imad
New Member
Joined: February 2013
Posts: 74
|
Post by imad on Oct 20, 2020 19:27:56 GMT -5
I think she has several other reasons besides financial to want to own masters of her earlier work. For instance, if she owned them, she gets to choose where and how and who can use her music, whether in television shows movies, or any other media like that. I think when she was with Big Machine, there were probably numerous opportunities she missed in having her songs showcased in various productions just because Big Machine was able to veto it. Also, say she'd want to have her earlier music showcased in another doc about her earlier life. Unless she collaborates with Big Machine in a business way which Im sure she would never want to do,that music cant be used. Or if she wants to develop a t.v. show or movie that showcases or is even built on her earlier music, omce again she'd have to let Big Machine be involved and they would capitalize off her ideas and music. Anyway I agree with what someone earlier said: I think she could re-record 1 or 2 or all 5 that she wants to in a very short time. Plus, I assume those albums would also go toward fulfilling her current recording contract, or would they? If they did, it would satisfy her obligation to produce however many albums in a very short time.
|
|
nickd
4x Platinum Member
Joined: November 2017
Posts: 4,411
|
Post by nickd on Oct 20, 2020 19:28:31 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. It's a fair question to ask, but not really one we can answer. I'd like to believe Taylor would have talked to Liz about all this but we have no way of knowing how things stand between them.
|
|
nickd
4x Platinum Member
Joined: November 2017
Posts: 4,411
|
Post by nickd on Oct 20, 2020 19:35:50 GMT -5
I think she has several other reasons besides financial to want to own masters of her earlier work. For instance, if she owned them, she gets to choose where and how and who can use her music, whether in television shows movies, or any other media like that. I think when she was with Big Machine, there were probably numerous opportunities she missed in having her songs showcased in various productions just because Big Machine was able to veto it. Also, say she'd want to have her earlier music showcased in another doc about her earlier life. Unless she collaborates with Big Machine in a business way which Im sure she would never want to do,that music cant be used. Or if she wants to develop a t.v. show or movie that showcases or is even built on her earlier music, omce again she'd have to let Big Machine be involved and they would capitalize off her ideas and music. Anyway I agree with what someone earlier said: I think she could re-record 1 or 2 or all 5 that she wants to in a very short time. Plus, I assume those albums would also go toward fulfilling her current recording contract, or would they? If they did, it would satisfy her obligation to produce however many albums in a very short time. I'm not sure they're fulfill her contractual obligations to Republic. They're probably much more interested in her making new material and I would expect that most labels would have certain minimum standards (quality, originality, etc) that would need to be met for albums to count towards those obligations.
|
|
|
Post by ificanthaveyou on Oct 20, 2020 20:27:04 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. Your comment is so shallow and full of generalizations and literally exposes what Taylor is fighting against as a woman in the music industry. She is considered a brat because she wasn’t given the opportunity to own her own material... she is considered selfish because she wants to own the art that she created. Have you ever considered that record labels are greedy sharks who buy art like they do stock? Taylor put her blood, sweat and tears into her art. She penned these songs that are a reflection of her life. If she had the money to buy her art back, what was the point of Scott going behind her back and selling it to Scooter? I don’t think Taylor is a victim in this by any means, but I think she has every right to ruin Scooter’s investment and try to reclaim her art without being perceived as selfish. And your comment on co-writers is just... I’m sure these songs have made them buckets of money and Taylor continues to fight for a bigger piece of the pie for them. Maybe in the short-term it affects them, but in the long-run her owning the recordings would pay off ten-fold. I would trust her to do right by everyone involved more than I would Scooter. And wasn’t it Big Machine/Scooter that was trying to block her performance of old material recently at last years AMAs? If anyone is hurting the co-writers revenue, it’s them. I mean, put yourself in her shoes. You are Taylor Swift, you think of Scott as family, almost a father-figure, you have single-handedly kept Big Machine up and running for years, and then you are denied the opportunity to own your recordings. Add in the fact that it went to Scooter, and it just feels like a slap in the face or a stab in the back. Was it fueled by sexism? Who knows, there are still a lot of men (especially rich White men) that will make a point to put a woman “in her place”. However, at the end of the day Taylor wasn’t even considered. So now, Taylor wants to make a big business move. She is one step ahead of Scooter and will make his investment worthless so she can buy it for cheap. Why is that selfish of her? Wasn’t it selfish of Scott to not offer the recordings to Taylor? Wasn’t it selfish of Scooter to try to make a profit off of art that wasn’t even his? I love how the woman that fights for artist revenue is considered selfish in your book. I love how you didn’t mention any of the greedy males involved...
