by John Downey '23 on April 22, 2022
A&E Co-Editor

---

Arts & Entertainment

---

Where the Crawdads Sing Controversy

Taylor Swift Unfairly Criticized for Involvement in Film Adaptation

By Grace O’Connor ’22

Many readers have been anxiously awaiting the release of the film Where the Crawdads Sing, which is based on the New York Times best-selling novel of the same name. The book centers on a woman named Kya who is forced to grow up on her own and navigate the complexities of life without guidance from a young age. 

As a teenager, Kya finds herself involved in two serious relationships. She becomes swept up in both, letting herself be open to love, a feeling she had never experienced before in her life. When one of the men she is involved with is found dead, Kya is the first to be blamed, as many people in her community are quick to judge her due to her tragic past. 

The novel seamlessly combines two genres, romance and mystery, keeping readers engaged from its opening pages to its final lines. Readers empathize with Kya as she falls victim to social prejudices against her owing to her socioeconomic background but are inspired by her resilience.

With news of Where the Crawdads Sing’s adaptation to the big screen has come scrutiny of author Delia Owens’ questionable past, the facts of which were not publicized when the novel was first released in 2018.: Years before she became a writer, Owens and her now-ex-husband traveled to Zambia, where they were believed to be somehow involved with the murder of an unidentified poacher. 

Without spoiling Where the Crawdads Sing, there were enough similarities between the novel’s plot and the author’s unsavory background for backlash to erupt at news of the novel’s film adaptation. Indeed, according to BuzzFeed News, “despite its critical acclaim, Where the Crawdads Sing has been shrouded in controversy after problematic information about [Owens] came to light.” 

One famous figure who seems unfazed by the controversy is music industry legend Taylor Swift. In March, Swift took to social media to share a teaser trailer for the film that featured a song she wrote called “Carolina.” The singer expressed, “as soon as I heard there was a [Where the Crawdads Sing] film in the works starring the incredible @daisyedgarjones and produced by the brilliant @reesewitherspoon, I knew I wanted to be a part of it from the musical side. I wrote the song ‘Carolina’ alone and asked my friend @aarondessner to produce it. I wanted to create something haunting and ethereal to match this mesmerizing story.” 

Although many of Swift’s loyal fans were excited to hear a new song from the artist, some were disappointed that in supporting the upcoming film, Swift essentially aligned herself with Owens despite the author’s dubious past. As The News explains, many have “expressed disappointment that Swift is supporting someone who got away with the murder. Others said that she should have first [considered] all the information [about the project and those associated with it] before doing [a song for it].” Still other fans believe that Swift and her team fans were not aware of Owens’ past before becoming involved in the production. As BuzzFeed News notes, some critics are attempting to paint the situation as evidence of Swift being a white feminist and only standing up for others’ rights when it benefits her.

However, Swift is only one person of many—and one celebrity of many—who is involved in the production, with breakout star Daisy Edgar-Jones starring as Kya and Reese Witherspoon’s production company helming the film. While, if true, Owens’s role in the poacher’s murder is certainly deplorable, critics’ condemnation of Swift for her involvement in Where the Crawdads Sing and silence with regard to the other big names attached to the project suggests that the outcry is not so much about the morality of working on the film, but rather about criticizing a successful woman’s accomplishments.

by John Downey '23 on March 26, 2022
A&E Co-Editor

---

Arts & Entertainment

---

Spotify Songwriter Controversy

Writers Protest the Streaming Service’s Pay Policies

Grace O’Connor ’22

 Spotify has become a world-renowned music-streaming app, boasting over 406 million active users and 106 million paying subscribers as of Dec. 2021. According to Variety, “the platform rose from 7 [percent] of the U.S. market in 2010 to a whopping 83 [percent] by the end of 2020—and recorded-music revenues saw their fifth consecutive year of growth, topping $12.2 billion, per the RIAA.” The magazine went on to add, “it’s no understatement to say that streaming saved the recorded-music business and that global market leader Spotify [has] led the charge toward the stability and growth that the industry enjoys today.” Needless to say, over the course of the past few years, Spotify has grown exponentially in popularity and success—as well as in its impact on the music industry. 

