Taylor Swift – Lover

[SHOOTER]

Why didn’t Scott give Taylor the option of buying the label herself? “If you want your masters, either sign a new deal or buy the label yourself.” I wonder if that would’ve made any difference since it was no secret he was looking to sell.

Just my inebriated thought at 1am.

[Glove Slap]

People take Joseph Kahn's tweets seriously in 2019?

Jul 3, 2019 21:07:04 GMT -5 nickd said:

I don't know if she has the liquid resources to pay the full price for them

This crossed my mind too. She's a mainstay on the highest earners list, but she also has a lot of properties (which are part of her estimated wealth), so putting up that much upfront might not be so easy unless she's willing to liquidate some of her assets.

Given how her last tour broke records though, as well as her income from the physical sales of her albums (she made more off of the first week of Reputation than most artists do from an entire campaign), I find it tough to believe that she wouldn't be able to get a loan to make up the difference, especially if she was planning on putting a new album out this year, and then presumably touring for it in the near future.

[SHOOTER]

Jul 4, 2019 3:37:46 GMT -5 Glove Slap said:

People take Joseph Kahn's tweets seriously in 2019?

Jul 3, 2019 21:07:04 GMT -5 nickd said:

I don't know if she has the liquid resources to pay the full price for them

This crossed my mind too. She's a mainstay on the highest earners list, but she also has a lot of properties (which are part of her estimated wealth), so putting up that much upfront might not be so easy unless she's willing to liquidate some of her assets.

Given how her last tour broke records though, as well as her income from the physical sales of her albums (she made more off of the first week of Reputation than most artists do from an entire campaign), I find it tough to believe that she wouldn't be able to get a loan to make up the difference, especially if she was planning on putting a new album out this year, and then presumably touring for it in the near future.

Yeah, I didn't think she alone could buy the label with her resources but I figured if she was seriously interested, she'd find a way to make it happen. I'm really curious what the BM valuation is excluding her masters.

[insen_13]

Why do most Pulse people hate Taylor Swift so much?

Should she be silent and just accept that the industry is like that? It was her way of saying that she was grossed out about the situation. Just because you don't post something about someone you hate, doesn't mean Taylor should to.

Also, don't generalize when you judge her stans when it comes to how they treat people who are against her.

[Glove Slap]

Jul 4, 2019 10:21:01 GMT -5 insen_13 said:

Why do most Pulse people hate Taylor Swift so much?

Should she be silent and just accept that the industry is like that? It was her way of saying that she was grossed out about the situation. Just because you don't post something about someone you hate, doesn't mean Taylor should to.

Also, don't generalize when you judge her stans when it comes to how they treat people who are against her.

As someone who has followed Taylor's career since her second single, and has been a big fan for the past seven years, I know exactly who they're talking about when referring to the rancid gutter contingent of her fanbase, and I do not feel belittled at all.

You should also proofread your posts to check for hypocrisy, or at least own up to it. Just advice on how to present yourself better than you are right now in that post from one Swiftie to another.

[deepston]

YNTCD is much better than ME! but these singles ain't it.
I don't know why she feels the need to address her hatters so much. I thought this era would start with something like "We Belong Together" but yeah... here we are.

[👑 Eloquent ™]

Jul 3, 2019 17:15:17 GMT -5 🅳🅸🆂🅲🅾 said:

Jul 3, 2019 13:20:27 GMT -5 👑 Eloquent ™ said:

I think pack mentalities whether in fanbases or otherwise is unhealthy. A collection of people ganging up on one person is wrong IMO.

That particular person brought it on themselves for saying what he said and sticking with it and further defending it. We're trying to correct him and if we have to drag him a little to get him there, then so be it.

Uh, wasn't even referring to that. Regardless, I still stand by my original statement.

[nickd]

Jul 4, 2019 10:37:42 GMT -5 Glove Slap said:

Jul 4, 2019 10:21:01 GMT -5 insen_13 said:

Why do most Pulse people hate Taylor Swift so much?

Should she be silent and just accept that the industry is like that? It was her way of saying that she was grossed out about the situation. Just because you don't post something about someone you hate, doesn't mean Taylor should to.

