TAYLOR SWIFT FT. BRENDON URIE - ME!

[3.53]

Things have changed for "ME!"...

Alex Clifton: A lead single should not make me think, "Oh, is this the Kidz Bop version?" [3]

Abdullah Siddiqui: This isn't the Old Taylor or the New Taylor. It's some entity so devoid of anything remotely substantive it doesn't warrant a human name. And I'm not very familiar with this Brendon Urie, but his delivery of the line "and you can't spell awesome without 'me'" sounds like the sonic embodiment of a Disney XD mid-season replacement choking on its own blue-cotton-candy puerilism. And I know that makes literally no sense but it's honestly the best way I know how to describe it. [2]

Taylor Alatorre: On the one hand, this was designed to subvert as few expectations and step on as few toes as a late 2010s Taylor Swift lead single can. On the other hand, it commits so hard to the bit that it ends up becoming a Lonely Island parody of the kind of post-Glee positivity pop that fueled the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign. Our culture may be more jaundiced since then, but the market for that stuff hasn't gone away, and Swift and Urie deliver the message in a way that feels more true to how people actually consume those songs. Rather than offering the prize of social recognition as a package deal with some nebulous invocation of societal change, they make a beeline for the inner voice of narcissism that resides within the overworked neoliberal subject. They listen to that voice, they give it what it wants, and the result is a communal celebration of self-regard that, in all its candidness and mutual puffery, makes you feel connected to something larger than just another grueling megastar album cycle. Unfortunately, that "something larger" happens to be the same collective unconscious that apparently just wants Panic to be the "High Hopes" band now. [7]

Jessica Doyle: It's catchy, granted, but so insistently, aggressively vapid that I am resisting the obvious conclusion that Taylor Swift actually thinks that this is work to be proud of. It makes more sense as a reconciliation of three opposing forces: she wants to make music; she feels responsible for the multi-hundred-dollar machine she's spent half her life putting in motion; and she dislikes and resents the performer (maybe also the person) she's become. That would explain pairing a catchy song with lyrics such as "can't spell awesome without ME!" and a video whose final shots suggest she is actually made of toxic rainbow sludge. [3]

Katherine St Asaph: A garish mess in exactly the same way "We Are Never Ever Getting Back Together" was. Yelpy vocals, forced whimsy, obnoxious spoken word, slapdash everything -- well, almost everything. The chorus is the second song in a year to rip off Emeli Sandé's "Next to Me," which really wasn't in need of two ripoffs. The old Taylor can't come to the phone right now, because she's been replaced with the New Boring. Brendon Urie is the best thing about this, though I'd rather listen to three minutes of him singing Vines. [3]

Tobi Tella: Can something be inoffensive enough that it becomes offensive? It's hard to imagine a song this generically pleasant and basic angering people off the heels of some of the Reputation singles, but here we are. It's disappointing to see Taylor put out yet another vapid lead single devoid of any deep themes, but goddamn if this didn't grow on me almost immediately. It's just so much dumb fun, and even though these two people are capable of much more and I'll probably forget about it in a few months I will definitely scream it every time it comes on the radio for now. [6]

Will Adams: The singular badness of Taylor's past three lead singles can all be boiled down to their overblown-ness, whether in song, in video, or in their inevitable absorption into The Discourse. But "ME!" is a special kind of bad, one whose wrongness comes from all directions to create something truly confusing. There's the sonic rehashing of a single from two albums back (also those terrible horns), inert lyrics that offer nothing recognizably Swift, the aesthetic 180 that makes Reputation feel even more pointless and, worst of all, the patronizing kids show affect. It's really hard to figure out what she was trying to do here. Without Max Martin's catchphrases, Shellback's sheen, or even Jack Antonoff's weirdness, we're left with an overblown Train song. Here's hoping, come the album, she keeps her promise that we'll never find another like "ME!". [1]

Jibril Yassin: Taylor Swift loves dispatching red herrings for her forthcoming albums in the form of lead singles. While she couldn't fully commit to the heel turn, Reputation went out of its way to show her songwriting capacities hadn't diminished, but it says a lot that I already want the Right Said Fred-aided Taylor back. "ME!" flows and surges with the pop efficiency she's mastered, but the lyricism resembles a once-sharp camera lens out of focus. Draping herself in the sounds she last used on Reputation, now drenched in major-key sunshine, also feels like a serious misstep when a theatre-kid diva like Brendon Urie decides to show up and completely steal the show. A song like "ME!" calls for high theatrics and powerful vocals and here, Taylor doesn't play to her strengths. [3]

