Taylor Swift, Familiar Sound, and Why We Love Music that Is Not New

 Taylor Swift releasing her re-recorded albums this past week gave me a new perspective on this week’s readings. Millions of people are streaming songs they have listened to for years, some even preferring the new recording over the original copy. The music is literally the same; the lyrics are not changed, the melody is unchanged, and the structure is identical. What is so exciting about listening to something that isn’t new? 

Musical ascription is defined by Sellnow as attaching feeling and memories to certain musical patterns. Because Swift has released these songs before, when someone hears “Love Story (Taylor’s Version)” the exact same melody triggers the emotions they felt when they first listened to “Love Story.” “Love Story (Taylor’s Version)” does not need to be groundbreaking because listeners have already created its meaning based on the music they’ve attached to it. The music contains feeling. 

Hajdu’s article focusing on music and the brain furthers this train of thought. Music, like anything our brains process, is enjoyable when we recognize patterns and predict what will happen next. Most of Swift’s songs follow very typical pop patterns—verses that tell a story, emotional build-ups, and repetitive choruses. Our brains love mainstream music because it is easy to predict. This could be why people play her songs on repeat and find comfort in her music after listening to it for years. 

The Remix Manifesto by Birmingham could not be more relevant when discussing Taylor’s Version. Not only is she remaking music she already owns, but she is remaking music to own again. She’s not making new songs; she’s remolding previous work. This ties back to the idea of remixing being political and economical. By remixing old music, she is making something new to the public by changing the music’s context. 

Adorno would probably hate Taylor Swift. His entire argument of popular music being standardized and formulaic applies to Swift’s music. Most of her songs follow similar pop patterns, making them easily digestible and popular. Instead of fighting the formula, Swift has mastered it. Perhaps her success is evidence for Adorno’s theory. The crazy part is that Swift’s fans celebrate this. They do not want something new, they want something that sounds like Taylor Swift. 

Question: If we attach emotions to musical patterns, is originality in popular music really that important?

Too Much Labour: A Modern Revolution Against the Patriarchy

I have loved listening to music since I was young. It fills me with vigor and emotions, and is key in helping me write, complete assignments, study, and focus. Though as I've gotten older and had the chance to study poetry in-depth, I realized that a lot of a song's true meaning is often hidden or underlooked. For this post specifically, I am going to focus on one specific song popular on social media.

The song "Labour" by Paris Paloma (2024) has been circling around TikTok for the last few months, featuring clips from the music video (linked below), her performance on Colbert's Late Show, and the audio itself. It has 79 million views on YouTube and over 500,000 uses on TikTok. To me, the song strikes power into me, especially with the hightening crescendo from beginning to end. When I first heard it, I never thought much about the lyrics until I kept seeing posts saying how it is the new feminist anthem specifically with the chorus, which says:

"All day, every day, therapist, mother, maid

Nymph, then a virgin, nurse, then a servant

Just an appendage, live to attend him

So that he never lifts a finger

24/7 baby machine

So he can live out his picket-fence dreams

It's not an act of love if you make her

You make me do too much labour."

Sellnow states, "Music functions rhetorically by representing actual life experiences and emotions as an illusion of life based on the artist's perspective. In this way, music conveys an argument about how we ought to or ought not to believe or behave" (pp. 173). I'm not saying in any way that this song is an illusion of life, rather that it demonstrates the artist's perspective of unbalanced and abusive relationships in general.

This song incorporates more orchestral instruments such as woodwinds, strings, and glass slides with a dark rhythmic tone that ultimately sounds Renaissance-like. In her music video, Paloma utilizes a Renaissance-styled storyline, portraying a wife in ragged clothes serving dinner to her husband and lighting the candles, attempting to make him feel comfortable and taken care of. What seems like an act of love is dismissed by the husband, causing the wife to spiral internally. The tone, mood, and style of the song shows that this patriarchal abuse is not new, but that it has been happening for centuries--and still is. Paloma is just raising awareness about it. (Sellnow defines both of these factors as actual time and congruency).

The music video also takes on a radical feminist view because the wife is portrayed as a servant, someone inferior to her husband who is supposed to be her equal. However, at the end of the music video, the wife takes things into her own hands and eats messily, ruining the table in front of her husband as an act of defiance. While this is an act of defiance in the music video, the lyrics themselves act as an argument against the patriarchy. 

Women are tired and emotionally/mentally drained of carrying everything on their shoulders when they have a partner who is supposed to help carry the load. A lot of men still believe that women are their mothers and that they have to subject themselves to being used how ever they (the men) desire. Yet, the surgance of this song on social media, empowers women to fight against and escape their abusers/lazy partners. In fact, there were quite a few comments on the music video itself where women said they felt strong enough to escape from their abuser, because of this song. Even men are commenting on how they are sick of the patiarchy, which leads me to say this: I do not believe this song is criticizing men as a whole, but those who still follow through with traditional feminist stereotypes (women being seen in the home, nuturing children, not working, etc.). 

