theflying
3x Platinum Member
Joined: August 2006
Posts: 3,003
|
Post by theflying on Feb 19, 2024 14:16:25 GMT -5
Hence “sub”-conscious and not “conscious”, and also, no one is trying to take anyone’s posts in bad faith, I’m saying there is a dynamic of people taking women who maximize revenue potentially a bit more personally than they might if it was a man. This wasn’t the only point I made and no one needs to take it personally…You guys realize you are not the first people to complain about CapiTaylorism…
|
|
HEADOFTHEPACK
6x Platinum Member
Joined: November 2008
Posts: 6,055
|
Post by HEADOFTHEPACK on Feb 19, 2024 14:19:05 GMT -5
It’s not that you guys don’t have valid points; I understand. It’s that, ultimately, literally no one is forcing you or anyone to spend money on anything you don’t want. Like, it isn’t pinching people for money when… you literally don’t have to pay more money lol. I pre-ordered Midnights as a digital purchase (I’m lame and one of the few people that do this), and then, when she released the 3 AM tracks, I rebought the 3AM album instantaneously. And no regrets, because the surprise of this bitch scalping me with 7 new tracks absolutely blew me away. And hey, I’m over 30, I know I’ll listen to a new Taylor Swift album for a year - it’s fine if I spend an extra $20. But if I hadn’t wanted to do that, they’re still on Streaming. What it feels like everyone is specifically annoyed about is the unwritten expectation that there is one “complete version” of the album; and I think the fanbase has to reconcile that there won’t be a “complete version” of the album. Now, yes, the reasons to change this strategy are indeed guided by capitalism. But - again, you’re not paying $30 for a Taylor Swift album, you’re most likely paying $0 for a Taylor Swift album (and just your monthly streaming fee). You're implying that we're all personally hurt or financially crippled by this. It's nothing personal. We're pointing out (and criticizing) a decision that quite clearly has zero to do with music or music access. One that surely has an impact on her younger fan base in particular. I understand this is annoying, and not really something we’re used to in Pop music, and I’m NOT saying that people don’t have legitimate gripes about Pop artists finding alternative ways to maximize revenue. Sure we're used to it - merch bundles, tying album purchase to ticket purchase. It's not a surprise - the iPhone analogy used earlier in the thread isn't exact, but it unpacks the issue a bit. What she's doing (especially by releasing these alt versions progressively) is denying choice to sell more. It's not like someone can pick one that works for them up front and have the album that she intended to make. She's saying HERE is the album... oh actually, HERE is the album. Wait! HERE is the album. Oh you bought the first one? Guess maybe you'll have to buy these other two if you want the extra track(s). ALL without giving the ability to hear any of it! But are we sure that there isn’t some level of unconscious bias at work? I can’t help but feel like the “capitalist Taylor pinching fans for money” stuff comes a little bit out of sentiments like good, virtuous female pop stars shouldn’t be maximizing their revenue. Are we sure there isn’t some subconscious stuff about expectations of gender coming into play? Don't accept this, sorry. We can have a discussion about the business decisions of a billionaire without bringing in an unconscious bias/gender argument. Someone who can afford to even create all these alts clearly isn't in a position where they need to sell more to 'maximize' their revenue. Think she's doing just fine on that front.
|
|
theflying
3x Platinum Member
Joined: August 2006
Posts: 3,003
|
Post by theflying on Feb 19, 2024 14:24:22 GMT -5
Her younger fanbase doesn’t even pay for music.
“She's saying HERE is the album.”
There is no “the album”. There was no “the album” for Midnights.
