|
Post by Devil Marlena Nylund on Oct 20, 2020 9:04:03 GMT -5
I’d question the authenticity of those signed copies if there was 50k+ of them sold.
|
|
kimberly
Diamond Member
act i RENAISSANCE
Joined: May 2018
Posts: 11,916
My Charts
Pronouns: they/them
|
Post by kimberly on Oct 20, 2020 9:10:57 GMT -5
calmwaters3- Tay didn't have deluxe editions for folklore, though she surely made up for it with the multiple covers, signed copies, etc. available for the album. I don't know if she can top the original recordings of the albums or capture the same magic, especially for the earlier albums- though I'll give them a listen when she's done with them. technically, she already released a deluxe version featuring the song "the lakes." I don't see her adding more songs here just to boost sales.
|
|
HolidayGuy
Diamond Member
Joined: December 2003
Posts: 33,882
|
Post by HolidayGuy on Oct 20, 2020 9:12:54 GMT -5
^Yes, just that one version. Adding "The Lakes" later on to editions outside of he website was not a move to boost sales, I agree.
|
|
nickd
4x Platinum Member
Joined: November 2017
Posts: 4,416
|
Post by nickd on Oct 20, 2020 9:13:58 GMT -5
Don't the masters revert back to Taylor in 2030 anyways?
|
|
kimberly
Diamond Member
act i RENAISSANCE
Joined: May 2018
Posts: 11,916
My Charts
Pronouns: they/them
|
Post by kimberly on Oct 20, 2020 9:14:44 GMT -5
this was added to her website. on Target, it says it will ship and be available in-store by Nov. 20, so I'm guessing all vinyl orders will be shipped before/around then. fuck Taylor Swift because I might have to buy this version, too. my second favorite cover :')
|
|
austin
9x Platinum Member
Pulse Survivor Sri Lanka Sole Survivor
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 9,137
|
Post by austin on Oct 20, 2020 10:48:18 GMT -5
She might also just redo her singles and issue a compilation album/playlist and send to radio and such with the hopes they might pick that over the original? I still don’t see how re-recording 7 or 8 albums is financially viable for her unless there were plans to licence those recordings specifically somewhere. But as far as sales and streams, there would be a benefit of releasing a hits album so people might default to that instead of picking and choosing from her albums. I also am still wondering why she would even bother to re-record them, but she was clear she is only redoing the first 5 (up through 1989). SO it's just 5 albums, not 7-8. I am wondering if she is just going to call them 'Re-Imagined' versions and change the songs up, but then its not really re-recordings that would replace the originals. I think she should scrap the idea entirely, honestly, as much as I would love a mature vocal version of "Our Song" or "Fearless." It's just not something anyone is going to be that excited about, and most of us have memories tied to the originals and will still seek them out.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 20, 2020 11:46:20 GMT -5
I think the way things will go is that Scooter expects to make most of his money through licensing, while also earning a steady income through her catalogue sales/streams. Since he owns the masters and Taylor owns the publishing rights, either one of them can stop the other from having the song licensed for anything. Once Taylor puts out the re-recordings, potential licensors will ask her for permission to use them for miscellaneous purposes, and since she'll own both the masters and publishing rights to the re-recordings, there's no way Scooter can stop her from using them as he only owns the masters to the original, more well-known versions. Taylor will essentially make sure that Scooter can not earn the potential benefits of licensing, which would prevent him for accessing his biggest source of profit, while still being able to allow her music to be used in her movies, commercials etc. The important thing is that it's not Taylor's re-recordings that companies want to pay a lot of money for. They want to use the originals, and Taylor somehow needs to make the re-recordings more popular than the originals. That's borderline impossible, considering how well-known they are. At least 5.81M people have listened to A Place In This World from her debut CD; how will she make the rerecorded version more popular than that? Taylor needs to promote the new versions extensively, and ensure that potential licensors want to use these instead of the older versions. If that plan works, then Scooter's versions will effectively become worthless since Taylor won't allow them to be licensed, and the streaming money won't be enough to compensate for the huge amount of money used to buy them. Scooter has investors to get back to; once they realise this investment won't make them the amount of money they expected it make they'll demand their money back (or maybe more than the original with interest included; don't know how that works). Scooter will have no choice but to sell the original versions, or risk getting sued and going bankrupt. Taylor will obviously be there to buy them, and since the masters would be worth much less now since Taylor owns duplicates, he'll probably offer them at lower prices. This way Taylor will own both the originals and the re-recordings (which will serve as nice catalogue sales boosters). Taylor is obviously interested in buying her masters back, as the originals will be in much greater demand than the re-recordings, and the re-recordings might renew interest in the originals, leading to higher streams, which will lead to higher profits for Scooter and co., which Taylor doesn't want. What I am interested in knowing is that what will happen to Big Machine Records, since Taylor's catalogue wasn't the only thing he bought from Scott Borchetta back in June 2019. Will he sell it to Taylor too? Will Taylor agree to buy it?
