I also think a lot of the difference is that a much smaller percentage of the population grows up as poor as she did. A person from a similar wealth/income percentile today mightn’t seem to have had such a difficult start.
Obviously lots of other things are different today – it’s easier than ever to access a wide variety of music but that’s not what people tend to do (iirc); there’s less money to be made selling music; there’s perhaps less interest in more ‘rural’ genres of music.
To some extent yes, but I suspect that is declining also as the genre becomes corporatized.
That is “the people” isn’t it? It is the consequence of democratization and openness.
I am not sure if superstars were good representatives of what most people wanted. Often, I am sorry to say, it was the lowest common denominator. Now common people can actually enter the arena and represent their corner of the population.
But, almost by definition, if you are part of “the people”, you don’t get to stand out much.
Its not necessarily the best thing that big companies have a business model of taking advantage of poor, or relatively poorer, people, particularly attractive young women. See our global Epstein class and global Weinstein class.
I agree. But are those kinds of abuse a requirement of a system that raises the voices of poorer people, or is it that we have permitted them?
I don't know if Taylor Swift endured similar hardship in her rise, but if she didn't as other replies have suggested, she's an example of how the system should treat those who are less privileged than she was.
Her father had a huge role to play in her success with his business deals and would largely be considered upper middle class if not higher. If anything, Taylor’s story reinforces the idea that families with wealth offer easier paths in life for their children.
The amazing thing about America is that there are paths for those not as wealthy, but of course they are harder, as much as we might not want them to be... no?