|
|
Dylan :)
Diamond Member
smth 'bout youu
Joined: October 2014
Posts: 12,917
|
Post by Dylan :) on Feb 19, 2024 14:27:09 GMT -5
Hence “sub”-conscious and not “conscious”, and also, no one is trying to take anyone’s posts in bad faith, I’m saying there is a dynamic of people taking women who maximize revenue potentially a bit more personally than they might if it was a man. This wasn’t the only point I made and no one needs to take it personally…You guys realize you are not the first people to complain about CapiTaylorism… The issue isn't her wanting to maximise revenue, though. As others said, loads of artists do multiple versions of albums with different artworks. And deluxe albums have existed forever. The issue is the album isn't even out yet and there are already three different tracklists, with at least one of them being time-limited. Midnights have five versions Standard: 13 regular tracks Lavender Edition CD: Hits Different (Target), two remixes 3am Edition: 7 more songs, surprise release That would have been fine, as it is basically a standard, deluxe, and Target exclusive (which we've grown used to). Oh, and two useless remixes. Then she released: Till The Dawn Edition: Hits Different, a re-work of Snow On The Beach and Karma feat. Ice Spice Late Night Edition: Time-limited CD only sold at limited concerts. Included the re-works of Snow On The Beach and Karma, plus five of the 3am edition tracks. Doesn't include Hits Different, Glitch or Paris Then months later she releases You're Losing Me to streaming. To me, it is nothing to do with the money. I only stream music so it's basically all free to me anyway. My issue is: The standard album came out, and it had the cool twist of 7 extra songs on the 3am Edition. Great. Had to wait months and months for Hits Different to be released on streaming. Then another few months for You're Losing Me to come to streaming. Still no sign of the two Lavender Edition CD remixes. So even just looking at streaming, you're being delayed months to listen to a full album, and the cohesion of the work falls apart when you have bits and pieces everywhere. Then for collectors/those who buy physical music (which is becoming important in this day and age), you have to buy multiples of the same songs just to get one additional track. Even from an environmental standpoint its stupid.
|
|
Daenerys
Charting
I'm not going to stop the wheel, I'm going to break the wheel...
Joined: August 2022
Posts: 434
|
Post by Daenerys on Feb 19, 2024 14:29:27 GMT -5
I'm confused by that last line 'there is no album', is that a brainwashing technique to deny the experiences of people who bought all 12 versions of Midnights?
All of these posts are odd, because it seems like fans are trying to minimize the problems that consumers are having with her sales tactics. Instead of just accepting the criticism and the discontent as a result of her strategy.
|
|
HEADOFTHEPACK
6x Platinum Member
Joined: November 2008
Posts: 6,055
|
Post by HEADOFTHEPACK on Feb 19, 2024 14:36:20 GMT -5
Her younger fanbase doesn’t even pay for music. “She's saying HERE is the album.” There is no “the album”. There was no “the album” for Midnights. Says who? Someone is buying up all those vinyls, no? Sure, maybe it's parents and we can debate what 'younger' means, but she's breaking physical sales records pretty much every go around. Not following the point on Midnights - the standard edition (the one that was announced and initially went on sale on release day) has 13 tracks, ending with Mastermind. My point was also more that she might know there are more versions coming, but nobody else does. She announced an album, a tracklist was released. Then turns out nope, there's another tracklist, with an extra track not on the previous edition. I'm assuming there will also be more.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 19, 2024 14:43:10 GMT -5
Is this going to happen again once the third and then the fourth bonus track are announced?
|
|
Dylan :)
Diamond Member
smth 'bout youu
Joined: October 2014
Posts: 12,917
|
Post by Dylan :) on Feb 19, 2024 14:45:48 GMT -5
Is this going to happen again once the third and then the fourth bonus track are announced? Discussion on a discussion board? The horror!
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 19, 2024 14:48:00 GMT -5
Is this going to happen again once the third and then the fourth bonus track are announced? Discussion on a discussion board? The horror! You call them discussions, I call them repetitive rants but get those likes!
|
|
kamala 2024 truther
Diamond Member
Pulse’s #1 Conan Stan
Best Country Poster 2023 and 2x Woman of the Year!!!
Joined: October 2019
Posts: 16,372
Pronouns: he/they/she
|
Post by kamala 2024 truther on Feb 19, 2024 15:59:20 GMT -5
Discussion on a discussion board? The horror! You call them discussions, I call them repetitive rants but get those likes! This is not Twitter, lol. This is a discussion board, and we’re allowed on this board to have a dissenting opinion on our fave. We don’t need to be buried up her ass every single minute of the day; let’s not willfully be obtuse here. These are very real discussions about a release tactic that has a very real effect, from the legitimate frustration from fans at having to dole out money to get ONE new bonus track on ONE version of an album that will NOT be on any other version of that album to the just-mentioned impact this will have on our environment. The woman is not immune to criticism and has very much deserved it here and there in recent years, and I say this as a diehard Swiftie who has been stanning since she released her debut. If you don’t like the concept of us giving her criticism and having level-headed, civil discussions about it, this might not be the space for you; this is not the first time and will absolutely not be the last time she receives backlash from Pulse for a legitimate reason.
