kimberly
Diamond Member
act i RENAISSANCE
Joined: May 2018
Posts: 11,918
My Charts
Pronouns: they/them
|
Post by kimberly on Jul 10, 2021 10:54:11 GMT -5
what do you think it means then? Olivia Rodrigo's team felt generous and changed the credits on a song that's been out for more than 3 months? lol Yes? Olivia would do almost anything for Taylor lmaooo. it's not like Taylor Swift is a starving musician that needs the revenue from "Deja Vu." no reason for Olivia & Dan to add three more people to share income with, unprompted. it's either that they have been approached by "Cruel Summer" songwriters, or they feared they could get sued. the latter is unlikely imo, since the song has been out for 3 months and people have pointed out the similarities within hours of it dropping.
|
|
Eqbk
3x Platinum Member
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 3,175
|
Post by Eqbk on Jul 10, 2021 11:16:28 GMT -5
Yes? Olivia would do almost anything for Taylor lmaooo. it's not like Taylor Swift is a starving musician that needs the revenue from "Deja Vu." no reason for Olivia & Dan to add three more people to share income with, unprompted. it's either that they have been approached by "Cruel Summer" songwriters, or they feared they could get sued. the latter is unlikely imo, since the song has been out for 3 months and people have pointed out the similarities within hours of it dropping. Right. A lot of artists like and idolize other artists but not enough to give someone a potentially lifetime's worth of income unprompted.
|
|
|
Post by neverduplicated on Jul 10, 2021 11:17:24 GMT -5
This could be a completely different situation, but it is interesting how this also happened with "This is What You Came For" and "Better Man." Taylor was only revealed as a songwriter after the songs had already been out for some time. Maybe there was an intention to give a songwriting credit all along but they didn't so it didn't seem like Olivia was relying so hard on Taylor. Either way, we have no idea what went down. For all we know it was Annie Clark or Jack Antonoff who pushed for a writing credit.
|
|
matty005
3x Platinum Member
Joined: May 2012
Posts: 3,418
|
Post by matty005 on Jul 10, 2021 13:18:41 GMT -5
Yes? Olivia would do almost anything for Taylor lmaooo. it's not like Taylor Swift is a starving musician that needs the revenue from "Deja Vu." no reason for Olivia & Dan to add three more people to share income with, unprompted. it's either that they have been approached by "Cruel Summer" songwriters, or they feared they could get sued. the latter is unlikely imo, since the song has been out for 3 months and people have pointed out the similarities within hours of it dropping. What you're saying is for sure possible. But you presented it as a fact when it was pure speculation. That's why you're getting pushback.
|
|
kimberly
Diamond Member
act i RENAISSANCE
Joined: May 2018
Posts: 11,918
My Charts
Pronouns: they/them
|
Post by kimberly on Jul 10, 2021 13:45:22 GMT -5
lmaooo. it's not like Taylor Swift is a starving musician that needs the revenue from "Deja Vu." no reason for Olivia & Dan to add three more people to share income with, unprompted. it's either that they have been approached by "Cruel Summer" songwriters, or they feared they could get sued. the latter is unlikely imo, since the song has been out for 3 months and people have pointed out the similarities within hours of it dropping. What you're saying is for sure possible. But you presented it as a fact when it was pure speculation. That's why you're getting pushback. I thought when I said "what that means is" I made it clear that that was my interpretation of what happened behind the scenes. I do not have any additional information myself and never claimed that. This could be a completely different situation, but it is interesting how this also happened with "This is What You Came For" and "Better Man." Taylor was only revealed as a songwriter after the songs had already been out for some time. Maybe there was an intention to give a songwriting credit all along but they didn't so it didn't seem like Olivia was relying so hard on Taylor. Either way, we have no idea what went down. For all we know it was Annie Clark or Jack Antonoff who pushed for a writing credit. Well, for "Better Man," she is the sole songwriter on the track and was revealed to the public as such within a week or so of the song's release. For "This Is What You Came For" she used a pseudonym, likely because she wanted to let Calvin Harris use the song they made when they were together but didn't want to be associated with it/didn't want her name used as promotional material. (I believe Calvin Harris confirmed that Taylor Swift was the one who requested to use a pseudonym.) The case with "Deja Vu" appears to be much more delicate, since the song is 3 months old and Swift and Antonoff were credited on another song on the album already. Swift, Clark and Antonoff were not part of the creative process for the song here (unlike the other examples we discussed above where Taylor Swift was basically the sole songwriter on both songs). The change in songwriting credits appeared out of the blue, but we're not naive enough to think Olivia Rodrigo and Dan Nigro were just kind enough to credit their influence, but forgetful enough to do it three months late, are we?