|
|
kimberly
Diamond Member
act i RENAISSANCE
Joined: May 2018
Posts: 11,916
My Charts
Pronouns: they/them
|
Post by kimberly on Oct 20, 2020 11:56:55 GMT -5
^ Yeah but why would Taylor re-record "A Place In This World" when the song probably gets like 1,000 streams per day and realistically won't be used in a commercial or movie? I think the most important thing is for Taylor to re-record the hits and fan favorites in her catalog, and make it one compilation album. That's where the $$$ is at.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 20, 2020 12:00:45 GMT -5
She might also just redo her singles and issue a compilation album/playlist and send to radio and such with the hopes they might pick that over the original? I still don’t see how re-recording 7 or 8 albums is financially viable for her unless there were plans to licence those recordings specifically somewhere. But as far as sales and streams, there would be a benefit of releasing a hits album so people might default to that instead of picking and choosing from her albums. I also am still wondering why she would even bother to re-record them, but she was clear she is only redoing the first 5 (up through 1989). SO it's just 5 albums, not 7-8. I am wondering if she is just going to call them 'Re-Imagined' versions and change the songs up, but then its not really re-recordings that would replace the originals. I think she should scrap the idea entirely, honestly, as much as I would love a mature vocal version of "Our Song" or "Fearless." It's just not something anyone is going to be that excited about, and most of us have memories tied to the originals and will still seek them out. Taylor's fandom obeys everything she says. For example, normally her acoustic versions are consumed a lot by her fandom, but when Taylor told them to not listen to the Clear Channel live album released by BMR this April, not even one of them went to listen to it. A regular acoustic version by her would have 1M+ views on YouTube in a week or two, but I don't think the Clear Channel ones have even reached 10K views despite being 6 months old. I haven't even searched them up! If she tells her fans to listen to the re-recorded versions instead of the originals, I have no doubt most of them would switch to the new ones. Plus, with Folklore she has gained a lot of new fans who would be interested in listening to her earlier work, so they will also definitely listen to the originals. She can put out signed CDs and they'll sell like crazy. Maybe tack on a couple of unreleased songs too and I bet her fans will flock to buy them like they're brand new albums.
|
|
deepston
5x Platinum Member
Nightmare Dressed Like a Kitty
just like a folk song, our love will be passed on
Joined: August 2017
Posts: 5,661
|
Post by deepston on Oct 20, 2020 12:41:21 GMT -5
I still think the re-recordings are a bad idea. She should just bully Scooter into selling her masters or just give up on the idea while still blocking additional profits Scooter could make with the songs (such as through appearances in movies, commercials etc...)
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 20, 2020 12:50:13 GMT -5
Still hurts knowing Cardigan is going down as one of the worst performing #1 songs on the Hot 100 Cardigan deserved better
|
|
schnetzka
2x Platinum Member
The album that never ends... I mean 'THE TORTURED POETS DEPARTMENT: THE ANTHOLOGY' out now!
|
Post by schnetzka on Oct 20, 2020 12:51:14 GMT -5
I don't like the whole rerecording thing. There are many reasons why but the one that my mind can go to right now is that, am I supposed to feel bad for listening to the old versions? They were a product of their time and I enjoy them as they are and rerecording, while would be nice to hear her current voice on her older music, just makes me feel like I'm not supposed to enjoy the older stuff because she doesn't own it if that makes sense.
I never see anyone talking about that but I feel like it should be or maybe it's just me who feels that way.
|
|
nickd
4x Platinum Member
Joined: November 2017
Posts: 4,416
|
Post by nickd on Oct 20, 2020 12:51:47 GMT -5
^ Yeah but why would Taylor re-record "A Place In This World" when the song probably gets like 1,000 streams per day and realistically won't be used in a commercial or movie? I think the most important thing is for Taylor to re-record the hits and fan favorites in her catalog, and make it one compilation album. That's where the $$$ is at. A Place In This World's daily streams might be closer to 15,000 actually... I think she might want to re-record debut so that it can go #1 on the BB200 since it's her only album that hasn't peaked at #1. And then the rest of her albums all have pretty solid daily streams for all the album tracks, like 20k+ on Spotify alone. I think for Taylor, streaming is a bigger income source than licensing for movies/tv/commercials/radio.
|
|
dante
New Member
now you're asking me to listen cause it worked each time before.