|
|
shanz88
Charting
Joined: April 2010
Posts: 203
|
Post by shanz88 on Feb 19, 2024 17:13:59 GMT -5
No way is she passing this up: I know many people are convinced the other TVs aren't coming in 2024 now because they see a pattern, but I could totally see her releasing reputation TV 9/13 and self-titled TV on 12/13, even with a new album this year... 1. It simply makes a lot of sense that she would want her old albums reclaimed (or nearly such) by the end of the tour. 2. I could see her just being eager to get TTPD out pretty soon to sort of close this chapter of her life, what with experiencing the end of a very long-term relationship and now seemingly head over heels and looking forward in her current relationship with Travis. Holding off on releasing this album as she gets more and more removed from her breakup might just create a strange sense of dissonance for her, especially since she's talked about how writing this music was a sort of catharsis. 3. Finally, I know it looks like a pattern of new album one year followed by two TVs the following year, but if you look more closely at the months they were released and the spacing of the albums, they've gotten progressively shorter. She did Fearless TV five months after Evermore, seven months between Fearless and Red TVs, 11 months between Red TV and Midnights, then this past year SNTV was released just over eight months after Midnights, 1989 TV not even four months later, and TTPD just shy of six months after 1989 TV. When you look at it that closely, the spacing between albums doesn't reflect a strict adherence to a patterned schedule.
|
|
wavey.✨️
Moderator
Look...
Positive Vibes🙏🏾❤
Joined: August 2006
Posts: 43,521
Pronouns: He/Him
Staff
|
Post by wavey.✨️ on Feb 19, 2024 17:22:26 GMT -5
Look...if you can afford to get all the versions you want, get them. Fck all the other shit. Enjoy the music how you please.
|
|
theflying
3x Platinum Member
Joined: August 2006
Posts: 3,003
|
Post by theflying on Feb 19, 2024 17:40:49 GMT -5
You call them discussions, I call them repetitive rants but get those likes! from the legitimate frustration from fans at having to dole out money to get ONE new bonus track on ONE version of an album that will NOT be on any other version of that album. You *literally* do not *have* to spend a *single cent* to listen to the new Taylor Swift album; and *most* of her fans who do not wish to buy physical albums will not. I know it’s a little irritating that You’re Losing Me is separate from the rest of Midnights, but *every single song* from Midnights is on Spotify, and every single song from TTDP will be on Spotify. I genuinely think you need to re-evaluate your relationship with the word “have”. You *literally* do not have to. This isn’t the 90s. If you’re that perturbed that people who spent extra money — who wanted to spend extra money and are being rewarded with an extra song — then just listen to it online on YouTube or TikTok the moment it leaks ala how we all did with Hits Different. Again, all these tracks *will* end up on Spotify. You’re clinging to a definition that is incredibly arbitrary. The album isn’t being separated into a free tier or a paid tier. Yes, she will get more album sales this way. If the demand is there, why does she have to reduce her sales or revenue streams because you have weird hangups about what she owes you in her art when it’s literally already there for free? Like, I’m sorry, this is pure entitlement mentality stemming from the devaluing of music that’s happened since streaming took over. It’s wild to see people feel like they’re owed something when the music is already going to be free.
|
|
Hefty Hanna
Diamond Member
a prettier jesus
Joined: August 2007
Posts: 20,452
|
Post by Hefty Hanna on Feb 19, 2024 19:41:36 GMT -5
I literally don’t care I collect vinyl and I find the multiple variations super fun.
|
|
Khia
3x Platinum Member
Joined: July 2013
Posts: 3,776
|
Post by Khia on Feb 19, 2024 19:42:03 GMT -5
LMAO, not entitlement. Nobody is saying that she should be banned from releasing all of these versions or anything. She doesn't *have* to stop doing anything, and no one *has* to buy all the variants, but that is very clearly not the point.
What is the argument here? Like, do you think we aren't aware that nobody *has* to buy all the versions? That's very obvious. Taylor can do whatever she wants. We're just expressing that it's a ridiculous tactic. It's greed, full stop.