Also, don't generalize when you judge her stans when it comes to how they treat people who are against her.

As someone who has followed Taylor's career since her second single, and has been a big fan for the past seven years, I know exactly who they're talking about when referring to the rancid gutter contingent of her fanbase, and I do not feel belittled at all.

You should also proofread your posts to check for hypocrisy, or at least own up to it. Just advice on how to present yourself better than you are right now in that post from one Swiftie to another.

I feel like the way social media works these days, it's unfortunately become a case of which side shouts the loudest when it comes to which narrative wins, so I can understand why her fans don't want things to turn against her like they have in the past, but yeah... I don't think it's necessary to come after random people on the margins of the discussion like Sia to achieve that.

[ampersand]

Regarding those Joseph Khan tweets, does anyone (besides maybe Taylor herself) actually even believe Scooby ponied up $300 million just to spite Taylor? I mean, c’mon.

[Choco]

Well, took a couple days longer than I thought but Demi is taking a "break" from social media.

I like her but she gets into a Twitter mess once every six months or so. Time to hand off the account to Scooter.

RE: the Sia thing, I don't endorse it, but let's not act like this is exclusive to the Swift fanbase. Cancellation culture and stan culture are a mess overall.

[desertfloods]

Jul 4, 2019 13:25:52 GMT -5 deepston said:

YNTCD is much better than ME! but these singles ain't it.
I don't know why she feels the need to address her hatters so much. I thought this era would start with something like "We Belong Together" but yeah... here we are.

I think it goes in line with her personality that we have seen throughout so many eras.

Contrary to what she sings about shaking it off, she has never been able to do so. Things affect her a lot and she tends to go through a phase obsessively for a long time before moving on. She also seem to care a lot about people's perception of her.

It comes in a package I suppose. Her being so in tune with her emotions and thoughts, always diving deep and not being able to let go easily are probably the reasons why we have gotten some fantastic well-written instrospective tracks in past eras.

[Ｓｏｕｎｄｃｌ🕤ｃｋ]

Taylor's fans are on another level (not all), 20k fucking rude comments on Sia's post. That's what? Bullying. She's against it? I'd say so. She suggest them to stop? (I know it's impossible to stop that, but...) If someone has a link, pass to me please.

[Deleted]

[insen_13]

Jul 4, 2019 10:37:42 GMT -5 Glove Slap said:

Jul 4, 2019 10:21:01 GMT -5 insen_13 said:

Why do most Pulse people hate Taylor Swift so much?

Should she be silent and just accept that the industry is like that? It was her way of saying that she was grossed out about the situation. Just because you don't post something about someone you hate, doesn't mean Taylor should to.

Also, don't generalize when you judge her stans when it comes to how they treat people who are against her.

As someone who has followed Taylor's career since her second single, and has been a big fan for the past seven years, I know exactly who they're talking about when referring to the rancid gutter contingent of her fanbase, and I do not feel belittled at all.

You should also proofread your posts to check for hypocrisy, or at least own up to it. Just advice on how to present yourself better than you are right now in that post from one Swiftie to another.

I feel attacked because I feel bad for Taylor. That's just it.

Actually, I don't see any hipocrisy at all regarding my post (if you're referring to my recent post). I wouldn't have posted it and would've admitted if there was something wrong with what I posted. (There's the h...) Cause, as you've said, I proofread my posts, especially its contents.

I just feel like you actually can make a point without attacking other people. I said this because I found some posts which directly judge people without even considering what they actually feel or think.

[Au$tin]

The hypocrisy is that you are preaching about not generalizing people, yet you started off your post with "Why do most Pulse people hate Taylor Swift so much?" and then go on to generalize everyone's opinions about the situation and dwindle it down to "Should she be silent and just accept that the industry is like that?" as if this complex situation and anyone's opinions towards it boils down to that basic of a viewpoint.

[Deleted]

I feel like sometimes people misconstrue direct communication as an attack. You may feel attacked but doesnt mean you were attacked. Sometimes it's just a response and nothing more.