|
|
Eloqueen™
Diamond Member
TSC: Certified Member
Joined: September 2007
Posts: 20,979
|
Post by Eloqueen™ on Jul 10, 2021 16:48:43 GMT -5
If Taylor is behind the move, it comes across as pretty egoic and ridiculous and I would immediately question why Taylor, someone who is astutely aware of optics in the industry (one of the most savvy in the business in that regard), particularly her own, would make a move like this with Olivia (which would only portray her negatively). Since we don't really know anything I will reserve judgement, but I would hope Taylor isn't *that* petty. The influence is clear, but it isn't a sample.
|
|
|
Post by ificanthaveyou on Jul 10, 2021 18:38:15 GMT -5
If Taylor is behind the move, it comes across as pretty egoic and ridiculous and I would immediately question why Taylor, someone who is astutely aware of optics in the industry (one of the most savvy in the business in that regard), particularly her own, would make a move like this with Olivia (which would only portray her negatively). Since we don't really know anything I will reserve judgement, but I would hope Taylor isn't *that* petty. The influence is clear, but it isn't a sample. Well especially since Olivia did sample New Years Day, so I don’t know why she’d try to cheat Taylor out of credit
|
|
moonbow
New Member
Dupe
Joined: February 2021
Posts: 79
|
Post by moonbow on Jul 11, 2021 1:54:32 GMT -5
Taylor Swift albums units moved in the US: Reputation — 5,017,000 Lover — 3,316,000 folklore — 2,712,000 evermore — 1,398,000 Fearless TV — 582,000
|
|
Au$tin
Diamond Member
Pop Culture Guru
Joined: August 2008
Posts: 54,548
My Charts
Pronouns: He/his/him
|
Post by Au$tin on Jul 11, 2021 6:21:49 GMT -5
lmaooo. it's not like Taylor Swift is a starving musician that needs the revenue from "Deja Vu." no reason for Olivia & Dan to add three more people to share income with, unprompted. it's either that they have been approached by "Cruel Summer" songwriters, or they feared they could get sued. the latter is unlikely imo, since the song has been out for 3 months and people have pointed out the similarities within hours of it dropping. What you're saying is for sure possible. But you presented it as a fact when it was pure speculation. That's why you're getting pushback. Which is, quite simply, dumb. Because literally what could the alternative even be? The preposterous idea that credit was given out of kindness of heart? No. Olivia and her team are not blind Twitter stans of Taylor Swift that would literally offer up a lifetime of income to her because they just love her that much. That's not a thing business people do. This "pushback" makes no sense. Kimberly presented the different scenarios that make sense. That's it. That's all the happened. No other scenario makes sense. Someone stepped in and made this change happen because either a) legal trouble was already ensuing or b) there was fear of legal trouble. The only thing we don't know is who initiated it. That's literally all Kimberly said and has ever claimed. Not sure why there's so much disagreement over that.
|
|
moonbow
New Member
Dupe
Joined: February 2021
Posts: 79
|
Post by moonbow on Jul 12, 2021 1:07:13 GMT -5
What you're saying is for sure possible. But you presented it as a fact when it was pure speculation. That's why you're getting pushback. Which is, quite simply, dumb. Because literally what could the alternative even be? The preposterous idea that credit was given out of kindness of heart? No. Olivia and her team are not blind Twitter stans of Taylor Swift that would literally offer up a lifetime of income to her because they just love her that much. That's not a thing business people do. This "pushback" makes no sense. Kimberly presented the different scenarios that make sense. That's it. That's all the happened. No other scenario makes sense. Someone stepped in and made this change happen because either a) legal trouble was already ensuing or b) there was fear of legal trouble. The only thing we don't know is who initiated it. That's literally all Kimberly said and has ever claimed. Not sure why there's so much disagreement over that. Okay I'm not 100% sure about this, but just because it's sampled and credit is now given to Taylor et al. doesn't mean Taylor gets 100% of the royalties. I am sure the amount she gets is marginal. Iirc several major acts like Ariana Grande and Rihanna get like 5% royalties on songs that they performed and were supposedly written by them. Not sure why anyone would think Taylor would get anymore for a song that just contains a sample of her song. It's also not like Olivia Rodrigo is a destitute up and coming songwriter who's struggling to make ends meet, so Taylor is not taking away her livelihood. Why are people here creating a typhoon in a teacup? This is a trivial matter. Also Au$tin I am not saying this in response to you, I'm generally talking about what's been going on the past few pages. You're a mad chill guy, hope you don't take any offense.