Joined: June 2020
Posts: 222
|
Post by dante on Oct 20, 2020 12:56:20 GMT -5
calmwaters3- Tay didn't have deluxe editions for folklore, though she surely made up for it with the multiple covers, signed copies, etc. available for the album. I don't know if she can top the original recordings of the albums or capture the same magic, especially for the earlier albums- though I'll give them a listen when she's done with them. she did tho. that's where the lakes is in and there are two versions on streaming (standard and deluxe)
|
|
nickd
4x Platinum Member
Joined: November 2017
Posts: 4,416
|
Post by nickd on Oct 20, 2020 12:58:33 GMT -5
I still think the re-recordings are a bad idea. She should just bully Scooter into selling her masters or just give up on the idea while still blocking additional profits Scooter could make with the songs (such as through appearances in movies, commercials etc...) Why? If it's related to the time/cost of re-recording I feel like people are over-estimate how much that will cost. The songwriting and production decisions have already been made, it's much easier to just replicate them than to start from scratch if she's just doing copies. The main question is whether she'll be able to re-create the magic of the initial recordings. And if she can pressure Scooter into selling, that would be great, but I think she has to show she's willing to make good on her threats to re-record and prove she's not bluffing for that to happen, which means she'll probably have to re-record her debut at the very least.
|
|
kimberly
Diamond Member
act i RENAISSANCE
Joined: May 2018
Posts: 11,916
My Charts
Pronouns: they/them
|
Post by kimberly on Oct 20, 2020 13:02:55 GMT -5
^ Yeah but why would Taylor re-record "A Place In This World" when the song probably gets like 1,000 streams per day and realistically won't be used in a commercial or movie? I think the most important thing is for Taylor to re-record the hits and fan favorites in her catalog, and make it one compilation album. That's where the $$$ is at. A Place In This World's daily streams might be closer to 15,000 actually... I think she might want to re-record debut so that it can go #1 on the BB200 since it's her only album that hasn't peaked at #1. And then the rest of her albums all have pretty solid daily streams for all the album tracks, like 20k+ on Spotify alone. I think for Taylor, streaming is a bigger income source than licensing for movies/tv/commercials/radio. I'm pretty sure 15k streams makes around $75 and that is negligible for Taylor. I am doubtful she's re-recording because she needs cash. She could make big bank from a Taylor Swift musical or something, though, or future medley performances of her music on award shows etc would not need Scooter's approval if she re-records the hits. Makes more sense to me. I would be shocked if she re-recorded her debut in its entirety. Too much effort for a #1 no one cares about. (if it even can go #1, that is.)
|
|
dante
New Member
now you're asking me to listen cause it worked each time before.
Joined: June 2020
Posts: 222
|
Post by dante on Oct 20, 2020 13:32:49 GMT -5
a bts video or making of the music video type of video might have help cardigan for another week but all of taylors leads have charted for at least 20 weeks except cardigan, which is a shame cause it's arguably her best lead
|
|
dante
New Member
now you're asking me to listen cause it worked each time before.
Joined: June 2020
Posts: 222
|
Post by dante on Oct 20, 2020 13:34:35 GMT -5
I still think the re-recordings are a bad idea. She should just bully Scooter into selling her masters or just give up on the idea while still blocking additional profits Scooter could make with the songs (such as through appearances in movies, commercials etc...) Why? If it's related to the time/cost of re-recording I feel like people are over-estimate how much that will cost. The songwriting and production decisions have already been made, it's much easier to just replicate them than to start from scratch if she's just doing copies. The main question is whether she'll be able to re-create the magic of the initial recordings. And if she can pressure Scooter into selling, that would be great, but I think she has to show she's willing to make good on her threats to re-record and prove she's not bluffing for that to happen, which means she'll probably have to re-record her debut at the very least. yeah she def has the master files on a hard drive or something and will just drop a text to jack saying 'make the ootw instrumental i am recording my vocals and adlibs now' and then just send it to mixing and mastering and she's done.
|
|
|
Post by Devil Marlena Nylund on Oct 20, 2020 13:42:17 GMT -5
It’s not the cost of recreating the albums I’d say is an issue, it’s how much time it would take, particularly if the goal is to make them sound similar to the original.