As others have mentioned, this isn't a fan board. We are allowed to criticize Taylor, and criticizing her doesn't make anyone less of a fan. I know it may be hard for some of you to swallow, but you'll be okay, I promise.
|
|
Dylan :)
Diamond Member
smth 'bout youu
Joined: October 2014
Posts: 12,917
|
Post by Dylan :) on Feb 20, 2024 2:08:41 GMT -5
Discussion on a discussion board? The horror! You call them discussions, I call them repetitive rants but get those likes! “Getting those likes” on a topic like this means people agree with the post. I don’t think that’s something brag worthy if that’s what you’re suggesting
|
|
theflying
3x Platinum Member
Joined: August 2006
Posts: 3,003
|
Post by theflying on Feb 20, 2024 7:41:36 GMT -5
LMAO, not entitlement. Nobody is saying that she should be banned from releasing all of these versions or anything. She doesn't *have* to stop doing anything, and no one *has* to buy all the variants, but that is very clearly not the point. What is the argument here? Like, do you think we aren't aware that nobody *has* to buy all the versions? That's very obvious. Taylor can do whatever she wants. We're just expressing that it's a ridiculous tactic. It's greed, full stop. As others have mentioned, this isn't a fan board. We are allowed to criticize Taylor, and criticizing her doesn't make anyone less of a fan. I know it may be hard for some of you to swallow, but you'll be okay, I promise. Greed. Interesting. No one has a problem with you criticizing Taylor. But this is where I ask about subconscious bias. Greed? “She has enough”? She’s the most popular artist in the entire world, the head of a billion dollar business. She’s a brand, she’s a company, she sells her music. Why have you attached “greedy” to her? Is this not what a company does? Create avenues of revenue for which there is demand? You said “It’s obvious to anyone you don’t HAVE to buy anything.” But it doesn’t feel like you recognize how obvious it is. *Really* internalize that. *Really* see that. What is going to be denied to you on April 19th? What do you feel like you’re owed that you’re not getting? I really mean that. What do you feel like you’re owed but are not getting? I think if you were to be really honest in answering that you would change your point of view. You’re saying she’s greedy when she *voluntarily* puts out the product for free. Do you grapple with that she doesn’t have to do this? That someone of her stature could easily pull all her music off Streaming, and know that she’d make a lot more money off her music because she has a fanbase that actually buys albums? What if she created a custom paid-tier album experience where you paid to unlock tracks? Hell, why does she even continue to make music at all, since she’s already set for generations? I mean, gosh, anytime she makes music she makes money, and why does Taylor Swift need anymore money anyway? If only she could prove that she makes music for the love of it by essentially doing music for free. Oh, wait, she literally already does do her music for free.Do you see how ridiculously illogical your point of view is? Her music is free! FREE! The most popular artist in the world just hands out her music — in ANY OTHER time period this would be *unfathomable*. Is it greedy because she’s a female pop star and perhaps female pop stars should be thankful that they’re this successful and back down and apologize to the world for being so successful by not maximizing some revenue streams, which, in the grand scheme of things, are absolutely paltry compared to what she could be doing if she really was greedy? Is she greedy for looking at the rules of the playing field — the Billboard charts — and maximizing her potential on them; what if she’s just smart? Tactical? Efficient? But, no, she’s “greedy”. I genuinely think there is an element of Taylor Swift maximizing her sales and records in an overt way that makes people uncomfortable because they think it betrays some part of her persona that makes her down to earth, relatable, and vulnerable. We don’t want to think that someone can be all of these things and also a billionaire head of a company that is focused on doing the thing that all companies do. We’re in an era where women are more successful, breaking down more barriers, are more peoples’ bosses — both at companies and of themselves — than in human history. And instead of celebrating that, and acknowledging the absolutely impossible tightrope artists are forced to walk because Streaming services mean basically everyone’s music has to be entirely free — she’s just “greedy” because you’re gonna have to wait a few extra months for a single song before you too can hear it for free.
|
|
|
Post by Rose "Payola" Nylund on Feb 20, 2024 8:03:35 GMT -5
Yikes! I hope you did voice to text because your poor fingers.
|
|
theflying
3x Platinum Member
Joined: August 2006
Posts: 3,003
|
Post by theflying on Feb 20, 2024 8:07:45 GMT -5
If anyone needs to go touch grass it’s you who has 56,000 posts on this forum.
In one minute we’re condemning people for not allowing discussion on a discussion board, and the next minute we’re condemning people for discussing on a discussion board.
