, artists acknowledge the diverse influences and collaborations involved in song creation and preemptively address any potential claims of copyright violations. This approach can mitigate the risk of costly lawsuits by ensuring that those who may have inspired the music receive their due recognition and share of royalties. Consequently, what may appear as an overly lengthy list of songwriters is often a defensive measure to protect both the financial interests and creative acknowledgments in an era where the lines between musical influences can easily blur.
Miley Cyrus discussed this on a podcast a couple of years ago. Streaming disrupted music sales, and royalties dried up, so artists began using the courts to recoup some of that money. Again, reference here.
So, no, Mr. Beato, your statement that “having so many collaborators allows Taylor to tour endlessly because these people are feeding her song ideas all along” is false.
These Are Just Tracks That Taylor Swift Writes Lyrics Over
Rick Beato’s next complaint is just bizarre. He complains Ms. Swift just writes lyrics and melodies over “tracks” as if that’s a bad thing.
First, let’s clarify what exactly we mean by “tracks.” In the music industry, a track can refer to multiple things – an instrumental backing for a song or simply each recorded part of a song (such as vocals, drums, guitar, etc.). In this case, Mr. Beato seems to refer to pre-made instrumentals or beats that artists then sing their lyrics over. In reality, though, this isn’t too different than the tried and true method of recording music where each track is laid down then assembled by a producer. Have you ever seen footage of an artist alone in a studio wearing headphones and singing into a mic, and there isn’t a band in sight? The artist is singing over a pre-recorded track. It’s not a new concept and doesn’t make the music any less authentic or genuine.
By 1966, the Beatles had transitioned from recording songs as a band to laying down individual tracks. The primary songwriter typically recorded a guide vocal while the band played the backing track. This guide vocal, and sometimes other parts, would later be replaced in a separate session by the final vocals, harmonies, and instrumentation we hear in the finished product. Countless artists have used this method of recording throughout the history of recorded music, and it doesn’t make their music any less valid or real.
Furthermore, the idea that Taylor Swift simply writes lyrics and melodies over pre-made tracks ignores her involvement in the writing and production process. Beato knows most songs start with one voice and one instrument—guitar or piano—to establish the structure and melody before moving into the production and recording stage, where tracks are created based on that—sometimes by a band or a producer.
Taylor isn’t writing lyrics over a pre-made track, as Beato suggests. Instead, a track is produced based on the melody and song structure Swift has previously created. This is a big distinction from what Beato suggests, and it is a common songwriting process that doesn’t diminish the artist’s role in creating the final product. Seriously, does anyone believe Paul McCarney wrote the strings or directed the choir on such songs as “The Long and Winding Road?” Of course not. He came into the studio with the basic song written with a piano. The producers handled the rest.
Mr. Beato also implies that writing lyrics and melodies is easy. However, writing lyrics and melodies is often considered the most challenging part of creating a song.
Beato knows none of this is unusual in the era of multitrack recording, whether analog or digital, so why is he picking on Taylor Swift? Witness how he derisively says, “Yeah, Taylor may have played the guitar riff one or two times,” as if saying, “Making music is a job for real men, now go sit down, little missy!”
While modern recording techniques may differ from those used in the past, they do not diminish the authenticity or creativity of an artist’s music. Acoustic instruments gave way to electric ones. Standard recording gave way to multitrack recording, then to digital recording. The music industry has evolved and has become democratized, but at its core, it still revolves around talented individuals making meaningful and authentic music. So, let’s give credit where credit is due and recognize that no matter how songs are created, it takes skill, talent, and creativity to bring them to life. It’s essential to recognize that there is no one “right” way to make music.
This brings us to the crux—my theory that some believe a “great replacement” is happening in music. Like the socio-political theory, this musical equivalent stems from a fear of being supplanted. Older music fans often perceive the growing popularity of modern music as an attempt to erase or diminish the legacy of their generation’s contributions. Further, the pushback becomes more unhinged when someone or multiple artists are knocking on the door of the greatest band of all time. This sentiment is misguided and overlooks the natural evolution of art and culture.
Music, like any other form of cultural expression, is not static. It evolves, adapts, and transforms with each passing generation. The fear that modern music will replace the classics is unfounded, as both can coexist and enrich our cultural landscape. Beethoven’s genius did not nullify Bach’s brilliance, nor did the emergence of rock’ n’ roll erase jazz’s impact.
It’s essential to recognize that the music of previous generations will always have its place in history. Its influence is undeniable and continues to inspire artists across genres and generations. Rather than viewing modern music as a threat, it should be seen as a testament to the enduring legacy of the past. New artists often draw from the wellspring of classic rock, pop, and other genres, blending them with contemporary styles to create something fresh and innovative.
Conclusion
The reaction by some to modern music mirrors the socio-political belief in the “great replacement” theory, as it reveals deep cultural anxieties. Older music fans may feel a sense of loss as the musical landscape shifts, but this does not mean their beloved classics are being replaced. Instead, we should celebrate music’s dynamic and ever-evolving nature, understanding that each generation brings something valuable to the table. By embracing this evolution, we can ensure that the legacy of the past continues to inspire and resonate with future generations.