|
|
nickd
4x Platinum Member
Joined: November 2017
Posts: 4,416
|
Post by nickd on Oct 20, 2020 16:19:27 GMT -5
A Place In This World's daily streams might be closer to 15,000 actually... I think she might want to re-record debut so that it can go #1 on the BB200 since it's her only album that hasn't peaked at #1. And then the rest of her albums all have pretty solid daily streams for all the album tracks, like 20k+ on Spotify alone. I think for Taylor, streaming is a bigger income source than licensing for movies/tv/commercials/radio. I'm pretty sure 15k streams makes around $75 and that is negligible for Taylor. I am doubtful she's re-recording because she needs cash. She could make big bank from a Taylor Swift musical or something, though, or future medley performances of her music on award shows etc would not need Scooter's approval if she re-records the hits. Makes more sense to me. I would be shocked if she re-recorded her debut in its entirety. Too much effort for a #1 no one cares about. (if it even can go #1, that is.) I think the reasoning is more personal and a question of pride than financial. Taylor has always been one that seemed to put a lot of value in artistic control and having things done her way. Still, I think re-recorded albums could sell decently well as a collectors item. And I'm not convinced the number of people willing to buy some sort of greatest hits compilation is much greater than those that would be willing to buy the individual albums, except that with the individual albums she could sell 5 of those instead of just 1 GH album. Either way, it's going to be mostly a collectors' item for the hardcore fans. $75/day isn't nothing either, that's more than $200k over the course of 10 years, just from streaming. I do think the value from re-recording those less popular album tracks is mostly in helping move pure albums though. I would be curious to see what synch fees are for tv shows, movies, etc are like, but I suspect in most instances it's not much. If we're talking about a song like Hooked On A Feeling, ok, sure, the rights holders are probably getting huge payouts for having their song featured extremely prominently as a plot device in the biggest movie franchise of the decade. And they're probably getting millions more from the streaming/sales boost their music is experiencing as well. However, there's only a handful of songs per generation that will get such high profile use, and hundreds of songs to pick from. I looked at what media Taylor's music has been used in in so far in her career, and it's mostly stuff like 10 seconds in one episode of some random TV series, or maybe they used it in the Thailand edition of Dancing With The Stars. The usage of Style in San Andreas is still one of the most prominent uses of a Taylor Swift song in media, because that was actually a pretty big movie, but even then, it was only like 30 seconds of the song playing in the background as the girl in the movie was listening to the radio while she was driving through the mountains. The only *really* big use of a Taylor song (imo) was in Detective Chinatown 2, one of the biggest movies in Chinese history, set in NYC, where Welcome To New York features prominently at four separate occasions in the movie, and which had a significant impact on the sales of both the song and 1989 in China. Devil Marlena Nylund - still takes much less time relative to units sold than signing CDs. According to a presentation by Nathan Chapman she was recorded 4 songs in one afternoon session during the making of Fearless, and that included the time required to sort out how the production should sound. Now that she's a better singer, has performed those songs a hundred times on tour and already knows how she wants the production to sound, why wouldn't she be able to record vocals pretty quickly? I genuinely think she could re-record all five albums in two weeks. Maybe a bit more time for her producers and engineers to do their thing but that's not her time and their time is less expensive.
|
|
deepston
5x Platinum Member
Nightmare Dressed Like a Kitty
just like a folk song, our love will be passed on
Joined: August 2017
Posts: 5,661
|
Post by deepston on Oct 20, 2020 16:55:11 GMT -5
Predicted to return to #1 with 82k SPS by HDD.