|
|
Kinney
Gold Member
Joined: December 2012
Posts: 576
|
Post by Kinney on Oct 20, 2020 20:27:58 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. ...they're her songs though, released under her name. They have already received (and continue to - through royalties) their monetary compensation for co-writing these songs with her. I would assume most contributing songwriters in the music industry would understand that the only financial obligation they are owed is for the song itself. If one of her co-writers is waging their hopes on hypothetical sync opportunities in the future, that's completely impractical and unreasonable. And thanks for the condescension, really appreciate it!
|
|
|
Post by ificanthaveyou on Oct 20, 2020 20:34:00 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. So true, for anyone who questions her intentions, just listen to “mad woman”. She knows she holds all the power in this situation and she will make them regret their greedy, misogynistic decisions. The sucky thing is, if a man decided to do this, they would be perceived as a genius or as business-savy. And yet we have posters on here calling her selfish for being a brilliant, powerful, badass woman.
|
|
jodakyellow
Platinum Member
Joined: July 2018
Posts: 1,497
|
Post by jodakyellow on Oct 20, 2020 20:37:06 GMT -5
I wonder if I’ll ever get to use my LoverFest tickets
|
|
|
Post by Devil Marlena Nylund on Oct 20, 2020 20:49:17 GMT -5
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. Is it only vocals she's redoing? If so, you're probably right. But if the songs are being remade from scratch, the musicians would have to learn the songs, including any quirks from the originals, and the audio engineer, mixer and mastering folks would have to be able to recreate the same sounds to get them close enough to match to match the originals - if that's the intention.
|
|
|
Post by Devil Marlena Nylund on Oct 20, 2020 20:57:11 GMT -5
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. I'd say the fans Taylor has garnered at this point have been with her for much of her career and I doubt a large majority of those would rebuy her re-recorded albums. I also doubt newer fans, or casual fans, or general pop music listeners would either, regardless of whether the earlier albums didn't have much filler. That's why the re-recording thing doesn't make a ton of sense to me - whereas a compilation album with re-recorded versions of her hits would. I consider myself a newish fan (since Lover) but I also have little interest in exploring Taylor's albums before then, and a newly recorded version won't change my mind. But if she re-recorded her hits with a few new or even fan favourites, I'd probably jump on that. I think the point of doing anything is to provide something new or different, and if possible, a collectable item. Taylor is a big enough name now that she can appeal to casual music fans with a compilation album. Not many artists can do that because it's not really worth it with streaming being the primary way people listen to music.
|
|
nickd
4x Platinum Member
Joined: November 2017
Posts: 4,411
|
Post by nickd on Oct 20, 2020 21:15:23 GMT -5
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. Is it only vocals she's redoing? If so, you're probably right. But if the songs are being remade from scratch, the musicians would have to learn the songs, including any quirks from the originals, and the audio engineer, mixer and mastering folks would have to be able to recreate the same sounds to get them close enough to match to match the originals - if that's the intention. If we're talking time though, I thought we were talking about Taylor's time, not the time of whatever producers, musicians and engineers she hires. I don't think it'll take too much time away from Taylor working on whatever other projects she has in mind for the next 1-2 years. I don't think there's much of a shortage of talented musicians that could contribute, and they don't need to wait until November to start practicing their parts, they can learn that weeks/months before the actual re-recording takes place. The mixing, mastering, etc. will take a bit more time, but I don't think she needs to oversee every moment of that process, she can have a conversation with them at the start of the process, record her vocals, and then let them do their thing while she works on other endeavors and just provide feedback for any necessary tweaks and changes once they're done. One thing I'm curious about is whether the re-recording process will bring anything out of her artistically when it comes to any future projects. Like will she start feeling nostalgic for certain songs as she re-records them and want to revisit that style? Or will she want to record them with a different kind of production, and maybe make those songs with new production as bonus tracks, with the new production hinting at where she'll go with TS9?