Way easier to try and be illogically dismissive than actually engage with the substance.
|
|
daddy
Platinum Member
Joined: November 2017
Posts: 1,378
|
Post by daddy on Feb 20, 2024 8:15:01 GMT -5
LMAO, not entitlement. Nobody is saying that she should be banned from releasing all of these versions or anything. She doesn't *have* to stop doing anything, and no one *has* to buy all the variants, but that is very clearly not the point. What is the argument here? Like, do you think we aren't aware that nobody *has* to buy all the versions? That's very obvious. Taylor can do whatever she wants. We're just expressing that it's a ridiculous tactic. It's greed, full stop. As others have mentioned, this isn't a fan board. We are allowed to criticize Taylor, and criticizing her doesn't make anyone less of a fan. I know it may be hard for some of you to swallow, but you'll be okay, I promise. Is it really a ridiculous tactic if it's working and making a businesswoman additional money? I stream music and haven't bought an album in years, so this doesn't affect me. But if it's a lucrative move and fans have alternate ways to listen to the music (vs having to buy multiple versions), then I don't see it as ridiculous. While some fans might prefer a full collection of songs, I also would assume other fans like having options and enjoy the hunt for acquiring the copy of their choice. I imagine it makes the buying process feel more personal. Just an alt take, interesting discussion.
|
|
wjr15
9x Platinum Member
Joined: October 2013
Posts: 9,036
|
Post by wjr15 on Feb 20, 2024 8:21:38 GMT -5
LMAO, not entitlement. Nobody is saying that she should be banned from releasing all of these versions or anything. She doesn't *have* to stop doing anything, and no one *has* to buy all the variants, but that is very clearly not the point. What is the argument here? Like, do you think we aren't aware that nobody *has* to buy all the versions? That's very obvious. Taylor can do whatever she wants. We're just expressing that it's a ridiculous tactic. It's greed, full stop. As others have mentioned, this isn't a fan board. We are allowed to criticize Taylor, and criticizing her doesn't make anyone less of a fan. I know it may be hard for some of you to swallow, but you'll be okay, I promise. Greed. Interesting. No one has a problem with you criticizing Taylor. With your think piece, it seems like you have a problem with it. It feels odd to reduce Taylor's music to a 'company' but I agree that Taylor does deserve to profit off of her music. She could do that by putting all of the bonus tracks on one deluxe version instead of making her fans pay to buy multiple physical versions of the same album just to hear one song. This is an odd thing to say after stating that Taylor deserves to profit off of her music but now you're saying that fans don't have to pay anything to hear her album. So which is it? What's with these hypotheticals? We're talking about what Taylor is doing, not what she could be doing. The accusations of sexism anytime anyone speaks out against something Taylor does is so exhausting at this point. It's getting to the point of 'boy who cried wolf'. The Billboard charts have nothing to do with this. She was already going to debut at #1 with just one version of the album. All these extra versions wouldn't have changed that and honestly, the Billboard charts would've not reflected that. The charts don't measure the exact number she sells, it just shows that she sold more than the other albums that week, whether that was by 1 copy or 100,000 copies. Rihanna says hi. Were you sleeping the entirety of 2023? Taylor had immense success and she has broken barriers for many women. Her power got Congress to take on Ticketmaster, her power boosted economies. She is in the middle of the highest grossing tour of all time and she treats her work crew very very well. She is a great example in many ways. That doesn't mean she never does anything questionable. She's Taylor Swift, not God.
|
|
|
Post by Rose "Payola" Nylund on Feb 20, 2024 8:23:06 GMT -5
If anyone needs to go touch grass it’s you who has 56,000 posts on this forum. In one minute we’re condemning people for not allowing discussion on a discussion board, and the next minute we’re condemning people for discussing on a discussion board. Way easier to try and be illogically dismissive than actually engage with the substance. Okay but where's the substance? You went on a rampage because someone used the word "greedy" because of Taylor's album tactics while also saying she's is offering her music for free (she's not) and that everyone is against her because she's a successful woman. That reasoning might apply to Twitter where they hate women, but you're on Pulse where we're all males who are into other males who worship every step of ground women walk on. Maybe we're both reading two different discussions but the one I read was people expressing frustration over the release tactics while ultimately agreeing it's not a huge deal, meanwhile you're acting as if we all believe Taylor is holding a gun to our heads making us buy 7 versions of her albums while also making them available for free (which, again, she's not). You went off the deep end for no reason and now you're telling me to touch grass?
|
|
theflying
3x Platinum Member
Joined: August 2006
Posts: 3,003
|
Post by theflying on Feb 20, 2024 8:28:47 GMT -5
- No one’s reducing Taylor’s artistry to a company; you reduce Taylor’s artistry by *not* considering it a company.
