We are now less than 24 hours away from one of the year’s most-anticipated albums: Taylor Swift’s1989 (Taylor’s Version). Swifties have long been known to be an enthusiastic bunch who love to engage with Swift and her work in any way possible. With that in mind, there’s an easy way for fans to make their own custom version of the 1989 (Taylor’s Version) album cover.
How To Make Your Own 1989 (Taylor’s Version) Album Cover
Taylor Nation, an official X (formerly Twitter) account for all things Swift, shared a tool earlier this week that allows users to use their own photos to create a custom 1989 cover artwork. As far as how to use it, the first step is to visit the album pre-order/pre-save link. On the bottom of that page is a “Let’s Go” button to get into the tool. After reading the terms and conditions and filling out some basic information, you then enter your name as you want it to appear on the art, upload a photo of yourself (or of whatever you’d like, really), adjust the zoom and rotation of the photo, hit the “Submit” button, and then you’ll be able to either download your image or start over and create a new one.
A video in the Taylor National post offers a more visual walkthrough of how the process works, so check that out below.
Welcome to the first installment of Rivals Revisited, a semi-regular column in which I will discuss rivalries involving musical artists both historic and contemporary. I come to this project after writing a book on the topic as well as hosting a podcast. I love writing and talking about music rivalries because 1) conflict is always interesting and 2) it’s a fascinating vehicle for exploring the abstract ideas that these feuds represent. Believe it or not, but there are still a lot rivalries I haven’t covered yet, starting with the one involving two of the best American rock bands of the 1980s: R.E.M. and The Replacements.
This is not a random selection. Both bands are the subjects of worthy reissues this fall. In September, Tim (Let It Bleed Edition) revived one of the most beloved Replacements albums ever with a new remix that made a classic sound like new again. Next month, a 25th anniversary edition of 1998’s Up will cast a new spotlight on R.E.M.’s most underrated LP. These archival releases offer an ideal excuse to talk about two great rock groups, and the rivalry they had during the Reagan era.
Here’s how we will proceed: I will begin by explaining the beef between R.E.M. and The Replacements. Then we will explore the metaphorical significance of their dynamic. After that, I will make — with the dispassionate finesse of a trial attorney — an argument for both bands in this feud. Finally, I will declare a winner.
The Beef
Oftentimes, rivalries between artists or bands only exist in the minds of the public. The most obvious example is The Beatles vs. The Rolling Stones — the bands were publicly friendly in real life, but their relationship took on a metaphorical significance in the collective imagination as the musical personifications of good and evil. They were rivals because we needed them to be rivals. It made for better rock mythology.
This is not the case with R.E.M. vs. The Replacements. They were friends, kind of. But there were also authentic gripes at play, though they were pretty much entirely one-sided. Let’s review them.
1. R.E.M. “stole” The Replacements’ road manager
As detailed in Bob Mehr’s indispensable Replacements biography Trouble Boys, Peter Jesperson managed the Mats and functioned as Paul Westerberg’s greatest cheerleader early on. He was also an R.E.M. fan who bonded with Peter Buck during the band’s frequent trips to the Twin Cities in the early ’80s. This duality would not be permissible in the Replacements camp for long. It came to a head in the summer of 1983, when R.E.M. needed a tour manager and inquired if Jesperson would fill in temporarily. He asked the Replacements for their blessing and they said “yes.” But in classic passive-aggressive Midwestern fashion, they actually meant “no.” When Jesperson mistakenly took their words at face value and went on the road with R.E.M., it was viewed by The Replacements as an unpardonable act of betrayal. As Westerberg told Mehr, “For him to just up and leave us for a prettier girl — it was never the same after that, really.”
2. Paul Westerberg saw himself as the antithesis of Michael Stipe
Describing R.E.M. as “a prettier girl,” clearly, says more about Westerberg’s inferiority complex and tendency to project it outward than it does about R.E.M. For R.E.M.’s part, they were quick to praise The Replacements publicly, and Buck gamely agreed to play the guitar solo on possibly the greatest Mats song ever, “I Will Dare,” which at the time raised the lesser-known band’s profile. But Westerberg still viewed R.E.M., and particularly Michael Stipe, as his band’s more bookish (and presumably less rock ‘n’ roll) counterpart. “Stipe was definitely more of an intellectual than myself,” he says in Trouble Boys, “so I’d play the guttersnipe to his more cultured hoo-ha.”