|
|
|
Post by ificanthaveyou on Oct 20, 2020 21:18:12 GMT -5
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. I'd say the fans Taylor has garnered at this point have been with her for much of her career and I doubt a large majority of those would rebuy her re-recorded albums. I also doubt newer fans, or casual fans, or general pop music listeners would either, regardless of whether the earlier albums didn't have much filler. That's why the re-recording thing doesn't make a ton of sense to me - whereas a compilation album with re-recorded versions of her hits would. I consider myself a newish fan (since Lover) but I also have little interest in exploring Taylor's albums before then, and a newly recorded version won't change my mind. But if she re-recorded her hits with a few new or even fan favourites, I'd probably jump on that. I think the point of doing anything is to provide something new or different, and if possible, a collectable item. Taylor is a big enough name now that she can appeal to casual music fans with a compilation album. Not many artists can do that because it's not really worth it with streaming being the primary way people listen to music. I can almost say for certain that Taylor has the biggest, most dedicated fan groups out there, on par with BTS. It’s no surprise that she opens with 600k+ each era. I’d say her core fan group is about 500-600k strong so it’s almost a guarantee that she opens with that much each era. Now I agree that she wouldn’t sell buttloads of albums, but if she released vinyls and signed albums I wouldn’t be surprised to see 100k for any of the re-releases. Just like fans are buying multiple albums covers and signed cds (I bought two digital, two hard copies, one signed, a hoodie, and ten copies of cardigan) and I’ve seen many other fans do the same. She is easy to get behind and invest in, especially when she puts so much love into her work and her fans. I’m sure there are others who would see these re-releases as a collectors edition and want to purchase it because it would mean a lot to Taylor. I’m in the same boat.
|
|
|
Post by Devil Marlena Nylund on Oct 20, 2020 21:18:45 GMT -5
I just meant time in general, but also in a time=money sense for everyone else working on these too.
|
|
nickd
4x Platinum Member
Joined: November 2017
Posts: 4,411
|
Post by nickd on Oct 20, 2020 21:28:25 GMT -5
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. I'd say the fans Taylor has garnered at this point have been with her for much of her career and I doubt a large majority of those would rebuy her re-recorded albums. I also doubt newer fans, or casual fans, or general pop music listeners would either, regardless of whether the earlier albums didn't have much filler. That's why the re-recording thing doesn't make a ton of sense to me - whereas a compilation album with re-recorded versions of her hits would. I consider myself a newish fan (since Lover) but I also have little interest in exploring Taylor's albums before then, and a newly recorded version won't change my mind. But if she re-recorded her hits with a few new or even fan favourites, I'd probably jump on that. I think the point of doing anything is to provide something new or different, and if possible, a collectable item. Taylor is a big enough name now that she can appeal to casual music fans with a compilation album. Not many artists can do that because it's not really worth it with streaming being the primary way people listen to music. A large majority, no. But I can see 100-200k pure sales for some of the re-recorded albums and I don't think a Greatest Hits would sell more than 300k or so (US numbers). So pure sales probably won't recoup the costs on its own, but if it can chip into the streaming of her old masters that could make it worthwhile since those probably do around 3m SEAs per year worldwide, and then combine all that with the licensing benefits. It's still not a huge money maker compared to touring or even new music or endorsements, but it's not like it would be a huge financial boondoggle for her either.
|
|
|
Post by ificanthaveyou on Oct 20, 2020 21:30:25 GMT -5
Do y’all think record labels are less likely to invest in an album if it’s selling well on its own, without promo?
