I'm not sure if it's about pouring resources into his female artists or having a female artist w/ an "it factor". I always refer to the interview that " Rick Barker" her first manager on paper did for pollstar in late 2014. He said so many young girls came to Nashville in cowboy boots/sundresses looking to be the next Taylor Swift but they lacked her work ethic. How many artists today would do a 13 hour M&G? It was such a great read.
Part 2.. I shut up a critic when he alluded that Taylor’s wealthy background was the reason for her fame w/this Rick Barker quote.. “Yeah, everybody likes to think her daddy bought her this or, because they had money, that happened. It’s all bullshit. There’s no shortage of daddies with money with daughters who sing. If that’s the magic pill, why don’t we have a 1,000 Taylor Swifts?”
I read this interview too and really liked it, and I do think the “it factor” is important. I also think the point about Dads with money matters — Andrea and Scott were lucky to be able to invest in Taylor’s career. But beyond moving to Nashville and buying a TINY stake in Big Machine (seriously, if you think what Scott spent is even close to $5k at the outset, you’re delusional), she put in the hard work herself, going to write songs after school and meeting with labels and recording demos and playing shows.
I also think it’s interesting and noteworthy that Taylor dropped the traditional concept of management entirely and turned it on its head. I can’t think of many, if any artists of her (or lower) stature that are virtually self-managed. Just something to point out.