Katie Gill: Taylor Swift was one of the first people to sign on for the movie-musical Cats. I'm not saying this just because that fact brings me joy and happiness every time I remember it, but because you don't agree to be in a show that features tap-dancing beetles, a magic show, and a character called Skimbleshanks the Railway Cat unless you have a healthy appreciation for cheesiness. And this song further proves that Taylor Swift is fully embracing the concept of cheese. Why else would she include lyrics like "hey kids! Spelling is fun!". But three things prevent this song from reaching its full, beautiful, glorious Gouda potential. One: the fact that the chorus seems designed from the ground up to play in a Target commercial. Two: the fact that the lyrics never get past the braggadocio, "I'm so awesome" hubris that tainted a lot of her Reputation-era work. Three: Brendon Urie's existence on the track. [6]

Ryo Miyauchi: Taylor's past fuck-yous to her former guys worked because she didn't leave room for them to speak in the song's narrative or actually in the music itself. Brendon Urie in "ME!" functions as wish fulfillment on top of wish fulfillment, singing the ideal response from the man to go with Taylor's perfect last words. His presence is extra fluff that the track can do without, but he's just one of many campy toppings that sugarcoats the stinging bitterness at the song's core to the point they wash away any taste when consumed. The cliche series of contrasts in the pre-chorus, the Sesame Street bridge, filler rhymes just to get to the next lyric -- all of this lyrical blandness doesn't help prop Taylor up as the underdog to cheer for in this breakup. [4]

Joshua Copperman: Every part of this song sounds like other songs that were successfully upbeat without being too cutesy. "ME!" isn't one of those. Like former contemporary Katy Perry with her "Swish Swish" video, Swift actively tries to be cringey but the attempts at cringe make her cringey. It's like Patrice Wilson's self-conscious follow-ups after "Friday" if he was given a Dave Meyers video budget. Taylor's own friend-by-her-right-ay Brendon Urie helps a little bit, because he's good at hamming it up, but while Taylor has pulled off hamminess in the past ("Blank Space" is one of her most-loved songs for a reason), this doesn't suit her. Even the lines about fighting in the rain feel like perfunctory good lyrics. The rest of the album will probably be fine, as even 1989 led with "Shake It Off." But even that song's bridge didn't have "spelling is fun." [3]

Jacob Sujin Kuppermann: For a second, right around "spelling is fun," I thought this would ascend, phoenix-like, into glorious schlock. But before and after that incredible interlude, "ME!" is not even the exciting kind of trash. It's content to just be mediocre, occasionally winking at the camera in ways that its authors clearly think is endearing but mostly come off as desperate. It's an emphatic shrug of a song, at once saying nothing and doing so loudly. [1]

Scott Mildenhall: Tonally aimless, it's very hard to deduce the spirit in which this is meant. In its most desperate moment -- yes, "spelling is fun!" -- it doesn't so much tip its hat to the audience as frisbee it into their face, but at the same time it's not so ironic as to be mean-spirited. As a whole, it's like a Wiggles mash-up of "Blank Space" and "We Go Together", and it's hard to know how anyone, whether their intentions were wholesome or cynical, would ever reach that by design. Perhaps this is simply just a spectacular misfire. The thematic mismatches, zero-dexterity crowbarring of aphorisms, desultory brass parps and gossamer-thin hook suggest seriously misplaced ambition. The one time "ME!" seems to be heading in its intended direction is its conclusion, at which it becomes an ever-ascending celebration. By then, though, it's already dug itself a deep hole to fly out of. [5]

Alfred Soto: The first time she's sounded manic and desperate, like someone pleading for her life; she could've titled it "You Must Love Me." [3]

Stephen Eisermann: Remember when everyone said "Look What You Made Me Do" was Taylor's worst lead single and it could never be worse? I do. And guess what? This is worse. [1]