|
|
Choco
Diamond Member
lavender haze
Joined: February 2009
Posts: 27,070
My Charts
Pronouns: he/him
|
Post by Choco on Jul 12, 2021 8:46:22 GMT -5
The only typhoon in a teacup is being created by you lol. No matter how small the royalties are, someone on Taylor's team initiated some sort of legal procedure. It's petty. It might not even hold if taken to court, because let's be honest that is not an actual sample, but the royalties are marginal enough that someone on Olivia's team said you know what, let them have their credit. It wasn't worth the public fight. I think time will tell if there some sort of bad blood with this thing. Olivia promoted and posted constantly about the new Fearless. Let's see how she's feeling come Red time.
|
|
|
Post by Fears in the Fire on Jul 12, 2021 8:48:07 GMT -5
Is it really impossible that Olivia felt like being nice? I’m not saying that’s definitely what happened but I highly doubt there’s any bad blood
|
|
Choco
Diamond Member
lavender haze
Joined: February 2009
Posts: 27,070
My Charts
Pronouns: he/him
|
Post by Choco on Jul 12, 2021 8:57:01 GMT -5
Is it really impossible that Olivia felt like being nice? I’m not saying that’s definitely what happened but I highly doubt there’s any bad blood Being nice three months later? That sort of decision also needed approval from the other co-writer because it literally cuts into his revenue stream. I feel like if "Cruel Summer" was an actual interpolation they meant to do, it would have gotten credit from day one, as the other Swift/Antonoff sample on SOUR got. And they would have milked the Taylor connection for clout. "deja vu" was her second single, it would have made headlines back during release if Taylor had some credits on it.
|
|
matty005
3x Platinum Member
Joined: May 2012
Posts: 3,418
|
Post by matty005 on Jul 12, 2021 9:27:31 GMT -5
The only typhoon in a teacup is being created by you lol. No matter how small the royalties are, someone on Taylor's team initiated some sort of legal procedure. It's petty. It might not even hold if taken to court, because let's be honest that is not an actual sample, but the royalties are marginal enough that someone on Olivia's team said you know what, let them have their credit. It wasn't worth the public fight. I think time will tell if there some sort of bad blood with this thing. Olivia promoted and posted constantly about the new Fearless. Let's see how she's feeling come Red time. Couldn't the other songwriters who aren't as well off as Taylor been the one who pushed this? Or Taylor pushed this for them. The simple fact is that no one knows. So making speculation and acting like it's a for sure thing is wrong.
|
|
moonbow
New Member
Dupe
Joined: February 2021
Posts: 79
|
Post by moonbow on Jul 12, 2021 11:08:51 GMT -5
The only typhoon in a teacup is being created by you lol. No matter how small the royalties are, someone on Taylor's team initiated some sort of legal procedure. It's petty. It might not even hold if taken to court, because let's be honest that is not an actual sample, but the royalties are marginal enough that someone on Olivia's team said you know what, let them have their credit. It wasn't worth the public fight. I think time will tell if there some sort of bad blood with this thing. Olivia promoted and posted constantly about the new Fearless. Let's see how she's feeling come Red time. This conversation has been going on for days and has spread across two pages, and I'm the one who's making a fuss out of it? Okay lol Anyways, I feel like you guys are sympathising too much with Olivia. Artists credit other artists all the time, it's a really insignificant thing. It doesn't take away from the fact that it is and will be Olivia's song, and that it was only successful because of her Outside of this forum I don't think I've even heard of this being issue. Taylor has done several really petty things; this isn't one of them. You're right though; only time will tell if Taylor truly did this out of pettiness (which makes absolutely no sense to me) or if this was done out of mutual agreement without any bad blood involved.
|
|
kimberly
Diamond Member
act i RENAISSANCE
Joined: May 2018
Posts: 11,918
My Charts
Pronouns: they/them
|
Post by kimberly on Jul 12, 2021 13:44:16 GMT -5
137th Hot 100 entry for Taylor Swift, extending her record among women:
|
|
kmbgs
7x Platinum Member
Joined: October 2008
Posts: 7,240
|
Post by kmbgs on Jul 12, 2021 13:58:54 GMT -5
It's also possible that Taylor and Jack wanted the writing credits for precedential reasons (i.e., to ensure that in the future when other songwriters write songs sound like theirs, enough to the point where a lawsuit is plausible, Taylor and Jack are credited appropriately) and waived any right to financial benefit from the credits. That would make a lot of sense as to why this happened quietly 3 months after the fact, and why the other songwriters would be OK with adding their names on the credits.