[alestevens]

Jul 2, 2019 21:26:28 GMT -5 Dammn Baby said:

Jul 2, 2019 20:50:00 GMT -5 Rose "Payola" Nylund said:

I think often times new artists are willing to sign bad deals because they just want to sign a deal and get on the road to the big time. For some, it may be (what they believe to be) their only chance to ‘make it’.

Yup. Artists rarely get everything up front because labels absorb a lot of risk when they first sign an artist (most fail despite a considerable investment of development and marketing resources). Once artists have power to negotiate, it does happen. Janet Jackson now owns her Virgin masters but not her A&M masters for this reason. Her first Virgin contract gave her substantial advances and a 22% royalty rate, and also contained an unprecedented clause allowing her to bow out after one album if Virgin was sold to another company, which it was (when she was in an even stronger negotiating position). Brilliant.

This concept of negotiating power dynamic is not new in any business sector, so Taylor (an astute businesswoman) pretending to be surprised by it is quite amusing. Apply for a job flipping burgers at McDonald's, try to negotiate your hourly wage and benefits and see how far you get. Apply as the Board's preferred candidate to the President & CEO position and you can write your own ticket. Labels will never give every act they sign ownership of their masters unless the business model fundamentally changes. For any act, at the beginning, it's label resources that make those masters possible in the first place.

Taylor has made hundreds of millions of dollars and stands to make many hundreds of millions more throughout her career, so it's rather disingenuous to see her posturing in this manner. As others have pointed out, she can still control a lot of her masters' application and activity through her publishing deal. This is not really about the moral high ground of "owning" her original work as an artist (she gave up that right when she turned it into a - very profitable - business, and is happy to reap the ongoing benefits of that), it's really about enriching herself even further.

Taylor took a calculated risk, just as Scott did, when she signed that first contract and agreed to those terms. Her risk has paid off handsomely and she should be thrilled - few walk among her. And it's not her right to own her masters, nor is it her right to be offered the opportunity to purchase them if the seller isn't interested in doing business with her. But she knows this - all the rest is just bluster and drama.

You're right, it isn't her right to be offered any of that. But she can still be mad that someone she seems to dislike a LOT gets to reap benefits from her work. Even worse, she'll need his permission to do whatever she wants with HER music, of course she is mad, it makes absolute sense.

And you're wording this as if Taylor owed more to Big Machine than the other way around. The vast majority of her music videos these past few years were paid by Taylor herself, that is an investment of literally millions of dollars that the label didnt even dare to make despite knowing they were going to get it back. Lord knows how many other things that have come straight out of her own pocket, which the label got to benefit from all along despite not investing in them at all, now belong to Scooter.

[Janhova's Witness]

So when is the next single coming?

[Taylor.]

Jul 7, 2019 23:42:58 GMT -5 Janhova's Witness said:

So when is the next single coming?

i'm expecting her to mirror what Ariana did and release the video for the 3rd single the same day the album drops

they'll push YNTCD along for awhile and probably drop some promo singles along the way as usual

[Exclusive]

Hopefully YNTCD peaks with the album release. A promo single could generate some more buzz around the project.

[adamalterlago]

Jul 8, 2019 12:25:10 GMT -5 Exclusive said:

Hopefully YNTCD peaks with the album release. A promo single could generate some more buzz around the project.

Sadly I think it’s already peaked. This era is feeling uneventful to me.

[deepston]

Jul 8, 2019 12:25:10 GMT -5 Exclusive said:

Hopefully YNTCD peaks with the album release. A promo single could generate some more buzz around the project.

100% sure it has already peaked. 
They should release like 2 promo singles and see if anything stands out on streaming ala "Dark Horse" and "Walking on Air".

[👑 Eloquent ™]

"YNTCD" may not get higher than top 2 on the Hot 100, but it is still climbing radio (see today's update). It's a bit too soon to be thinking it has peaked with 100% certainty IMO (callouts will be a better indication). I am hoping for a top 5 pop peak when all is said and done, which would be good. Still, I agree, promo singles need to be rolled out too.

[Deleted]

Yeah being second place is not bad place to be. Let's keep it together and be strong. Our diva did that!! Silverware queen!