Songwriters, however, are not necessarily sharing in the bounty. On March 1, 2022, over 100 of these talented creators took to the streets of Los Angeles in a protest planned by activist group the 100 Percenters to express their dissatisfaction with Spotify’s current policies. More specifically, according to OkayPlayer, they are protesting the fact that the streaming service only gives most songwriters 0.003 percent of a penny per stream. 

Among those songwriters protesting is Kennedi Lykken. In a statement to The Los Angeles Times, Lykken expressed that her last royalty check totaled only $432. She has worked on tracks for Dua Lipa, Ariana Grande, and Britney Spears. She has also won a Grammy Award. Needless to say, her impressive record calls for more than minimal royalties. 

Songwriters have been battling the “0.003 percent” rule for several years now. The 100 Percenters, the nonprofit organization leading the current protests against Spotify, was founded back in 2020 by a small group of individuals including songwriter Tiffany Red. In an interview with The Los Angeles Times, Red, who has written for Zendaya and Jeniffer Hudson, expressed her frustration that “people will say to her, ‘Oh, you’re a ghostwriter’” and explained that to such remarks, she always asserts, “‘I’m not a ghost, I’m a person.’” This is precisely the sentiment that 100 Percenters hopes to convey in their fight against the disproportionately low payment rate for songwriters. 

Another songwriter, Kaydence Tice, spoke up at the recent protest to share her story. Tice worked with Beyonce to co-write “Black Parade,” and despite such a massive hit to her name, she can barely afford to pay rent. 

Unfortunately, these songwriters’ stories are the norm in the industry, rather than the exception. Indeed, there are innumerable other songwriters with similar stories, songwriters whose success Spotify has not acknowledged with proper compensation. 

The manner in which Spotify is treating songwriters is ironic considering that the platform is meant to celebrate and highlight their talents. As singer-songwriter Heather Bright expressed in a powerful statement, “you can feel the oppression and the disrespect when you’re in rooms with people who have million-dollar homes while [you] have nothing.” 

Bright’s statement echoes the sense of degradation and dehumanization that songwriters are experiencing at Spotify’s hands. Hopefully, the streaming giant will soon realize its songwriters’ value, and treat them as they deserve.

by John Downey '23 on February 10, 2022
A&E Co-Editor

---

Arts & Entertainment

---

If She Was a Man, They Wouldn’t Question How Much Recognition She Deserved

Lesser-Known Male Musician Makes Damaging, Disrespectful, and False Claims About Taylor Swift

Nikki Idelson ’22

In an unsurprising but unfortunate turn of events, Taylor Swift has been once again forced to defend herself and her career. In a recent interview with the LA Times, Damon Albarn, the lead singer of groups such as Blur and Gorillaz, stated that he would not consider Swift a great songwriter and made the ignorant allegation that Swift “doesn’t write her own songs.” 

Swift, who has become infamous for standing up to those who attempt to slander her or otherwise damage her reputation, immediately responded to Albarn’s baseless claims on Twitter. She wrote, “I was such a big fan of yours until I saw this. I write all of my own songs. Your hot take is completely false and so damaging.” 

Notably, in Albarn’s LA times interview, the interviewer tries to give him a chance to retract his false claims, reminding him that Swift at the very least co-writes all of her own songs. Albarn, however, is insistent on diminishing Swift’s accomplishments. He responds to the interviewer, “that doesn’t count. I know what co-writing is. Co-writing is very different to writing.” 

When discussing Swift, Albarn compared her to young singer Billie Eilish. He asserted that he “prefers Billie Eilish” over Swift because Eilish is a “really interesting songwriter.” Ironically, Eilish co-writes the majority of her music with her brother and fellow artist FINNEAS—the very trait which informed Albarn’s lesser opinion of Swift and her talent as a songwriter.

Swift’s fans were, well, swift to point out this hypocrisy and how it only further discredits Albarn’s slander. One “Swiftie” took to Twitter to respond to Albarn’s claims by asking, “when will Taylor Swift be regarded with the respect and recognition she rightly deserves? When she appeals to the middle-aged male hipster market? When the graying, thick-rim glassed, Carharrt-brigade finally give their approval?” 