Jonathan Bradley: "ME!" takes as its starting point the belated success of "Delicate," the late-cycle Reputation single that helped remind more than a few listeners and critics that they'd radically misinterpreted that album on its release. It makes sense that Taylor Swift would return to the source of that renewed goodwill, and this new single does sound designed as a rebirth of sorts: it is sunny and outward-looking after an insular and intimate record. It's also unashamedly and jubilantly corny. That should not surprise; Swift has never only been a dextrous chronicler of emotional contours, and corn has been a part of her songwriting toolbox going back at least to the time she wrote a gushing romance starring Romeo and Juliet that ended with a marriage and hefty key change. "ME!" is unabashed in its goofiness, pairing that dorkiness with the frivolity of "Shake It Off," her biggest hit to date. Panic! At the Disco's Brendon Urie fits in well with this theatricality, and Swift helps temper his archness; he's had "High Hopes," but never this much fun. And it's this sense of fun that makes "ME!" so enjoyable. This is a song that sees the strangenesses and imperfections of ourselves and the people around us, and greets them with optimism and -- Reputation hasn't entirely left us -- a bit of wanton selfishness. I've been to plenty of Taylor Swift shows and, as with "Shake It Off" or "We Are Never Ever Getting Back Together" or "This is Why We Can't Have Nice Things" -- I can already tell how much of a blast of a setlist-capper "ME!" will be. [8]

Joshua Minsoo Kim: "Taylor finger, Taylor finger, where are you?" [1]

[Read, comment and vote on The Singles Jukebox]

New world news from Time: Imran Khan Is Pakistan’s Donald Trump. Here’s What That Means for Relations Between Their Countries

For those watching the results of Pakistan’s elections from the U.S., the parallels were striking. A wealthy sports icon turned politician who constantly reminds the country’s elite they don’t know the real Pakistan, Imran Khan’s rise to power is a replay of America’s 2016 reckoning with Donald Trump and the anti-establishment wave he rode to the White House.

So far, the reaction to Khan’s electoral victory in Pakistan has been mixed: jubilant celebrations by supporters of his PTI party, and calls of foul play and military interference from every other major political party contesting the elections.

But while it seems clear that Pakistan is in for a prolonged period of domestic instability, the impact on the country’s foreign relations is less clear. The party has never before been in power and until the new government appoints its cabinet and outlines its 100-day plan, foreign partners will be uncertain as to what direction the government will take regarding its priorities.

The United States, however, already has a leg up—since Khan’s rise to power resembles Trump’s own political trajectory in so many ways.

Pakistanis probably don’t want to hear that Imran Khan is their Donald Trump. But the common threads between the two men just might help a bilateral relationship that, in the face of major policy disagreements, often depends on strong links between leaders at the highest levels in both governments.

Taking Them Seriously

Many have recognized the similarities between Khan and Trump. In retrospect, I first saw it up close on a hot summer night in 2010 when I found myself at a house party in an upscale suburb of Islamabad, the capital of Pakistan.

Scattered about the large minimalist-style villa were women in flowing tunics carrying Louis Vuitton handbags, men in silk ascots holding glasses of Johnny Walker Blue Label, chain-smoking teens, and foreign diplomats. A glamorous woman sat languidly on a divan in the center of the room. Someone whispered to me, “she’s dating Imran Khan…and she’s married.”

Who knows if it was true, but the fidelity of the statement mattered less than its irony. Former cricketer Khan was once known as a party-loving playboy who eventually married Jemima Goldsmith, a British heiress with Jewish heritage. Now Khan was a pious Muslim and conservative politician who rejected Western values. Khan’s transformation was still never fully accepted as authentic by Pakistan’s political elite, who routinely indulged in gossip about his playboy ways and religious hypocrisy—for instance, the woman on the divan. And despite his celebrity status, clean financial dealings, and extensive humanitarian work, Khan wasn’t entirely taken seriously as a politician. Instead, his critics were out to prove he was a fake and in many cases, stupid. Sound familiar?

Indeed, ever since Khan entered politics in 1996, American policymakers and analysts have acknowledged his appeal but routinely dismissed his political significance. They instead focused on his sympathetic rhetoric toward extremists, which earned him the nickname “Taliban Khan.” For example, in 2012 after the Taliban shot 14-year old activist Malala Yousafzai in the head, Khan refused to condemn them by name. During a 2014 Pakistani government effort to build national consensus on a statement declaring the Taliban an enemy of Pakistan and Islam, Khan called the group “our brothers” and “our own people.”