Like I’ve said before, I’m not too impressed in the promo so far. I don’t think bundles or signed albums is promo, and it’s more work for Taylor and less work for the label to make it happen. Some of y’all will say this album isn’t radio friendly or that it’s not meant to be overexposed, but the label promo has felt lazy for an album that managed 8 weeks. And let’s be honest, without fans buying all of these bundles and signed albums, that number would be cut in half.
Thinking back to 25, I felt similar to the way it was handled. The rollout of Hello was near-perfect, and then they just threw When We Were Young out there with a minimalist video and then took forever to release Send My Love with a minimalist (cheap) video and by that point all monument died. From a business standpoint though, and not focusing on the charts, they probably made the most money with the least amount of effort/money expended.
|
|
|
Post by Devil Marlena Nylund on Oct 20, 2020 21:54:57 GMT -5
A large majority, no. But I can see 100-200k pure sales for some of the re-recorded albums and I don't think a Greatest Hits would sell more than 300k or so (US numbers). I could definitely see a Taylor GHs selling more than 300k. I'd see it being a consistent seller, particularly if it had a few new singles (that also became hits) - plus she could use those new versions in playlists and such, which would up the numbers even more in the long run.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 20, 2020 23:52:20 GMT -5
Do y’all think record labels are less likely to invest in an album if it’s selling well on its own, without promo? Like I’ve said before, I’m not too impressed in the promo so far. I don’t think bundles or signed albums is promo, and it’s more work for Taylor and less work for the label to make it happen. Some of y’all will say this album isn’t radio friendly or that it’s not meant to be overexposed, but the label promo has felt lazy for an album that managed 8 weeks. And let’s be honest, without fans buying all of these bundles and signed albums, that number would be cut in half. Thinking back to 25, I felt similar to the way it was handled. The rollout of Hello was near-perfect, and then they just threw When We Were Young out there with a minimalist video and then took forever to release Send My Love with a minimalist (cheap) video and by that point all monument died. From a business standpoint though, and not focusing on the charts, they probably made the most money with the least amount of effort/money expended. I agree. Even though the album is not the most radio friendly, songs like The 1, The Last Great American Dynasty, Exile, Invisible String, and August can all be hits if managed well. The best performing non-single from Camila Cabello's Romance, My Oh My, only charted at no. 82 on the Hot 100 in its first week, lower than even Hoax. Her label promoted and pushed the song so much it became a top 15 hit. Surely songs like The 1, Exile, and The Last Great American Dynasty which peaked higher even as non-singles can do at least as well MOM if pushed well, if not better. Why are they (or Taylor and her team) sabotaging the album?
|
|
|
Post by ificanthaveyou on Oct 20, 2020 23:57:55 GMT -5
Do y’all think record labels are less likely to invest in an album if it’s selling well on its own, without promo? Like I’ve said before, I’m not too impressed in the promo so far. I don’t think bundles or signed albums is promo, and it’s more work for Taylor and less work for the label to make it happen. Some of y’all will say this album isn’t radio friendly or that it’s not meant to be overexposed, but the label promo has felt lazy for an album that managed 8 weeks. And let’s be honest, without fans buying all of these bundles and signed albums, that number would be cut in half. Thinking back to 25, I felt similar to the way it was handled. The rollout of Hello was near-perfect, and then they just threw When We Were Young out there with a minimalist video and then took forever to release Send My Love with a minimalist (cheap) video and by that point all monument died. From a business standpoint though, and not focusing on the charts, they probably made the most money with the least amount of effort/money expended. I agree. Even though the album is not the most radio friendly, songs like The 1, The Last Great American Dynasty, Exile, Invisible String, and August can all be hits if managed well. The best performing non-single from Camila Cabello's Romance, My Oh My, only charted at no. 82 on the Hot 100 in its first week, lower than even Hoax. Her label promoted and pushed the song so much it became a top 15 hit. Surely songs like The 1, Exile, and The Last Great American Dynasty which peaked higher even as non-singles can do at least as well MOM if pushed well, if not better. Why are they (or Taylor and her team) sabotaging the album? I feel like they have something epic planned for November, but if nothing happens soon it may be a bust. With Grammy season right around the corner I hope they do right by this album.