|
|
HolidayGuy
Diamond Member
Joined: December 2003
Posts: 33,882
|
Post by HolidayGuy on Oct 20, 2020 17:01:28 GMT -5
dante- the edition added to digital retailers and streaming services, with "The Lakes," would technically be considered deluxe, though it's not "as" deluxe as some other acts' deluxe editions. :)
|
|
kimberly
Diamond Member
act i RENAISSANCE
Joined: May 2018
Posts: 11,916
My Charts
Pronouns: they/them
|
Post by kimberly on Oct 20, 2020 17:29:29 GMT -5
I'm pretty sure 15k streams makes around $75 and that is negligible for Taylor. I am doubtful she's re-recording because she needs cash. She could make big bank from a Taylor Swift musical or something, though, or future medley performances of her music on award shows etc would not need Scooter's approval if she re-records the hits. Makes more sense to me. I would be shocked if she re-recorded her debut in its entirety. Too much effort for a #1 no one cares about. (if it even can go #1, that is.) I think the reasoning is more personal and a question of pride than financial. Taylor has always been one that seemed to put a lot of value in artistic control and having things done her way. Still, I think re-recorded albums could sell decently well as a collectors item. And I'm not convinced the number of people willing to buy some sort of greatest hits compilation is much greater than those that would be willing to buy the individual albums, except that with the individual albums she could sell 5 of those instead of just 1 GH album. Either way, it's going to be mostly a collectors' item for the hardcore fans. not to sound like Gary but we've seen how The Beatles, Mariah Carey, Britney etc milked a "greatest hits" release. Taylor is exactly at that point in her career where a lot of people would purchase a greatest hits collection if she tacks on a couple new songs and an unreleased demo or something. she can also update her streaming playlists with the new versions. and again, I don't think she's doing it for the money, but it would be a waste of her time to go back to re-recording songs nobody remembers or wants to hear. as much value as she can put in artistic control, a contract is a contract and she no longer has the masters, and when you look at the practicality aspect of things, she needs new masters for songs she plans to use in award shows, documentaries, movies etc first. at the end of the day, Taylor Swift is second only to Rihanna in terms of making smart business choices, so I'm sure she'll find a way to innovate and bring something new to the table.
|
|
m450n
Gold Member
Joined: November 2019
Posts: 877
|
Post by m450n on Oct 20, 2020 17:35:54 GMT -5
I hope she re-records just so she can give Scooter a taste of his own medicine.
I think the re-recordings will actually help a lot in the future because we've seen pop records get dated and even country records. But if she re-recorded her pop and country albums with a folklore kind of vibe I can see it standing the test of time better.
|
|
myhouse911
Gold Member
Joined: June 2010
Posts: 718
|
Post by myhouse911 on Oct 20, 2020 17:39:51 GMT -5
Coming in from hopefully an unbias/devil's advocate-ish angle here:
I'm curious what she does with her revenue from the streaming/sales of her first six albums. If she hates Scooter Braun as much as it seems, I would hope she is donating her profits to whatever it is that she is passionate about; cats, the democratic party, etc. I get the licensing thing, but I'm agreeing with Kim here, put out a greatest hits with re-recorded tracks. I would hope fans would just save their money for yet another signed vinyl or something instead of purchasing a 2020 version of Fearless.
Tailing back toward the licensing issue. If a co-writer would want to license a song (do they get a say, too? - genuine question, someone help), is Taylor really that selfish to disallow that, simply because someone she hates owns her masters? She is not the first artist to not own her music, nor will she be the last. She is also not the first artist to have someone own her material that she does not have a cordial relationship with (to put it mildly). I wish she would just let it go, collect her coins, and move on.
|
|
Kinney
Gold Member
Joined: December 2012
Posts: 579
|
Post by Kinney on Oct 20, 2020 18:16:41 GMT -5
"Selfish" to not want a man she despises to profit off her music? Please.
It's very clear (and has been from the beginning) that there was no real financial reason to re-recording her old albums, but to make sure that Scott Borchetta and Scooter Braun could not profit from her masters. For better or worse, she will make sure of it.
Either way, she has hundreds of millions of dollars and any minuscule financial hit she has to take for re-recording will be offset by the peace of mind she gets.
Also, I'll be first in line to buy her old albums with her new voice.
|
|
myhouse911
Gold Member
Joined: June 2010
Posts: 718
|
Post by myhouse911 on Oct 20, 2020 18:25:31 GMT -5
"It's very clear (and has been from the beginning) that there was no real financial reason to re-recording her old albums, but to make sure that Scott Borchetta and Scooter Braun could not profit from her masters. For better or worse, she will make sure of it."
That is actually a financial reason, though, but okay. Also, thank you for acknowledging the selfish question I threw out there in its context - other songwriters. Anyway, enjoy repurchasing her original albums with her current voice.
|
|
Kinney
Gold Member
Joined: December 2012
Posts: 579
|
Post by Kinney on Oct 20, 2020 18:44:22 GMT -5
"It's very clear (and has been from the beginning) that there was no real financial reason to re-recording her old albums, but to make sure that Scott Borchetta and Scooter Braun could not profit from her masters. For better or worse, she will make sure of it." That is actually a financial reason, though, but okay. Also, thank you for acknowledging the selfish question I threw out there in its context - other songwriters. Anyway, enjoy repurchasing her original albums with her current voice. Saying it's a financial reason implies that she is re-recording solely so she can profit more off her music, while I believe she is re-recording so that someone she hates cannot profit off her music. I would argue that this is a case of semantics, but in my opinion it's not so much a pragmatic reason as it is a principled one. The very few other songwriters that she has worked with on her albums will still be making money off royalties whether she re-records or not? I'm not sure what your point there was.
|
|
myhouse911
Gold Member
Joined: June 2010
Posts: 718
|
Post by myhouse911 on Oct 20, 2020 19:18:04 GMT -5
Argue all you want, it's still a financial reason, whether you want to accept it or not is certainly your choice.