I hope that these stereotypes will finally leave for good.

Anyways, that being said, my question to you the reader is: are there any other songs you have seen that have sparked a revolution or change of some sort?

Mister Rogers as a Site of Struggle: Slowing Down in a Fast Media World

Contemporary pop culture is increasingly defined by speed. On platforms like Instagram, the most popular Reels last seven to fifteen seconds, designed for rapid consumption, trending audio, and constant novelty. While longer videos exist, the dominant pace of scrolling leaves little room for reflection, attention is fragmented, and cultural value is often measured by immediacy rather than depth. This acceleration of media consumption echoes Brooks Hatlen’s notable observation in The Shawshank Redemption that “the world went and got itself in a big damn hurry.” Though spoken in a fictional prison context, it resonates as a metaphor for a society built around instant gratification. Mid-twentieth-century advice to “stop and smell the flowers” reflected different cultural values, ones that prized patience, reflection, and presence—values increasingly at odds with today’s rapid-scroll environment.

When Mister Rogers’ Neighborhood premiered in 1968, it emerged as a deliberate site of struggle against this accelerating culture. Fred Rogers crafted every element of the show to resist superficial, fast-paced content. He wrote each episode himself, spoke directly to the camera as if addressing a single child, and created an environment of care and thoughtful engagement. The show’s deliberate pacing invited viewers to slow down, observe subtle details, and be fully present. In a media environment defined by constant distraction, Mister Rogers’ Neighborhood modeled a countercultural relationship to time and attention, demonstrating that slowing down could foster deeper focus, empathy, and meaningful connection.

Research supports why this matters. Dorothy and Jerome Singer found that slower-paced programming supports better attention, narrative comprehension, imaginative play, and social interaction than faster alternatives (1977). Children exposed to Mister Rogers’ Neighborhood demonstrated improved focus and imaginative engagement compared with peers watching rapid-cut, high-stimulation shows. By valuing thoughtful engagement over rapid consumption, Rogers created a space where children could learn how to engage attentively and relationally, offering a slower, more intentional approach to media and time that still matters today.

The consequences of today’s accelerated pace extend beyond media consumption. When communication is compressed and attention fragmented, opportunities to read tone, body language, and social cues are diminished, contributing to miscommunication and relational strain. Recent surveys suggest growing awareness of these costs, with Gen Z and millennials more likely to reduce screen time and cultivate offline habits to improve presence and well-being (New York Post, 2026; Samwell, 2025). In a culture dominated by rapid scrolling, slowing down is not just a moral or emotional choice—it is a path toward deeper attention, engagement, and human connection.

If media keeps rewarding speed over thoughtfulness, what do we lose when patience, reflection, and real connection are pushed aside? 

Could shows like Mister Rogers’ Neighborhood offer a way to resist that rush and show us how media might take a different, slower approach?

---

References

Singer, D. G., & Singer, J. L. (1981). Television, imagination, and aggression: A study of preschoolers [book]. Routledge.

Tower, R. B. (1977). Differential effects of television programming on preschoolers’ cognition, imagination, and social play [research paper]. ERIC Clearinghouse.

Samwell, R. (2025, November 21). Why Gen Z is forgetting how to talk to people: Headphones, phones, and the decline of social skills. Medium.

Gen Z, millennials more likely to cut down on screen time than older generations. (2026, January 8). New York Post. https://nypost.com/2026/01/08/lifestyle/gen-z-millennials-are-more-likely-to-digitally-unplug-than-older-generations/

What in the World is an MMMBop?

What’s an mmmbop? And why does anyone care? That was the burning question of 1997.

I turned 12 years old that year and was completely obsessed with the bubblegum pop hit, “MMMBop” by Hanson, three teenage brothers from Tulsa, Oklahoma. It was the song of the summer!

 

 

Everyone knew the song, yet nobody could figure out what an mmmbop was, despite it being laid out clearly in the lyrics. Because they didn’t understand it, society soon turned on the song, labeling it annoying and cringeworthy. The brothers were even featured in an episode of Saturday Night Live, memorably held up by gunpoint in an elevator, forced to listen to “MMMBop” on repeat, and “suffer” just as the rest of the world did that summer. By late 1997, it was very uncool to like “MMMBop” (even though we all still secretly did).

