Taylor Swift - Folklore

otm

\m/

I Designed A Taylor Swift Theme Park w/60+ Attractions!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pno5g88MONo

(That was a C&P error, I didn't design this, lol)

taking stannery to a whole new level..... I admire his Virgo mastermind energy

this is the best movie of 2020 — his love of her music is so sweet and sincere

For anyone who care, here is how those aforementioned "EPs" break down:

folklore: the saltbox house chapter
last great american dynasty
august
the 1
seven
peace
betty

folklore: the sleepless nights chapter
exile (feat. Bon Iver)
hoax
my tears ricochet
illicit affairs
this is me trying
mad woman

folklore: the escapism chapter
the lakes
seven
epiphany
cardigan
mirrorball
exile (feat. Bon Iver)

It's weird that "Exile" appears twice? Or maybe not weird, I'm sure there's some logic behind it.

Probably wanted to make it an even 6 for each EP, but only had 17 songs to work with. Also throwing some more streaming change at her buddy Mr. Iver.

Good song to repeat, IMO

("Seven" is also repeated, fwiw)

Listening thru these EPs, I don't feel like the track order is an "improvement" in how they present the songs - I would stick with the album running order.

I missed something ... is this "three EPs" thing something Taylor has put forth? or is it just a fan theory kind of thing?

Seems to be official - they're on the streaming services (as her "latest releases"). I haven't seen them discussed anywhere, but I also haven't looked.

Taylor herself tweeted out these tracklists, so they are official in that sense. Cynically, just a way to keep goosing the streaming numbers now that the album has been out for awhile.

I like the idea of an artist experimenting with alternate presentations of a big batch of songs (the way we in these ILM threads tend to fiddle with the selection / running order of Taylor Swift tracks, for whatever reason).

Not sure these particular re-arrangements really illuminate anything, though...

(But I'm also not focused on the interconnected narratives that supposedly connect some of these songs.)

weird that invisible string doesn't appear on any of those "EP" reworkings. probably my fav song on the record at this point!

Huh, I didn't even notice that was missing. Looks like "seven" is also used twice.

it’s also a way to get “the lakes” on streaming

it's stupid how good this album is

^^^^

FYI, another EP (this one has “Invisible String”):

folklore: the yeah I showed up at your party chapter
betty (Live from the 2020 Academy of Country Music Awards)
the 1
mirrorball
the last great american dynasty
invisible string
cardigan

the live version of “Betty” substitutes “would you tell me to go straight to hell” for “would you tell me I was chickenshit”

I don’t see the rhyme or reason in the overlapping song selections in these “chapters.”

xp sorry - guess the line on the album is “would you tell me to go fuck myself” (don’t know where I got the “chickenshit” thing, lol)

I don’t see the rhyme or reason in the overlapping song selections in these “chapters.”

I say this as a fan of Swift, this album and these chapters - I think it’s as simple as goosing her streaming numbers is all.

I’ve seen at least one other instance of this: Kaash Paige just released an EP that contains four tracks off her recent album (and nothing new).

It's not much different than her releasing special-edition versions at Target or whatever.

Those have bonus tracks... this is just reshuffling the same batch of songs you could listen to a click away on the album. (It must “work,” though.)

(the latest Swift “chapter” notwithstanding, which actually does have a non-album track)

Yeah, I just mean her marketing savvy in general. I feel like she and/or her people have always been really smart about market mechanics, and they've adjusted to them with each release to maximize their returns.

(By smart I partly mean shameless, of course.)

Been getting a lot of questions about the recent sale of my old masters. I hope this clears things up. pic.twitter.com/sscKXp2ibD

— Taylor Swift (@taylorswift13) November 16, 2020

Christ, I'm beginning to think this Scooter guy is kind of an asshole. /sarcasm

"Plenty of surprises in store," get it?

This is too bad, but basically the epitome of the Steve Albini Baffler essay writ large. When there's millions and millions to be had, someone's gonna be the sucker, and it's often the artist.

I mean, Taylor likely made millions and millions when she left Big Machine and signed with UMG

I mean obviously she can do whatever she wants, but spending time and creative energy re-recording her old music basically out of pettiness over a business deal that didn't go her way is lame as hell.

have to say, I agree

I mean obviously she can do whatever she wants, but spending time and creative energy re-recording her old music basically out of pettiness over a business deal that didn't go her way is lame as hell.