3. R.E.M.’s audience didn’t like The Replacements when they opened for them
Again, we see Westerberg’s projected insecurities: As any Replacements fan will testify, a core strength of Westerberg’s songs is the witty wordplay evidencing his unmistakable literary sensibility. (The same can be said of a phrase like “I’d play the guttersnipe to his more cultured hoo-ha.”) But he’s right about the ways in which Westerberg and Stipe (and their respective bands) were perceived. And that was confirmed when R.E.M. and The Replacements briefly toured together in the summer of 1983, with R.E.M. as the headliner. Audiences gave a cool reception to The Replacements, which only encouraged their worst self-destructive impulses. At one show, Westerberg and Bob Stinson acted out by pouring beer on R.E.M.’s monitors. Tommy Stinson (who was 16 at the time and didn’t drink) was so frustrated that he almost quit; instead, he was persuaded to stay and coped by swilling vodka on the regular.
4. The Replacements viewed R.E.M. as goody-goody hypocrites
On that tour, most of R.E.M. partied with The Replacements and kept up the pace when it came to backstage debauchery. And yet on stage, R.E.M. could still present themselves as a reliably professional outfit while The Replacements remained a public shambles. And, in Tommy Stinson’s view at least, that made R.E.M. seem “a bit phony,” as he relates in Trouble Boys. “We didn’t hide the fact that we did drugs and drank and were fucked up. We wore our shit on our sleeve, and they hid their shit. Those guys hid it pretty well. And we know that, because we did their drugs and drank with them.” The Replacements subsequently outed Buck (sort of) on the maligned Tim deep cut “Lay It Down Clown,” which is supposedly about doing speed with the R.E.M. guitarist.
The Metaphor
It’s my theory that for a musical rivalry to truly matter, it has to function as a proxy battle between opposing ideas. Again, we circle back to Beatles vs. Stones — when people compare them, they’re really having a conversation about what they value in a band. Do you prefer musical innovation or archetypal “rock ‘n’ roll-ness”? Should a band appeal to everyone or should it consciously alienate the “right” people? Is a functional band boring, or is a dysfunctional band merely inept? Is it more artistically valid to be inherently beautiful or deliberately ugly? Is “fucked up” an attribute or a defect? Is it better to burn out or to fade away?
This template can be applied to numerous other musical rivalries, but it especially works for R.E.M. (The Beatles) and The Replacements (The Stones). R.E.M. was more musically innovative, they appealed to more people, and they were probably the most functional (i.e. well-run and psychologically sound) band of their era. Meanwhile, The Replacements were the most rock ‘n’ roll rock ‘n’ roll band of the 1980s American underground. They pissed off lots of people, they were unabashedly dysfunctional, and they made being fucked up seem like an art form. Only on the “burn out vs. fade away” equation were the roles reversed: The Replacements (like The Beatles) flamed out, while R.E.M. (like the Stones) eased into middle age (and beyond). And that might be the most essential difference of all. The conversation about R.E.M. vs. The Replacements is really an inquiry about whether you want a rock band to be professionally admirable or romantically un-admirable.
The Case For R.E.M.
Throughout the ’80s and ’90s, R.E.M. essentially was perfect. Their knack for seemingly always making correct decisions was both uncanny and surprisingly not annoying. (Unless you were in The Replacements.) R.E.M. was easy to cheer for. When they formed, they decided to evenly split their publishing, an ingenious move that instantly exempted them from the typical tensions that derail most bands. Their rise to mainstream popularity was steady and methodical; their fifth album was the first to go platinum, at which point no one could accuse them of not paying their dues or otherwise begrudge their success. When they became superstars in the early ’90s, they were making the most experimental records of their career. Like The Beatles, they stopped touring for several years to focus on studio work. On the business side, they finagled the largest recording contract in history right before the commercial collapse of alternative rock in the mid-’90s, ensuring their lifetime financial security even as many of their peers slipped into obscurity. When they finally decided to break up in 2011, they did that perfectly, too — they claimed they were still friends but didn’t want to be rock stars any longer. There would be reunions in the future, they insisted, and (so far) it looks like they meant it. Today, you can find some members of R.E.M. on the road playing songs about baseball. They seem happy. It’s a perfect retirement.