@hansonized This aired in 1997 @hanson #Hanson #snl #snlskit #90s #mmmbop ♬ original sound - Hansonized

 

Here’s the thing, though. MMMBop wasn’t nonsense. It was actually deeply insightful, written by kids who somehow already understood that most things in life don’t last and that people will leave just as fast as they came in. The meaning is spelled out in the verses.

You have so many relationships in this life
Only one or two will last
You go through all the pain and strife
Then you turn your back and they're gone so fast

An mmmbop is a moment in time. A phase. A person. Something you think is forever, but then it isn’t.

In an mmmbop, they’re gone. In an mmmbop, they’re not there.

The problem is that the song doesn’t sound as deep and existential as its lyrics suggest. Sellnow would label this song as incongruent—there’s a disconnect between what the song is saying and how it sounds. MMMBop pairs reflective, melancholic lyrics with music that is overly happy. Aggressively happy, maybe. There’s a fast tempo and bright harmonies. Nothing about it says, “This is actually kind of sad.”

The musical cheerfulness clashes directly with lines like, “So hold on to the ones who really care / In the end, they’ll be the only ones there / And when you get old and start losing your hair / Can you tell me who will still care?”

Life is unpredictable. People come and go. You don’t know who, or what, will last. Time and fate decide for you.

But because the song feels so cheerful, most listeners never absorbed that message. They dismissed it as gibberish. Therefore, it became easy to mock. If a song sounds happy and has silly words nobody has heard before, it must be shallow. That’s how “MMMBop” became annoying rather than insightful.

However, all was not lost. The release-heavy musical structure is what pulled people in in the first place. People sang along without caring what it meant. The meaning may have slipped past us, but the emotional effects of the upbeat music latched on. Its incongruity is exactly why the song has lasted nearly 30 years in our hearts and minds.

Hanson, now and then

As adults, we finally understand the meaning. Friends drift away. Chapters end. Relationships aren’t what you thought they were sometimes. Suddenly, “In an MMMBop, they’re gone / In an MMMBop, they’re not there” doesn’t sound like gibberish nonsense anymore.

As kids, we were obsessed with a fun, energetic tune. As adults, we finally understand what it means.

Were there any songs from your childhood that mean something completely different to you now that you’re an adult? Name something that means something entirely different now that you understand its intended meaning. Why do you think this was the case?

Does Music Shape Our Lives?

In this week’s material, we learned how music can represent our feelings in many different ways. Pop culture music is one of the clearest mirrors of emotion, as artists commonly turn their own feelings into sound, storytelling, and imagery. You can make this argument with any genre of music with life experiences, from heartbreaks turned into a slow, sad, and quiet tuned pop song by Olivia Rodrigo, to Pharrell Williams singing about how happy he is in a more upbeat, groovy, and R&B type song. Different types of music really do represent our emotions in several lyrical and vocal ways. Most of us listen to music every day, taking in relatable emotions and using it to cope with ongoing stress or tension in life. For me at least, music has always boosted my mood with more upbeat and dance type songs, calmed anxiety with more ambient and classical songs, and of course release sadness with slow and quieter beats. Because of the influence music has on our every day lives, it’s worth asking: Does music impact the decisions we make and how we feel about certain things? More importantly, do we need music in order to cope with life?

A fascinating aspect of music for me is that it shapes our past memories and how we should feel about them. Whether it be a song that reminds us of something in the past we did with friends or family, or reminding us of a heartbreak or first love, hearing them again is like emotional time travel, forcing us to reinterpret those events and what they truly mean. If you think about it, the things we experience shape our identities. Events, adversity, accomplishments, failures, faith, all shape who we are and what we value. I argue that music enhances these past experiences, reminding us of certain events in our lives and how we should feel and understand them, which to me is a really telling example of how music can shape our identity.

Into a deeper dive, music most certainly shapes culture. When I think of decades and music, I immediately think of prominent 60s and 70s music tied to peace and protest in various songs, with the 2010s representing more digital pop and nostalgia. Our culture is essentially tied to music, and there’s no escaping. Below is an insightful TED Talk from 9^th grader Shireen Chrungoo, who uses her own life as an example of how music is linked to our identity and culture itself.

“It’s history, identity, perspective, and emotion, woven together in a language we can understand.”

Music also creates trends and style through popular slangs, dances, fashion, and social movements. Just take a look on how far this six-seven meme has gone on… As cringey as it is, it’s a strong example on how musical tune and lyrics can create a trendy slang or dance move, and in this case, bring us joy if anything. Seriously though, when will 6/7 stop! None the less, we see just how powerful music can be in our everyday lives, making me come to the conclusion that not only does music represent our emotions, but it’s also needed for us to cope, reflect, grow, and live our lives with true understanding and meaning.