We shouldn't assume that Taylor and Jack are over here taking Olivia's coins.
|
|
Choco
Diamond Member
lavender haze
Joined: February 2009
Posts: 27,070
My Charts
Pronouns: he/him
|
Post by Choco on Jul 12, 2021 14:14:19 GMT -5
This conversation has been going on for days and has spread across two pages, and I'm the one who's making a fuss out of it? Yes. Good day. It's a music forum, we're discussing. No one is parked outside of Taylor's mansion with a pitchfork waiting for her to come out lol; most people familiar with the issue are just mildly annoyed because it's becoming a common occurrence after that "Blurred Lines"/Marvin Gaye estate fight. Regarding whether it was one of the other co-writers... it's possible. Hence why I said someone on Taylor's team probably initiated some sort of proceeding. Taylor herself is very protective of her compositions so if she felt like she was owed something (for her it's probably more about creative ownership rather than the coins themselves) she could have triggered some lawyer talk. It's an interesting thing to analyze, I don't understand the urge to try to get people to move on from this topic when I don't actually have any stake on it. I still love both ladies, adore both songs and get 0 cents from the royalties of either track lmao.
|
|
kimberly
Diamond Member
act i RENAISSANCE
Joined: May 2018
Posts: 11,918
My Charts
Pronouns: they/them
|
Post by kimberly on Jul 12, 2021 14:50:54 GMT -5
It's also possible that Taylor and Jack wanted the writing credits for precedential reasons (i.e., to ensure that in the future when other songwriters write songs sound like theirs, enough to the point where a lawsuit is plausible, Taylor and Jack are credited appropriately) and waived any right to financial benefit from the credits. That would make a lot of sense as to why this happened quietly 3 months after the fact, and why the other songwriters would be OK with adding their names on the credits. We shouldn't assume that Taylor and Jack are over here taking Olivia's coins. in which case, Taylor Swift, Jack Antonoff and St. Vincent (Annie Clark) are still the instigators of this situation, and it would mean that they saw this as a plausible cause for a lawsuit when they brought it to Olivia Rodrigo and Dan Nigro to negotiate. (in other words: they were prepared to file a lawsuit had the "deja vu" writers not obliged, and they let them know that.) so even if we consider the possibility of Swift, Antonoff and Clark being nice and waiving their cut of the royalties, my original point stands. this isn't something Olivia Rodrigo decided to do out of the blue to honor her favorite artist on a random weekday. on top of that, we have no reason to believe such arrangement was made: all we know is that the three writers on "Cruel Summer" are now credited on "deja vu." 95 times out of 100, we have precedence that this would result in them getting royalties. you can speculate and hope for the rare scenario to have played out, but it remains as the statistically less likely outcome.
|
|
Taylor.
Moderator
Joined: January 2007
Posts: 18,699
Staff
|
Post by Taylor. on Jul 12, 2021 16:31:00 GMT -5
Taylor and Olivia first met (in person) on May 12 at the BRIT's; both made a big deal about it and posted pictures of themselves hugging and smiling. That was over a month after Deja Vu came out... which makes me think they're still on friendly terms? Unless Taylor faked nice that night while secretly plotting to sue her? lol idk. Making an enemy out of the current 'it girl' who idolizes you wouldn't make much sense; she has far more to gain by having Olivia on her side.
|
|
kimberly
Diamond Member
act i RENAISSANCE
Joined: May 2018
Posts: 11,918
My Charts
Pronouns: they/them
|
Post by kimberly on Jul 12, 2021 16:54:11 GMT -5
Taylor and Olivia first met (in person) on May 12 at the BRIT's; both made a big deal about it and posted pictures of themselves hugging and smiling. That was over a month after Deja Vu came out... which makes me think they're still on friendly terms? Unless Taylor faked nice that night while secretly plotting to sue her? lol idk. Making an enemy out of the current 'it girl' who idolizes you wouldn't make much sense; she has far more to gain by having Olivia on her side. I don't think "Cruel Summer" songwriters' attempt to protect their intellectual property rights means the two women are in a personal feud now. For all we know, Olivia might not even be bothered by the situation much; with the kind of year she's having, this whole thing is really no big deal. We don't know when the writers decided to address this concern. By May 12, the song had been out for ~6 weeks, but it was also not performing as well as it did post-album. Since this issue was addressed in private, negotiations might have moved much more quickly, in the weeks following SOUR release.
