Here’s What Critics Are Saying About Taylor Swift’s ‘1989 (Taylor’s Version)’

On Oct. 27, Taylor Swift released the re-recording of 1989, the 2014 album that turned her into a bona fide pop star. The latest — 1989 (Taylor's Version) — is the newest of a series of re-recordings created to reclaim her back catalog.

1989 (Taylor's Version) is filled with new editions of the 16 songs, all faithful recreations of the originals, plus five "vault tracks," which are singles that didn't make the final cut when 1989 was initially released. Despite the fact that 1989 is nine years old, critics are re-assessing its track list, plus the never-before-heard singles, with the benefit of hindsight. Here's what they have to say.

"Her best album will never go out of style"

NME gave 1989 (Taylor's Version) five stars and a glowing review. "Despite being billed as an '80s-inspired synth-pop record, 1989 also forged an identity that was an evolution of Swift’s own sound rather than kitschy pastiche of her retro influences," Hollie Geraghty wrote. "1989 (Taylor’s Version) feels more symbolic than her previous re-releases. Not only is it another step closer to having a full back catalogue of albums that she will own, but it's also a celebration of the moment Swift really took ownership of her pop sound."

"A rare and exquisite dud that ate the entire planet back in 2014"

Washington Post's Chris Richards was more cantankerous in his reflection on 1989, positioning it as a saccharine, over-hyped album that established Swift's role as a pop cult leader. "In a society that seeks constant validation through social media, 1989 (Taylor’s Version) serves as a conformist power fantasy that might resonate more than we’d like to admit — because it’s also a big, dull gesture we’re expected to applaud no matter what," he wrote. "Take the Swiftie blood oath or be excommunicated to the valley of the haters. Those are your options in this ludicrous world."

He gave measured praise to the album's high points, like the undeniably catchy hooks, but recognized flaws in sometimes-clunky lyrics. "When it's triumphant, it's like that Super Bowl Sunday when your team is up 42 points at the half," Richards continued. "When it's bland, it's like noshing on empty calories in a dream you won't remember."

"Subtle bonus tracks add new depths to a classic"

For The Guardian, Rachel Aroesti argued Swift's newly-released vault tracks add depth to the already-compelling album, calling them "some of Swift's best work." Aroesti suggested these singles could've easily replaced 1989's less-exciting singles, but considers whether Swift's choice set her commercial success in motion: "These subtle, interesting songs lost out to brasher, more basic tracks – 'Welcome to New York', 'Style' – on the original 1989 tracklist, but who's to say whether their inclusion would have affected Swift’s trajectory?"

"The vault tracks here might be her best batch yet"

Rolling Stone, too, found value in the vault. "Now let’s get to the good stuff: the five vault tracks that us 1989 diehards have somehow found a way to live without until now," Angie Martoccio wrote, pointing out the "gut-punching" lines and "euphoric" production. Martoccio added the non-vault re-recorded songs sound almost identical to the originals, but enhanced by her "much richer" voice nine years later.

"1989 was released almost a decade ago, in the last days of the mindset where pop music wasn’t taken seriously by many cultural gatekeepers," she concluded. "But now, in a post-rockist world, 1989 (Taylor’s Version) shines a lot brighter."

"A pop classic is re-recorded to diminishing returns"

The Independent heard more differences between Taylor's Version and the original 1989, mainly due to the absence of one Max Martin. "The sheer reach of 1989, along with its exceptional production by Swedish pop savant Max Martin (of '... Baby One More Time' fame), means it was always going to be the trickiest Swift album to replicate," Adam White wrote.

"[Martin's] absence means that 1989 (Taylor’s Version) is more immediately different from its original incarnation," he continued, citing songs like "Style" and "New Romantics." "This time around, production is handled almost entirely by Swift’s regular collaborators Christopher Rowe and Jack Antonoff, and the Martin-backed tracks struggle to take off without him."

"The three-star rating that I awarded it has gnawed at me ever since"

1989 (Taylor’s Version) is turning some former critics of Swift's work into Swifties. "Reader, a confession. I made a mistake with Taylor Swift’s magnum opus. Not a nightmarishly terrible one, in truth: I gave her fifth album 1989 a broadly positive write-up when it came out in 2014," Ludovic Hunter-Tilney wrote for Forbes. "But the three-star rating that I awarded it has gnawed at me ever since. I should have given it the full five."

"The project steps up a gear now — for this is the Big One, the megahit that launched the first wave of Taylormania," he continued. "The album documents young adulthood, the most exhilarating and error-strewn period of a person’s life, in the highly engineered setting of the perfect pop song."