 

Luxe Lean and Social Media Trends: Feminist Perspectives

     As the well-anticipated Wicked Two’s film release drew near, the cast often promoted their movie through visibility in public; however, rather than creating hype around the movie, it instead left audiences perplexed, as the age-old question reared its head, “is she too thin?” The past ten years have been a time of body positivity with curvier models hitting runways and women supporting a variety of body shapes. Yet just this last year brought dramatic shifts in expectations of women’s bodies by returning to the 90's extremely thin body ideal.  

              While much of this shift can be traced back to a variety of media sources within our culture, a large portion of the recent shift began as an aesthetic TikTok trend wrapped in wellness jargon. As the trend developed, influencers became mere objects reinforcing hegemony, and with the shift in ideals, came the natural change in followers' views, likes and adds. Influencers quickly learned that body objectification would grow their audience, increase their visibility, and gain additional likes, which not only reinforced the objectification of women, but further allowed women to also view one another as objects. As this body image has slowly become the norm, women not only began to follow the trends, but further objectified their own bodies. It is as French philosopher, Simone de Beauvoir, states, “a woman is not born a woman, but becomes one” (Beauvoir 2020). Overtime, this trend has taken over social media platforms and has become widely accepted, as women around the world attempt to rebrand themselves as “that girl.” Women were not born this way, and yet this desirable trend falls into the phenomenon of male gaze, as women are increasingly objectified on social media platforms.     

           Equally interesting is how this trend has developed overtime. Just recently, the term luxe lean was coined, with the idea that thin, in shape bodies signified wealth due to privileges needed to sustain them: gym memberships, healthy foods, supplements, GLP-1 time, and so forth. All of which goes beyond radical feminist perspectives, but further touches on Marxist perspectives as it has moved from equal access to privileged. While this may not be due to inequality in women’s pay, it does favor privilege while pushing hegemonic assumptions benefitting the wealthy.  

Regardless of its theory, women’s bodies continue to be blatantly objectified within media, perpetuating social norms. While this messaging had previously created ads, sold movies, and made magazines, it is now so prevalent within our daily lives, that young girls are regularly scrolling through reels observing the thin bodies while absorbing the occluded messages of many of their favorite influencers. As this messaging continues to attract followers and women are increasingly objectified, how does our society counter a trend heavy media maintaining hegemonic ideology that creates a sense of powerlessness in women and men alike?

Jennifer Lawrence - She’s Glamorous, She’s Awkward, and She Runs Hollywood

Jennifer Lawrence has always felt a little different from how female celebrities are usually expected to show up. On the surface, she checks all the traditional boxes of femininity. She’s beautiful, she looks incredible on red carpets, and she’s often cast in roles that lean into that. But the moment she opens her mouth in an interview, that polished image starts to unravel in the best way. She’s blunt, sarcastic, a little awkward, and clearly not interested in being prim or proper. And somehow, instead of that hurting her career, it’s beco me part of why she’s so successful.

What’s interesting about Lawrence, especially when you think about it through a feminist lens, is that she doesn’t separate how she looks from how she acts. Sellnow talks about how media tends to reward women who perform femininity the “right” way. That usually means being polite, emotionally restrained, and easy to like. Lawrence pushes back on that without really announcing that she’s doing it. She still shows up looking glamorous, but her humor and delivery undercut the expectation that she also needs to be quiet, agreeable, or overly polished.

You can see this in how people talk about her. She’s constantly described as “relatable,” which is kind of telling. Male actors can be blunt or awkward without anyone making a big deal out of it, but when a woman does it, it suddenly becomes part of her brand. Lawrence feels relatable because she doesn’t filter herself to fit a narrow idea of how women are supposed to behave in public. She jokes about uncomfortable topics, openly calls out sexism in the industry, and doesn’t pretend to be perfectly composed all the time. Feminist criticism reminds us that those choices matter. Women who speak that way are often labeled as difficult or unprofessional. The fact that Lawrence continues to thrive complicates that pattern.

At the same time, "Beauty and the Patriarchal Beast" helps explain why her case still feels a little rare. Walsh, Fürsich, and Jefferson point out that the media often allows women to bend the rules as long as it feels non-threatening. Lawrence’s humor plays a big role here. Her humor makes her bluntness more acceptable by softening what might otherwise come off as challenging or disruptive. This prompts a larger question: is her authenticity genuinely appreciated, or merely tolerated because of its charm?

On a personal level, I find her delivery relatable because it reflects a version of femininity that doesn’t require constant self editing. She shows that you don’t have to choose between being feminine and being outspoken. Her continued dominance in Hollywood makes me wonder if audiences are more ready for complex, less polished representations of women than the industry often gives them credit for.

Does Jennifer Lawrence show that women can act outside traditional femininity now, or is her success more of an exception than the norm?