|
|
bornfearless2000
4x Platinum Member
SOMETHING IN THE WATER
Joined: November 2011
Posts: 4,016
|
Post by bornfearless2000 on Jul 13, 2021 3:51:39 GMT -5
Maybe Taylor’s team knows that Sour is a strong candidate for next year’s Grammy Album of the Year. If Taylor is not credited as songwriter, she won’t get the award as well. If Evermore (or any Taylor’s album) fails to get nomination for AOTY, her team can help pushing Sour to get the award (if its nominated)
|
|
|
Post by suburbandreams on Jul 13, 2021 4:59:31 GMT -5
Jack sold his song writing rights (including his work with Taylor) in December 2019 to Hipgnosis a fund based around buying song writing credits. If I would have to guess, that group would have been the one to push for credits. If not, I would imagine Olivia's camp reached first in order to an amicable settlement rather than fear that sometime in the future less friendly parties would want a higher percentage of credits.
|
|
Active Aggressive
Moderator
Chairman of The Tortured Poets Department
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 36,116
Pronouns: He/Him
Staff
|
Post by Active Aggressive on Jul 13, 2021 7:53:35 GMT -5
Jack sold his song writing rights (including his work with Taylor) in December 2019 to Hipgnosis a fund based around buying song writing credits. If I would have to guess, that group would have been the one to push for credits. If not, I would imagine Olivia's camp reached first in order to an amicable settlement rather than fear that sometime in the future less friendly parties would want a higher percentage of credits. This makes the most sense to me, tbh. Last I checked, Olivia absolutely ADORES Taylor (and I thought the feeling was mutual?), so I honestly think this is a case of listening to all the chatter about the similarities and acting accordingly out of respect more than fear or threats. I can't imagine Taylor going after Olivia, but...I know as much as everyone here.
|
|
moonbow
New Member
Dupe
Joined: February 2021
Posts: 79
|
Post by moonbow on Jul 13, 2021 8:39:01 GMT -5
In other news: Billboard 200 year end chart 2021 predictions: #2. Folklore #9. Evermore #39. Fearless (Taylor's Version) #62. Lover #88. 1989
Billboard 200 decade end chart 2020s predictions: #4. Folklore #20. Lover #32. Evermore #95. 1989 Funnily enough if Lover was released a mere three months later it would've been no. 1 on the decade end building chart.
|
|
kimberly
Diamond Member
act i RENAISSANCE
Joined: May 2018
Posts: 11,918
My Charts
Pronouns: they/them
|
Post by kimberly on Jul 13, 2021 10:16:34 GMT -5
Jack sold his song writing rights (including his work with Taylor) in December 2019 to Hipgnosis a fund based around buying song writing credits. If I would have to guess, that group would have been the one to push for credits. this makes a lot of sense to me.
|
|
Taylor.
Moderator
Joined: January 2007
Posts: 18,699
Staff
|
Post by Taylor. on Jul 13, 2021 10:17:34 GMT -5
Just got an email that my Fearless TV vinyl is being delayed by one week to September 3 (I'm in Canada). I'm assuming they're doing what they did with Evermore and prioritizing US orders to try and get #1 (my Evermore vinyl was also delayed by a week)?
|
|
|
Post by KeepDeanWeird on Jul 13, 2021 13:00:06 GMT -5
Taylor has been one of the most outspoken advocates of artists' rights during the past decade. Her stand against Apple Music was primarily done for emerging talent. Songwriters are currently getting the short-end of the stick when it comes to streaming. It's called show business for a reason. Money matters and the reason why we're getting TVs.
Of all artists, Taylor advocating for proper credit for herself and her fellow songwriters is unsurprising. It's also the right thing to do.
|
|
givenchy
New Member
Joined: June 2020
Posts: 1
|
Post by givenchy on Jul 13, 2021 21:33:40 GMT -5
I can’t wait for Speak now (TV)!!!
|
|
Troublemaker
4x Platinum Member
Tasteless Heaux
Joined: October 2014
Posts: 4,855
|
Post by Troublemaker on Jul 20, 2021 17:04:28 GMT -5
|
|