My point was, as I already said, other songwriters and licensing. Liz Rose - for one example, while still making money off royalties - as Taylor does, loses out on additional income when these songs do not get licensed to visual media. So how long do these folks get to miss out on money they could have been earning for the last two years? Maybe they don't care, maybe they do. You suggesting that because her "very few other songwriters" still make money, is very dismissive. You don't know what these people's public and private beliefs are in regards to the music industry, and you also don't know their financial situations.
Obviously, we're not agreeing, and that is fine. I choose to look at situations from various angles and point of views. You, however, are implying that you do not.
|
|
nickd
4x Platinum Member
Joined: November 2017
Posts: 4,416
|
Post by nickd on Oct 20, 2020 19:20:05 GMT -5
I think the reasoning is more personal and a question of pride than financial. Taylor has always been one that seemed to put a lot of value in artistic control and having things done her way. Still, I think re-recorded albums could sell decently well as a collectors item. And I'm not convinced the number of people willing to buy some sort of greatest hits compilation is much greater than those that would be willing to buy the individual albums, except that with the individual albums she could sell 5 of those instead of just 1 GH album. Either way, it's going to be mostly a collectors' item for the hardcore fans. not to sound like Gary but we've seen how The Beatles, Mariah Carey, Britney etc milked a "greatest hits" release. Taylor is exactly at that point in her career where a lot of people would purchase a greatest hits collection if she tacks on a couple new songs and an unreleased demo or something. she can also update her streaming playlists with the new versions. and again, I don't think she's doing it for the money, but it would be a waste of her time to go back to re-recording songs nobody remembers or wants to hear. as much value as she can put in artistic control, a contract is a contract and she no longer has the masters, and when you look at the practicality aspect of things, she needs new masters for songs she plans to use in award shows, documentaries, movies etc first. at the end of the day, Taylor Swift is second only to Rihanna in terms of making smart business choices, so I'm sure she'll find a way to innovate and bring something new to the table. I don't think Britney's Greatest Hits: My Prerogative is really comparable... Her first couple albums in particular had a lot of filler. This was a time when casual fans were willing to buy albums, but many of them were reluctant to buy albums with a lot of filler, so her GH album targeted that demand. Taylor is seen as much more of an album artist, and I think most fans would find about 10 songs on each album that they like a fair bit (except for maybe her debut, but even then I'd say there's at least 6-7). Sure, she has some casual "fans" who only know her big hits, but that component of an artist's listener base isn't going to buy albums like they used to, they just stream now. As for The Beatles, Taylor isn't that comparable to them either. She's not as highly regarded by the vinyl buying hipsters and the Pitchfork crowd or by older generations, demographics that are among the most likely to buy albums. Even so, "1" is getting about 85% of its units from streaming these days, with about 70-80k US pure sales per year. Her pure sales would mostly come from her core fans and I don't know how much of them are really interested in hearing an album that has Our Song and Mean and Bad Blood and I Knew You Were Trouble on the same tracklist, that would make for a listen that's significantly less sonically cohesive than Red. And a lot of those core fans would want to be able to listen to Last Kiss, Clean, Holy Ground, The Way I Loved You, Cold As You, State of Grace, Haunted, etc that likely wouldn't make it onto a Greatest Hits compilation and might even prefer hearing those over hearing the singles. Personally, if the re-recordings turn out well, I would buy a re-recorded Fearless. I only really became a fan once her music became available on Spotify. Because I had a Spotify account, that means my incentives for buying her albums was not that strong, so I only did so once I became a really big fan and wanted the CDs to listen in the car and as a collectible and for the slightly better audio quality. So I've been gradually buying up her albums, starting with my favorites and working my way down the list from there. So by the time the feud with Borchetta/Scooter went public, I still had Fearless and Self-Titled left to buy and decided to hold off until the re-recordings.
|
|