There is disagreement on what constitutes R.E.M.’s “golden” era. Old-school stalwarts will argue that it was over once they left the indie world in the mid-’80s. Others claim that Automatic For The People marks the end of their best work. The exit of founding drummer Bill Berry is another commonly cited departure point. Personally, I put it slightly after that, with the release of Up, which I think is their last truly great LP.
Up represents another kind of perfection — it is perhaps the best and truest rock album ever about processing the trauma of your friend leaving the band you started together. Unlike virtually every other rock band that has lost an essential member — including The Replacements — R.E.M. did not pretend like it was business as usual on their next record. (They actually didn’t make a conventional rock album for another 10 years.) On Up, they deliberately leave holes in the middle of the songs as constant reminders of who is not there. Drums either are absent or replaced with drum machines. R.E.M. doesn’t even sound like a band much of the time; sounds are layered in a manner that recalls the late-’60s Beach Boys, one of the album’s obvious influences. (Another touchstone is OK Computer, though Up ultimately sounds like a prequel to Kid A.)
What’s apparent is R.E.M.’s thoughtfulness about rethinking their musical milieu in the wake of becoming a trio, and how correct their choices seem. They absorbed a critical loss and somehow spun it forward as the next logical step in their creative evolution. The resulting record simultaneously mourns the version of R.E.M. that no longer exists, while also positing that this latest incarnation is a perfect next step. That the next two albums were less successful reiterations of Up shouldn’t diminish this achievement. (Especially since those records, 2001’s Reveal and 2004’s Around The Sun, are better than their reputations suggest.) Even when R.E.M. fell apart, the pieces fell in all the right places.
The Case For The Replacements
This is how the argument for R.E.M. ends: They made an album like Up, a.k.a. an excellent mid-career work that is unlike anything they put out before. And this is how the argument for The Replacements begins: They didn’t make an album like Up, a.k.a. a rueful record that is unmistakably the work of a “mature” rock group.
The Replacements collapsed long before they had the chance to record their 11th album because they weren’t perfect and they didn’t make great decisions and they had no clue how to evolve over the course of several decades. And these short-term deficiencies have paid unexpected long-term dividends. The greatness of R.E.M. feels settled in a way that it does not for The Replacements. Which means that liking them seems more interesting, particularly for younger listeners. And bands that are more interesting for younger listeners to like have a way of growing in esteem the further we get from the past.
It’s not fair to compare the Tim box set with the Up reissue, because Tim is commonly regarded as one of the best (if not the best) Replacements albums while Up does not come close to achieving that distinction in R.E.M.’s catalog. But as someone who has dutifully kept up with archival releases from both bands, I think it’s fair to say that the Replacements reissues have consistently been more revelatory than the ones from R.E.M. And this, perversely, is related to how well-made R.E.M.’s greatest records are. My main takeaway from listening to all of the outtakes and all of the remixes on all of the R.E.M. reissues is that the original albums can’t really improved upon. The extras add little to my appreciation of the records, because my appreciation was already deep and, more importantly, complete.
The Replacements, however, have benefitted greatly from the reissue industry. The remix of Tim transformed an album I already loved into something even greater than it was before. The Dead Man’s Pop box set, which reimagined 1989’s Don’t Tell A Soul, similarly put a sonically flawed album in a more vibrant context. Unlike R.E.M., The Replacements’ music feels incomplete in a manner that invites contemporary listeners to finally “solve” (or resolve) it. And that gives their records a weird kind of recency bias over R.E.M., where their old albums magically sound like “new” albums.
And then there’s the matter of mystique. That “archetypal rock ‘n’ roll-ness” thing The Replacements have has only grown more unique as the years go by. If that is what you are looking for, there are very few modern bands that credibly operate in that lane. And yet, paradoxically, The Replacements’ mystique also seems attainable for any new band that wears flannel shirts and drinks too much. (The very few modern bands that operate credibly in this lane are essentially copying The Replacements.) “Copying The Replacements” will be a staple pose for young rock bands for as long as there are rock bands, because it’s easy and also because it’s fun. (Even if it won’t actually make you as good as The Replacements.)