Do you guys realize that Taylor Swift carefully calibrates her music for the masses in a way that she doesn’t have to? You guys think this is just some artistic thing she can’t help that millions of people like her music? It’s a *skill*. Her music sells so much because she has *marketable skills* in her music.
You guys keep saying “it’s obvious no one HAS to pay” and then you say stuff like this. Who is making who pay? Except for potentially one song, we ALL hear the same music on April 19th whether we paid or not.
No one is making you pay!
- No one is accusing anyone of sexism, I said subconscious bias. Taylor is in a league of her own — we’ve never had a female artistic billionaire before. It’s fine if people may be unused to subconscious biases about something that hasn’t occurred before.
Taylor’s music isn’t being offered for free?
You can listen to Taylor’s music with any ol’ Spotify subscription, Apple Music, or listen to it for free on her accounts on YouTube. You do not have to pay a single cent more on April 19th to listen to the new Taylor Swift album than you did on April 18th. What is not free, exactly?
I started off my participating in this discussion by saying I *understand* what you guys are saying; you guys have valid points. Of course it’s annoying that there’s no single album with every single song from this project. But the second you guys try to extrapolate it as something personal to her character — greed, or twist it as some sort of exploitation of her fans by “making” them pay — you run into trouble with your logical consistencies to justify it.
She is not greedy, she is not “making” her fans do anything or denying them an experience.
It’s annoying that you may have to wait a few extra months to hear a single song, that will end up also being free. Yes, she cares about maximizing charts and sales and options in a way that she doesn’t apologize for. Some people really really have trouble holding space for those truths and not labeling them greedy or exploitative, and perhaps when it’s a successful woman who has built her career around being relatable, people feel it contradicts her character in some way.
It really, really doesn’t have to, and I think in a few years time people would roll their eyes if they saw Taylor fans calling her greedy over this. It’s not a take that’s going to age well.
|
|
|
Post by Rose "Payola" Nylund on Feb 20, 2024 8:47:11 GMT -5
Taylor’s music isn’t being offered for free? You can listen to Taylor’s music with any ol’ Spotify subscription, Apple Music, or listen to it for free on her accounts on YouTube. You do not have to pay a single cent more on April 19th to listen to the new Taylor Swift album than you did on April 18th. What is not free, exactly? Subscriptions cost money. You got me on the YouTube bit tho, my bad. I think you missed the crux of the discussion entirely though given that it was purely about the physical product of her album. Those involved in that discussion were music collectors for one reason or another (they prefer the cohesion of listening to a record or a CD, they don't have a subscription to a streaming service, or they don't use YouTube [I've never listened to an album on YouTube. The idea is dreadful to me]). And yes, we all realize that it's a choice and personal preference and there are options available to us. That was never the purpose of the discussion. Taylor has fans who buy the physical product and while I personally wouldn't use the word "greed" to describe the tactics she (and other artists) use when it comes to multiple versions, etc, I do believe there's an element of taking advantage of fans by doing it this way in order to increase album sales, attain higher sales achievements, etc. And again, are people forced to buy them? Not at all. But they are allowed to feel let down slightly because of it and they are allowed to be critical of the decision to release songs this way. That was the purpose of the discussion, which you tried to shut down by making it about something it never was. If you want to join the conversation, by all means do so. But maybe try to take it less personal. It's not even like you're trying to defend Taylor here. You're acting as if everyone has personally slighted you in this thread. I promise. None of this is personal against you or Taylor. We (most of us) love her and can't wait for the new album. Some of us (me included) can't wait to hold the album (vinyl and CD) in our hands.
|
|
theflying
3x Platinum Member
Joined: August 2006
Posts: 3,003
|
Post by theflying on Feb 20, 2024 8:59:31 GMT -5
Dude, literally I don’t take this personally. I also did not try and “shut down” discussion. I just feel strongly about this issue — like, sorry for my passion, I guess? And then when I stay mild they JUMP on me for essentially acting like I came in here and just screamed that everyone was sexist, and it’s like, I did not freaking do that.