|
|
Eloqueen™
Diamond Member
TSC: Certified Member
Joined: September 2007
Posts: 20,874
|
Post by Eloqueen™ on Oct 21, 2020 0:12:59 GMT -5
I mean, do they really need to push the album? It's nearly 2x platinum (SPS) and is already the best-selling album of the year (2nd best-selling SPS soon). It's arguably more successful than her last era, is critically acclaimed, 8 weeks at #1, and has Grammy buzz. I don't see why they should go all out with promo when it is doing phenomenally as is and we are in the midst of a pandemic. I mean, I would rather they scale back with this era and then go all out with her next "mainstream" era where she will need the push and can do way more (as opposed to going all out now and then, risking overexposure).
|
|
kimberly
Diamond Member
act i RENAISSANCE
Joined: May 2018
Posts: 11,914
My Charts
Pronouns: they/them
|
Post by kimberly on Oct 21, 2020 0:14:48 GMT -5
A large majority, no. But I can see 100-200k pure sales for some of the re-recorded albums and I don't think a Greatest Hits would sell more than 300k or so (US numbers). I could definitely see a Taylor GHs selling more than 300k. I'd see it being a consistent seller, particularly if it had a few new singles (that also became hits) - plus she could use those new versions in playlists and such, which would up the numbers even more in the long run. a TS GHs vinyl release would sell like hot cakes
|
|
myhouse911
Gold Member
Joined: June 2010
Posts: 715
|
Post by myhouse911 on Oct 21, 2020 0:41:56 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. Your comment is so shallow and full of generalizations and literally exposes what Taylor is fighting against as a woman in the music industry. She is considered a brat because she wasn’t given the opportunity to own her own material... she is considered selfish because she wants to own the art that she created. Have you ever considered that record labels are greedy sharks who buy art like they do stock? Taylor put her blood, sweat and tears into her art. She penned these songs that are a reflection of her life. If she had the money to buy her art back, what was the point of Scott going behind her back and selling it to Scooter? I don’t think Taylor is a victim in this by any means, but I think she has every right to ruin Scooter’s investment and try to reclaim her art without being perceived as selfish. And your comment on co-writers is just... I’m sure these songs have made them buckets of money and Taylor continues to fight for a bigger piece of the pie for them. Maybe in the short-term it affects them, but in the long-run her owning the recordings would pay off ten-fold. I would trust her to do right by everyone involved more than I would Scooter. And wasn’t it Big Machine/Scooter that was trying to block her performance of old material recently at last years AMAs? If anyone is hurting the co-writers revenue, it’s them. I mean, put yourself in her shoes. You are Taylor Swift, you think of Scott as family, almost a father-figure, you have single-handedly kept Big Machine up and running for years, and then you are denied the opportunity to own your recordings. Add in the fact that it went to Scooter, and it just feels like a slap in the face or a stab in the back. Was it fueled by sexism? Who knows, there are still a lot of men (especially rich White men) that will make a point to put a woman “in her place”. However, at the end of the day Taylor wasn’t even considered. So now, Taylor wants to make a big business move. She is one step ahead of Scooter and will make his investment worthless so she can buy it for cheap. Why is that selfish of her? Wasn’t it selfish of Scott to not offer the recordings to Taylor? Wasn’t it selfish of Scooter to try to make a profit off of art that wasn’t even his? I love how the woman that fights for artist revenue is considered selfish in your book. I love how you didn’t mention any of the greedy males involved... No, BMR was apparently not blocking Taylor from performing any of that music at the AMA's, but