Put another way: Emulating a band made up of four extraordinarily talented and level-headed individuals who recorded (at least) 11 great albums while making more money than virtually any rock group who ever lived is basically impossible. Acting like The Replacements, in comparison, is as easy as drinking beer for breakfast.
Who Won?
I love both bands. I suspect that most people who love one also probably love the other. So I will attempt to answer this question diplomatically without skimping on the truth.
In Trouble Boys, Westerberg is quoted as saying the following about R.E.M.: “I’ve had to mention them in every interview I’ve done since 1981. The problem is, they don’t have to mention [The Replacements]. They simply don’t have to acknowledge us anymore. They won.”
This is an honest, and insightful, accounting of The Replacements’ public relationship with R.E.M. It also describes a common dynamic in musical rivalries — whoever has the upper hand plays a central role in the subordinate’s narrative, while the actor in the subordinate role is usually absent from their counterpart’s story. It’s impossible to find a recounting of Pearl Jam’s story in which Nirvana doesn’t play a significant role, and yet Pearl Jam rarely if ever comes up in books and documentaries about Nirvana. Britney Spears must be mentioned with discussing Christina Aguilera’s rise, but Christina is not integral to Britney’s arc. Jay Z is a major foil in the saga of Nas, but Nas need not make a cameo in the epic that is Jay Z’s life story. I could go, but the examples are endless.
By that standard — and many others — R.E.M. won. But by losing The Replacements … also won? They won because they didn’t want to be R.E.M., and they succeeded at not being R.E.M. They won because they set out to lose. R.E.M.’s achievements are heightened when compared to the haphazard path taken by The Replacements because it illustrates how hard it is to be R.E.M. But this binary also benefits The Replacements, because they’re more relatable than R.E.M. The more cultured hoo-ha elevates the guttersnipe, and vice versa.
Jay-Z is one of the most esteemed rappers in hip-hop history, but in recent years, he hasn’t exactly been prolific: His most recent album, 4:44, came out back in 2017. (Counting collaborative projects, he and Beyoncé released Everything Is Love as The Carters in 2018.) Naturally, fans have been wondering since then when Jay’s next album is going to drop. We don’t know that yet, but based on Jay’sCBS Mornings interview with Gayle King, we know what it’ll take for him to think about making another project.
In a new clip from the interview shared on social media yesterday (October 25), King asked what it would take for Jay-Z to get back in the studio. He answered, “I’ll say I want to make music, but it has to be something important. I don’t want to just make a bunch of tunes. That’s not gonna serve me. It won’t feed me, first of all.”
King asked what he meant by the “feed me” part of his response and he continued, “I have to be saying something important. It has to mean something, you know? It has to mean something to a larger society. Like 4:44, for example, was a personal story, but the amount of vulnerability in there allowed for a lot of people to explore the space.”
More from the interview is set to air on CBS Mornings today and tomorrow. In the meantime, check out the clip above.
This Victor Wembanyama guy is going to be pretty good. Wembanyama took the floor in his first NBA game on Wednesday night, as the French superstar and No. 1 overall pick in the 2023 NBA Draft took the floor in San Antonio alongside the rest of the Spurs. While he was by no means perfect, Wembanyama flashed a number of the skills that made him the best prospect coming into the league since LeBron James in a 126-119 loss.
The big problem revolved around fouls, as Wembanyama was limited to only 23 minutes of action on the evening due to foul trouble — he ended up playing the final 7:12 of the game without picking up a sixth foul, which was a silver lining for Gregg Popovich. But when he did play, Wembanyama managed to impact the game on both ends of the floor from the jump. On the very first Mavericks possession of the night, Wembanyama took one step from his spot defending Derrick Jones Jr. in the corner and rejected a Kyrie Irving free throw line jumper. His length, athleticism, and ability to alter shots from all over the floor is something we just have not seen before.
Every glimpse of how he’s able to put the ball on the deck and every time he was able to create his own shot was, again, like watching a create-a-player on a video game. Getting used to the physicality of an NBA game will take some getting used to, but his jumper looked excellent and he was still able to overwhelm smaller defenders. He’s already one of the best lob threats we’ve seen, and at the 1:01 mark of the video at the top of this post, we saw how he’s just impossible to deal with when he’s in position to catch a pass over the top of someone.