People are annoyed that there isn’t a single physical edition with all the songs. Great. People are entitled to be annoyed. They were annoyed by it during Midnights. I literally said I bought Midnights and then bought it again 3 hours later when the 3AM tracks dropped.
I am literally exactly the kind of person you’re talking about who “should” feel annoyed. For me, it was not annoying, because she blew me away and it was unequivocally worth it.
But I don’t think an annoying release strategy makes her “greedy” or “taking advantage” of anyone or ascribes anything about her character.
People criticize business decisions all the time; but here, the criticism seems to be pointed toward maligning HER. But if you look at what she’s doing truly through the lens of being a business woman, people would realize that not only is Taylor doing the most basic parts of being a businesswoman but getting flack for it; in the context of the circumstance of how many free or near-free ways to listen to the album, she actually is so much LESS greedy than she could be, and why I’ve been a stickler about it.
I’m not saying she’s a philanthropist for scattering bonus tracks on different versions of physical copies, I’m saying, ascribing the decision to do so as some sort of pulling back the veil of her personal character is really not necessary because you can absolutely hold space for multiple truths about her — she is relatable, down to earth, vulnerable, and also doing what any artist might do in the absolutely unprecedented peerless stratosphere she finds herself in.
Music has….always……cost….money???
|
|
Active Aggressive
Moderator
Summertime Sadness
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 36,804
Pronouns: He/Him
Staff
|
Post by Active Aggressive on Feb 20, 2024 9:00:03 GMT -5
theflying Your passion for defending Taylor's business practices as if this were a court of law is causing you to break Pulse's rules by double posting. I think it's time to focus on something else.
|
|
theflying
3x Platinum Member
Joined: August 2006
Posts: 3,003
|
Post by theflying on Feb 20, 2024 9:04:33 GMT -5
If you’d like me to move on just say so, there’s no need to cherry pick one instance of a double post while multiple people are hounding me as if that’s something I do regularly.
Anyway, I’ve said my piece.
Thrilled for the upcoming condescending dismissiveness and regurgitation of points I’ve already addressed.
|
|
Active Aggressive
Moderator
Summertime Sadness
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 36,804
Pronouns: He/Him
Staff
|
Post by Active Aggressive on Feb 20, 2024 9:12:27 GMT -5
If you’d like me to move on just say so, there’s no need to cherry pick one instance of a double post while multiple people are hounding me as if that’s something I do regularly. Anyway, I’ve said my piece. Thrilled for the upcoming condescending dismissiveness and regurgitation of points I’ve already addressed. I know you like to argue, but...sorry! Rules are rules! I don't have to "cherry pick" anything, when the vast majority of this page is your posting. No one else is breaking the rules but you. Anyway, you said you have spoken your piece, which means I fully expect you to move on and focus on something else. Thank you!
|
|
theflying
3x Platinum Member
Joined: August 2006
Posts: 3,003
|
Post by theflying on Feb 20, 2024 9:20:53 GMT -5
I stuffed that reply into the prior post, and now, there is no double posting or rule breaking being done on this page. Which means I am free to continue discussing this topic, right?
Or, was it not actually about a double post, but you would like us all to steer away from this discussion — in which case, just say that, instead of singling me out because I’ve posted on two pages of a discussion thread when I sometimes go months without posting. 🙂🫡
|
|
wjr15
9x Platinum Member
Joined: October 2013
Posts: 9,036
|
Post by wjr15 on Feb 20, 2024 9:43:25 GMT -5
Switching topics…
I always like to give my album rankings before an artist releases a new album. I’m counting the originals and TVs as one:
1. 1989 2. Speak Now 3. Lover 4. Red 5. Reputation 6. Midnights 7. Folklore 8. Fearless 9. Evermore 10. Taylor Swift
Speak Now, Lover, and Folklore all bumped up one spot in my ranking over the last year. The SN (TV) renewed my interest in that album and it’s such a beautifully written album. Other than 3 songs, I enjoy all of Lover and I just love the bright aesthetics of that era. And I started liking Folklore more as I was listening to a lot of Taylor last year before seeing the tour. August has quickly become one of my favorite Taylor songs.
|
|