you're welcome to only take Taylor's side of that story. They can not control what she performs live. I didn't call Taylor selfish for wanting to own her masters, did I? No. It was literally one component (songwriting) of the major issue she has with her previous records. Really confused why you are turning that one comment about other songwriters/licensing and adding it to a spiel about something I never said. Scooter and co. clearly did not make a smart business move in hindsight. Do you expect the music industry to be selfless? Label's goal are to make money, first and foremost. Was it selfish of Scott to not offer Taylor her masters, sure? Unless he had a bigger offer, which obviously he did, thus he did what he thought was best for his bank account. I didn't feel the need to mention greedy white males, because it was and still is irrelevant to my selfish comment. This is most likely a waste of time and text, but here's a little reality check that some of you may need, otherwise I fear for your future as a functioning adult. You work for a new small business. You and your boss, who happens to be the owner, get along really well. You get hired based on your experience, or potential, or whatever the reason, and your boss uses work you created (marketing material, spreadsheets, contact lists, etc., etc.) and it's helping increase your profit margins. Your workplace is a now a profitable one, in part to your contributions - great! Your boss is pondering selling the business. You are not able to retain anything you created during your time as an employee at said company, that sucks, but it is their property, not yours. You decide you want to leave the company for a better compensating employer. Your previous boss decides he is going to sell the company you used to work for. The company is sold to someone you do not like and have a negative relationship with - that's unfortunate, but out of your control. You are allowed to use materials you've created, however you must share revenue with the new owners. Again, unfortunate, but the bright spot is...in two years you can re-create the majority of your original material, and then you don't have to worry about the big bad new owners anymore - woohoo! So in summary, as I will no longer be engaging with you or the other user(s), who can't seem to think with their own brain and formulate a rounded opinion based off facts from all parties involved: Please know what your contract says, and know that if you do not own your work, there is a chance it can be sold to anyone, even people you don't like. If you don't like my opinion on it, that's fine. I'll comfortably stick with having similar thoughts on this as Sheryl Crow had, all whilst continuing to listen to ALL of Taylor's music, regardless of who owns the masters.
|
|
born
Diamond Member
can't come to the phone right now
BLACK LIVES MATTER
Joined: August 2014
Posts: 12,444
Pronouns: he/him
|
Post by born on Oct 21, 2020 1:12:52 GMT -5
While she certainly has the hits, I feel like a Greatest Hits album wouldn't be the best move right now. She has three albums charting on Billboard 200 and the rest are still selling decently.
|
|
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 21, 2020 3:12:15 GMT -5
yeah she should at least wait for after the grammys right before the tour (if she's gonna tour this year) to do it so she can film it and release a tour special.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 21, 2020 4:28:38 GMT -5
So... did Lover have longevity? If you expected something along the lines of Hollywood's Bleeding, Scorpion, or WWWWWWWA, it obviously didn't, but I don't think anyone expected it to as well as either of those 3 in the first place.
|
|
Khia
3x Platinum Member
Joined: July 2013
Posts: 3,719
|
Post by Khia on Oct 21, 2020 4:51:48 GMT -5
|
|
spiritboy
3x Platinum Member
Joined: April 2008
Posts: 3,316
|
Post by spiritboy on Oct 21, 2020 6:20:44 GMT -5
This could've been a great visual album, so i hope we'll have videos for every song on the album.