On the night, Wembanyama ended with 15 points, five rebounds, two assists, two steals, a block, and five turnovers. He’ll have to clean that up, of course, but despite the loss, there were a whole lot of flashes that reminded fans that San Antonio is going to be must watch this year.
Luka Doncic and the Dallas Mavericks played spoiler on Wednesday night. Doncic led the Mavs into San Antonio to take on the Spurs in a game that marked the first time Victor Wembanyama stepped on an NBA floor. While Wembanyama had a nice night, it was nowhere near enough to overcome Doncic’s 33-point triple-double, and as a result, Dallas picked up a 126-119 win.
Wembanyama wasn’t the only rookie big man who impressed on the evening. Dereck Lively II, the No. 12 overall pick out of Duke, came off the bench for the Mavericks and was nothing short of brilliant, going for 16 points on 7-for-8 shooting with 10 rebounds, an assist, a steal, and a block in 31 minutes of work off the bench. And after the game, Doncic couldn’t help but heap praise onto the youngster, although he forgot that he was on television and dropped an f-bomb.
“Amazing, man,” Doncic said of Lively’s performance. “I told him, man, he played amazing for the first game. I [never] remember seeing a rookie that played that amazing for first game. I remember my first game, I was nervous, he didn’t seem like he was nervous. So, he played f*ucking ama…”
It was at this point that Doncic’s voice tailed off because he realized he should not do that on live television. He apologized, and Cassidy Hubbarth said that we’re all getting back into the swing of things this early in the season.
Smells like success! But what will her newly unveiled perfume, Cé Noir, smell like?
“Created in France, and crafted and designed by Beyoncé, ‘Cé Noir’ contains top notes of clementine and golden honey, heart notes of rose absolute and jasmine sambac, and base notes of Namibian myrrh and golden amber,” says Billboard. “Concertgoers in Inglewood, San Francisco, Las Vegas, Phoenix, Tampa, Atlanta, Charlotte, Washington, D.C. and more cities were treated to sample strips of ‘Cé Noir.’”
Beyoncé announced the perfume on Tuesday, October 24, with an Instagram video that was captioned, “Beyoncé Parfums presents CÉ NOIR. Pre-order now on parfum.beyonce.com for shipping in November and in time for the holidays.” Over on the official website, it’s listed for $160 and only available for customers in the US and Canada.
Smells like success! But what will her newly unveiled perfume, Cé Noir, smell like?
“Created in France, and crafted and designed by Beyoncé, ‘Cé Noir’ contains top notes of clementine and golden honey, heart notes of rose absolute and jasmine sambac, and base notes of Namibian myrrh and golden amber,” says Billboard. “Concertgoers in Inglewood, San Francisco, Las Vegas, Phoenix, Tampa, Atlanta, Charlotte, Washington, D.C. and more cities were treated to sample strips of ‘Cé Noir.’”
Beyoncé announced the perfume on Tuesday, October 24, with an Instagram video that was captioned, “Beyoncé Parfums presents CÉ NOIR. Pre-order now on parfum.beyonce.com for shipping in November and in time for the holidays.” Over on the official website, it’s listed for $160 and only available for customers in the US and Canada.
Smells like success! But what will her newly unveiled perfume, Cé Noir, smell like?
“Created in France, and crafted and designed by Beyoncé, ‘Cé Noir’ contains top notes of clementine and golden honey, heart notes of rose absolute and jasmine sambac, and base notes of Namibian myrrh and golden amber,” says Billboard. “Concertgoers in Inglewood, San Francisco, Las Vegas, Phoenix, Tampa, Atlanta, Charlotte, Washington, D.C. and more cities were treated to sample strips of ‘Cé Noir.’”
Beyoncé announced the perfume on Tuesday, October 24, with an Instagram video that was captioned, “Beyoncé Parfums presents CÉ NOIR. Pre-order now on parfum.beyonce.com for shipping in November and in time for the holidays.” Over on the official website, it’s listed for $160 and only available for customers in the US and Canada.
John Carpenter is one of the great masters of the horror genre. Or is he? Sure, he’s directed some of the great classics of the genre (plus the occasional sci-fi, and sometimes a hybrid). Sure, he’s one of the pioneers of the slasher film. Sure, he’s also a top shelf film composer and genius of electronic music. But he doesn’t see himself that way. In a new interview, he insists he’s just some guy who likes the simple things in life (if not so much Barbie).