This fan and many others have been considering the role of sexism in Albarn’s claims. According to Metro, Swift “is credited as the sole writer on 54 of her tracks and is listed as a co-writer on the rest.” In the past, Swift has been criticized and even belittled for incorporating material from her own romantic experiences into her music, while male singers, such as John Mayer—one of Swift’s former boyfriends and the subject of her beloved song “Dear John”—regularly do so and receive no backlash for it. With this history of sexist treatment of Swift in mind, Metro suggests that Albarn’s unwelcome comments propose that “perhaps we are still dwindling in a phase of societal revolution where we believe that women aren’t capable of greatness without some male interference” and notes the sexism latent in Albarn’s claim that “no matter what you think of Ed Sheeran’s songs, no one would question whether he writes them himself.” 

Swift’s collaborators and colleagues in the music industry have also jumped to her defense. For instance, Jack Antonoff, who has produced tracks on each of Swift’s albums since 1989, tweeted, “I’ve never met Damon Albarn and he’s never been to my studio but apparently he knows more than the rest of us about all those songs Taylor writes and brings in.” 

In an attempt to placate those who have challenged his damaging claims, Albarn responded to Swift’s condemnation of his allegations with an “apology,” insisting that his words were taken out of context, although the interview shows that this was not the case. He tweeted, “I totally agree with you. I had a conversation about songwriting and sadly it was reduced to clickbait. I apologise unreservedly and unconditionally.” Swift has not responded to his apology, but it is safe to say, as she sings in “The Man,” that she’s “so sick of [haters] coming at [her] again.”

by John Downey '23 on February 10, 2022
A&E Co-Editor

---

Arts & Entertainment

---

Spotify Controversy: Upholding the Freedom of Speech or Enabling Misinformation?

Joni Mitchell & Neil Young Pull Their Catalogues from the Streaming Service in Protest

Grace Whitman ’22

Joni Mitchell is skating down the river she’s always wished for and away from Spotify. 

Following Neil Young’s lead, the artist has officially removed her full discography from the streaming platform. Mitchell and Young are protesting what they feel is Spotify’s active promotion of misinformation about vaccines and the COVID-19 pandemic, as the streaming service is giving a platform to content creators such as Joe Rogan. In 2020, Spotify bought the rights to Rogan’s podcast The Joe Rogan Experience for $100 million. The show has featured several controversial guests such as Dr. Robert Malone and Dr. Peter McCullough, the latter of whom has claimed that the pandemic was deliberately planned and that the vaccines created to combat it are killing thousands of people. In response, 270 physicians and scientists wrote an open letter to Spotify demanding that the company do more to address misinformation about vaccines and the pandemic on its platform.

Spotify has defended their choice to keep The Joe Rogan Experience on their platform. They believe it is their duty to uphold free speech and allow different viewpoints to be expressed. Spotify’s CEO Daniel Ek said, “With that comes great responsibility in balancing both safety for listeners and freedom for creators. We have detailed content policies in place, and we’ve removed over 20,000 podcast episodes related to COVID-19 since the start of the pandemic. We regret [artists’] decision to remove [their] music from Spotify but hope to welcome [them] back soon.” 

Although Spotify has chosen to not censor The Joe Rogan Experience, protests from artists such as Young and Mitchell have led them to add disclaimers to podcast episodes that discuss COVID-19. Press Secretary Jen Psaki praised this move, but also demanded that the streaming giant do even more to limit the platform that they give to misinformation spreaders.

Many Spotify users are following Young and Mitchell’s lead and switching to other streaming platforms in protest. Martha DePoy ’22 is one of these protestors. When asked why she chose to cancel her Spotify subscription, she stated, “I’m switching to Apple Music because while I fully support free speech, I don’t agree with or support the platform Spotify has given to content creators who spread lies for money. If I’m going to pay for a streaming service, I want the music from all my favorite artists including Neil Young and Joni Mitchell to be available to me.” With that being said, Rogan’s podcast garners millions of daily listeners, many more than Neil and Mitchell’s works, which presents an enormous financial opportunity for Spotify. This motive for Spotify’s course of action has left artists and music consumers alike wondering what the streaming giant’s mission is: are financial gains more important to the company than the health and safety of listeners?