I just think lil nas is too much a force and him and Madonna usurped her gay and woke moment. She will sell records though because Taylor is unstoppable and her PR firm is strong and works hard

[Juan Carlos]

Besides "Teardrops On My Guitar", there's also a vinyl release of "Tim McGraw" on Big Machine Label Group's store.

[Caviar]

...and it begins

[Mylo13 💜]

Jul 10, 2019 15:29:22 GMT -5 Juan Carlos said:

Besides "Teardrops On My Guitar", there's also a vinyl release of "Tim McGraw" on Big Machine Label Group's store.

[Dammn Baby]

Jul 7, 2019 20:48:52 GMT -5 alestevens said:

Jul 2, 2019 21:26:28 GMT -5 Dammn Baby said:

Yup. Artists rarely get everything up front because labels absorb a lot of risk when they first sign an artist (most fail despite a considerable investment of development and marketing resources). Once artists have power to negotiate, it does happen. Janet Jackson now owns her Virgin masters but not her A&M masters for this reason. Her first Virgin contract gave her substantial advances and a 22% royalty rate, and also contained an unprecedented clause allowing her to bow out after one album if Virgin was sold to another company, which it was (when she was in an even stronger negotiating position). Brilliant.

This concept of negotiating power dynamic is not new in any business sector, so Taylor (an astute businesswoman) pretending to be surprised by it is quite amusing. Apply for a job flipping burgers at McDonald's, try to negotiate your hourly wage and benefits and see how far you get. Apply as the Board's preferred candidate to the President & CEO position and you can write your own ticket. Labels will never give every act they sign ownership of their masters unless the business model fundamentally changes. For any act, at the beginning, it's label resources that make those masters possible in the first place.

Taylor has made hundreds of millions of dollars and stands to make many hundreds of millions more throughout her career, so it's rather disingenuous to see her posturing in this manner. As others have pointed out, she can still control a lot of her masters' application and activity through her publishing deal. This is not really about the moral high ground of "owning" her original work as an artist (she gave up that right when she turned it into a - very profitable - business, and is happy to reap the ongoing benefits of that), it's really about enriching herself even further.

Taylor took a calculated risk, just as Scott did, when she signed that first contract and agreed to those terms. Her risk has paid off handsomely and she should be thrilled - few walk among her. And it's not her right to own her masters, nor is it her right to be offered the opportunity to purchase them if the seller isn't interested in doing business with her. But she knows this - all the rest is just bluster and drama.

You're right, it isn't her right to be offered any of that. But she can still be mad that someone she seems to dislike a LOT gets to reap benefits from her work. Even worse, she'll need his permission to do whatever she wants with HER music, of course she is mad, it makes absolute sense.

And you're wording this as if Taylor owed more to Big Machine than the other way around. The vast majority of her music videos these past few years were paid by Taylor herself, that is an investment of literally millions of dollars that the label didnt even dare to make despite knowing they were going to get it back. Lord knows how many other things that have come straight out of her own pocket, which the label got to benefit from all along despite not investing in them at all, now belong to Scooter.

Taylor made $185M last year, so I really don't think we should be feeling sorry for her for having to spend a few million dollars on (revenue generating) music videos. I pay good money to clothe myself in professional work attire - it doesn't mean I expect my employer to foot the bill. Consider it a cost of employment, just like her entourage of staff she pays to curate her life and run her business. It's just on a different level than you or me.

[bornfearless2000]

Jul 10, 2019 15:29:22 GMT -5 Juan Carlos said:

Besides "Teardrops On My Guitar", there's also a vinyl release of "Tim McGraw" on Big Machine Label Group's store.

Dead. They are really milking it.

If one day , BM releases Greatest Hits of her past works (i know they will soon), and Taylor speaks up about it and asks her fans not to buy it, will she get in trouble?

[itsaboutart]

Everything that has happened to Taylor regarding her masters is legal. She may not like it. But it’s legal. Nobody owes each other anything. She left big machine, big machine sold to its highest bidder. Capitalism sucks. Still feel for her but....
Now if there is a new law that stipulates that artists should own their masters then chase that.