In a chat with Insider, the guy behind Halloween and Escape from New York and The Thing and that’s just the late ’70s and early ’80s does what he often does when speaking to the press: He claims he’s not that interested in talking about himself or his own work. For instance, at one point he’s asked if there’s a film of his he wishes “more people asked about, or a project that you really want to discuss that you feel doesn’t come up in conversations.”
His response: “No, I don’t care. I’d rather talk about basketball.”
Carpenter and his interviewer then talk about the WNBA, of which he’s a huge fan, for a bit before steering back to film. He bristles at high praise. For instance, when the reporter compares him to Hitchcock, he says he’s “much more like The Blob.” When asked for his thoughts on his legacy, he replies, “What legacy?”
Then comes this fun exchange:
I mean, some people would view you as one of the master directors of horror films.
That’s nice. Sorry, I’m eating a Popsicle.
So you don’t consider yourself to be —
Look, I’m not a master of anything. I just want to play video games and watch basketball. That’s all I care about doing. I don’t want to bother anybody.
Of course, at some point in between eating popsicles and playing video games and watching basketball, Carpenter found time to make a Peacock anthology series called Suburban Screams. He even helmed one episode himself, which marks his first directorial work (aside from some music videos) since 2010’s The Ward. Asked about that, Carpenter even has a simple response:
“I made a little series. If you don’t like it, f*ck off. If you do like it, I like you. So there you go.”
Truly. Perhaps John Carpenter’s greatest legacy won’t be that he made some great horror films so much as his idea that working is for the birds.
John Carpenter is one of the great masters of the horror genre. Or is he? Sure, he’s directed some of the great classics of the genre (plus the occasional sci-fi, and sometimes a hybrid). Sure, he’s one of the pioneers of the slasher film. Sure, he’s also a top shelf film composer and genius of electronic music. But he doesn’t see himself that way. In a new interview, he insists he’s just some guy who likes the simple things in life (if not so much Barbie).
In a chat with Insider, the guy behind Halloween and Escape from New York and The Thing and that’s just the late ’70s and early ’80s does what he often does when speaking to the press: He claims he’s not that interested in talking about himself or his own work. For instance, at one point he’s asked if there’s a film of his he wishes “more people asked about, or a project that you really want to discuss that you feel doesn’t come up in conversations.”
His response: “No, I don’t care. I’d rather talk about basketball.”
Carpenter and his interviewer then talk about the WNBA, of which he’s a huge fan, for a bit before steering back to film. He bristles at high praise. For instance, when the reporter compares him to Hitchcock, he says he’s “much more like The Blob.” When asked for his thoughts on his legacy, he replies, “What legacy?”
Then comes this fun exchange:
I mean, some people would view you as one of the master directors of horror films.
That’s nice. Sorry, I’m eating a Popsicle.
So you don’t consider yourself to be —
Look, I’m not a master of anything. I just want to play video games and watch basketball. That’s all I care about doing. I don’t want to bother anybody.
Of course, at some point in between eating popsicles and playing video games and watching basketball, Carpenter found time to make a Peacock anthology series called Suburban Screams. He even helmed one episode himself, which marks his first directorial work (aside from some music videos) since 2010’s The Ward. Asked about that, Carpenter even has a simple response:
“I made a little series. If you don’t like it, f*ck off. If you do like it, I like you. So there you go.”
Truly. Perhaps John Carpenter’s greatest legacy won’t be that he made some great horror films so much as his idea that working is for the birds.
This website uses cookies to improve your experience. We'll assume you're ok with this, but you can opt-out if you wish. Cookie settingsACCEPT
Privacy & Cookies Policy
Privacy Overview
This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these cookies, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website. We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies. But opting out of some of these cookies may have an effect on your browsing experience.
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website. These cookies do not store any personal information.
Any cookies that may not be particularly necessary for the website to function and is used specifically to collect user personal data via analytics, ads, other embedded contents are termed as non-necessary cookies. It is mandatory to procure user consent prior to running these cookies on your website.
Generate your own at https://t.co/bPWW3w7HaQ! Don’t forget to pre-order, pre-save, and pre-add the album while you’re there! 🩵 pic.twitter.com/DhgCDGejRF