The conclusions reached at an Islamabad house party years ago came rushing back to me this week as the election results trickled in. Not taking Khan seriously will have an impact within Pakistan—but also in the United States, where few know Khan personally, understand the PTI agenda, or are connected with many of Khan’s advisers and confidantes.

But if Khan can appeal to Donald Trump, it might not matter that the lower ranks are not talking to each other. Both men are impulsive and brash, former celebrities turned politicians. They travel in elite social circles but are still considered political outsiders with controversial views about the world. They rose to power with the help of populist anti-establishment rhetoric that resonated with a segment of the electorate that felt ignored by mainstream politicians.

Khan’s chances of further appealing to Trump may be helped along by the fact that they both face threats to their electoral legitimacy; frequently encounter the repercussions of their playboy pasts; and have never been accepted into politics despite their involvement over the years.

Both have limited (Khan) to zero (Trump) governing experience. While Khan has been involved in national level politics before, he has never previously held a cabinet post, let alone formed a national government. While he has some experience governing as a member of the National Assembly representing the province of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa since 2013, Khan’s constituent base was not representative of Pakistan’s national diversity. It comprised mostly of Pashtun Muslims supportive of his conservative views towards women and religious minorities.

Khan pushed the same views on the campaign trail, but now in power, will he ramp them up or abandon them for more inclusive policies that resonate with the rest of the country? Like Trump, it is hard to ascertain how Khan intends to translate his campaign promises into concrete actions.

From Individual Relationship to Diplomatic Relations

Both Khan and Trump share a bluntness in their political speech and a fearlessness of the implications of it. Khan has lambasted the Americans for conducting drone strikes and committing “butchery” in the country and he called NATO a group of “western liberals thirsty for blood.” Trump may very well appreciate Khan’s critique of NATO; less so his take on the United States.

It’s highly probable that Trump won’t even notice Khan enough to form a bond with him or to see him as an adversary. All actions of the Trump administration to date suggest that while it perceives Pakistan as a vital national security issue, developing a deep and comprehensive relationship is not in the cards. This is mostly because the United States continues to view South Asia through two more important policy areas: the war in Afghanistan and the bilateral relationship with India. With regards to both, Pakistan remains a problematic partner in the opinion of U.S. officials. For America, Pakistan is a problem to be fixed, not a country to be engaged. Such a limited perspective almost negates any chance Khan will have to connect with Trump.

However, therein lies the risk. That the bilateral relationship will most likely not be cultivated at the highest levels means that when conflicts emerge, they will be all the harder to resolve. Veering off into a war of words on Twitter could be just the beginning.

One day Trump may reprise a version of his New Year’s day tweet in which he said Pakistani leaders “have given us nothing but lies and deceit.” Or he may lump Pakistan into the list of “shithole countries” he doesn’t want immigrants from. When that day comes, Khan will publicly defend Pakistan’s integrity and sovereignty and will have no problem being just as blunt and outspoken as Trump. Trump will probably reply with an early morning all-caps tweet. We know this drill.

As a new prime minister, Khan will politically benefit from such grandstanding against an unpopular United States. But the bones of the relationship will suffer. Should the two countries go down this path, bureaucrats in their respective governments will have to work extra hard to keep the relationship intact behind the scenes but with little hope of policy progress.

Pushing policy forward requires both bureaucratic power and the political will of senior officials. In the absence of one, the other will suffer. We should all hope that Khan and Trump hit it off. There is much work to be done in sorting out differences between the United States and Pakistan on the Haqqani Network (the Afghan guerrilla insurgent group), stability on the Afghanistan-Pakistan border, and reconciliation with the Taliban.

Unfortunately, this dynamic in which U.S. political leadership does not match up with the policy aims of its bureaucracy is exactly the predicament so many other countries now face when it comes to the U.S. being an increasingly unreliable partner. Khan will just be the newest player joining the game.

July 27, 2018 at 08:23PM ClusterAssets Inc., https://ClusterAssets.wordpress.com