|
|
imad
New Member
Joined: February 2013
Posts: 74
|
Post by imad on Oct 21, 2020 8:58:20 GMT -5
|
|
nickd
4x Platinum Member
Joined: November 2017
Posts: 4,411
|
Post by nickd on Oct 21, 2020 12:19:36 GMT -5
Your comment is so shallow and full of generalizations and literally exposes what Taylor is fighting against as a woman in the music industry. She is considered a brat because she wasn’t given the opportunity to own her own material... she is considered selfish because she wants to own the art that she created. Have you ever considered that record labels are greedy sharks who buy art like they do stock? Taylor put her blood, sweat and tears into her art. She penned these songs that are a reflection of her life. If she had the money to buy her art back, what was the point of Scott going behind her back and selling it to Scooter? I don’t think Taylor is a victim in this by any means, but I think she has every right to ruin Scooter’s investment and try to reclaim her art without being perceived as selfish. And your comment on co-writers is just... I’m sure these songs have made them buckets of money and Taylor continues to fight for a bigger piece of the pie for them. Maybe in the short-term it affects them, but in the long-run her owning the recordings would pay off ten-fold. I would trust her to do right by everyone involved more than I would Scooter. And wasn’t it Big Machine/Scooter that was trying to block her performance of old material recently at last years AMAs? If anyone is hurting the co-writers revenue, it’s them. I mean, put yourself in her shoes. You are Taylor Swift, you think of Scott as family, almost a father-figure, you have single-handedly kept Big Machine up and running for years, and then you are denied the opportunity to own your recordings. Add in the fact that it went to Scooter, and it just feels like a slap in the face or a stab in the back. Was it fueled by sexism? Who knows, there are still a lot of men (especially rich White men) that will make a point to put a woman “in her place”. However, at the end of the day Taylor wasn’t even considered. So now, Taylor wants to make a big business move. She is one step ahead of Scooter and will make his investment worthless so she can buy it for cheap. Why is that selfish of her? Wasn’t it selfish of Scott to not offer the recordings to Taylor? Wasn’t it selfish of Scooter to try to make a profit off of art that wasn’t even his? I love how the woman that fights for artist revenue is considered selfish in your book. I love how you didn’t mention any of the greedy males involved... 1. No, BMR was apparently not blocking Taylor from performing any of that music at the AMA's, but you're welcome to only take Taylor's side of that story. They can not control what she performs live. 2. Unless he had a bigger offer, which obviously he did, thus he did what he thought was best for his bank account. 1. Not entirely true: variety.com/2019/music/news/taylor-swift-amas-big-machine-dick-clark-productions-reach-agreement-1203408043/2. I think this is an assumption that comes from a simplistic and even slightly naïve understanding of capitalism and business dynamics. It is entirely possible that Scott was risking taking a loss in an attempt to pressure Taylor into a somewhat predatory contract. It's also possible that there was an element of pettiness and misogyny to Scott's business dealings since that would hardly be without precedent, but that's not even necessary to explain why he might have turned down a better offer from Taylor. Sometimes in business dealings, one person will basically make offers that feel unfair, at the risk of a loss, in the hope that the other party will be pressured into agreeing to a more advantageous deal. This tactic can work, it's what my dad used when he was looking at buying a new car. He told one dealership that his final offer was $30k (making up numbers, don't remember what they were exactly) and that if they didn't agree to that, he'd go to the dealership down the road and offer $32k. The dealership was kinda pissed off and insulted at this... but they knew that $30k was still (barely) worth it and that if he offered $32k to the other dealership, he was not going to come back to them with an offer of $31k because the other dealership would surely accept. So the dealership agreed to sell the car for $30k. My mom wasn't sure if this ruthless approach was the right one, she thought it might be better to be "fair" with them with the hope that they'd return the favor when it came to having the car serviced (ie. they'd be less likely to try to rip them off when it came to that than independent auto-service shops).
|
|
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 21, 2020 13:32:00 GMT -5
We won girls!
|
|
suitact
New Member
Joined: November 2019
Posts: 31
|
Post by suitact on Oct 21, 2020 15:15:44 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. She is going to collect her coins and move on. By re-recording her songs and doing as she pleases with them, without having to make a deal and paying big machine every time she needs to use them.
|
|
|
Post by ificanthaveyou on Oct 21, 2020 15:45:49 GMT -5
I’ve been listening to mad woman all day and holy shit, Taylor came for blood on that song.
“Does a scorpion sting when fighting back? They strike to kill, and you know I will You know I will...
Now I breathe flames each time I talk My cannons all firin' at your yacht They say "move on," but you know I won't
The master of spin has a couple side flings Good wives always know She should be mad, should be scathing like me.”
Literally exposed Scott’s cheating ass and vowed her revenge... Taylor is not a woman to be messed with. She wants to destroy the both of them and I’m here for it!
|
|