― triggercut, Monday, November 16, 2020 7:59 PM (three minutes ago)

what an insane post!

even implicitly taking the side of scooter braun and the private equity firm shamrock holdings in any sort of dispute whatsoever...... could not be me

Honestly, I don't care enough to take sides in a dispute between millionaires. I guess I'm just disappointed in how she continuously chooses to react to things that are legitimate grievances not just for her, but for other artists. Her answer is never to advocate for wider structural reform of the music industry or capitalist society, it's always just to make sure that she, specifically, gets what she wants, and that she looks like the Good Guy always. From my perspective, she's the greatest master of public relations in the history of pop music, and has generated a ridiculous amount of social power from that. It's just a shame she doesn't put that to a use besides making herself look good.

Honestly, I don't care enough to take sides in a dispute between millionaires.

don't lie to us or yourself, c'mon now

the rest of your post is holding her to an impossible standard... i don't see the argument for why it's bad for her to fight to regain ownership of her music. who is the victim here, aside from you, for having to read about taylor swift attempting to position herself as the good guy? the last time we all argued about this the line was that her stans were putting big machine employees in danger bcuz they got one day off of work -- doesn't seem like any of them were assassinated so the other side of this argument will have to come up w/ a new reason as to why taylor swift is a villain for engaging in a publicity battle w/ scooter braun and some private equity firms

the last time we all argued about this the line was that her stans were putting big machine employees in danger bcuz they got one day off of work

lol - you're cold-blooded, dude

Someone should make a Taylor Swift version of that Simpsons meme of weird nerds jumping to taking a bullet for Elon Musk.

I'm not sure that thinking she should advocate for change in the music industry rather than whipping up a frenzy of emotion around her specific case of being fucked over by the music industry is holding her to an impossible standard.

Taylor Swift should own the masters of her music. It's not wrong for her to fight for that. And it's nice for Taylor Swift that she has the time, money, platform and resources to wage such a public campaign about her specific case, but with the way she is approaching it, it really does nothing to change anything for anyone else in the future. Should she be obliged to advocate for change in the music industry? Of course not. It just feels like a wasted opportunity, especially from someone with an enormous profile who purports to Care and in her own words "wants to be on the right side of history".

Her answer is never to advocate for wider structural reform of the music industry or capitalist society, it's always just to make sure that she, specifically, gets what she wants, and that she looks like the Good Guy always.

"Speaking to Variety in January, Swift elaborated: “Well, I do sleep well at night knowing that I’m right, and knowing that in 10 years it will have been a good thing that I spoke about artists’ rights to their art, and that we bring up conversations like: Should record deals maybe be for a shorter term, or how are we really helping artists if we’re not giving them the first right of refusal to purchase their work if they want to?”"

https://variety.com/2020/music/news/scooter-braun-sells-taylor-swift-big-machine-masters-1234832080/

I think it's worse than "a business deal that didn't go her way"

But I also think it's worse than "her stans were putting Big Machine employees in danger bcuz they got one day off of work"

And lastly, the reason why TS doesn't own her masters is because she was offered them, but elected to walk away from negotiations to sign a (probably extremely lucrative) deal with UMG. Albini-rhetoric does not apply here

"Speaking to Variety in January, Swift elaborated: “Well, I do sleep well at night knowing that I’m right, and knowing that in 10 years it will have been a good thing that I spoke about artists’ rights to their art, and that we bring up conversations like: Should record deals maybe be for a shorter term, or how are we really helping artists if we’re not giving them the first right of refusal to purchase their work if they want to?”"

https://variety.com/2020/music/news/scooter-braun-sells-taylor-swift-big-machine-masters-1234832080/

I don't think those questions are the ones that are being centred given how she and her team have communicated with fans and the media in this saga. Her latest post certainly doesn't make those the issues. The question at the centre of all this is: Should TAYLOR SWIFT own her own music instead of some soulless private equity firm? And of course any sane person will answer yes to that.

But I will be pleasantly surprised and happily proven wrong if any of this actually means that anything is going to change for anyone else.

you should try, like, reading news articles before you post

https://www.rollingstone.com/pro/news/taylor-swift-universal-republic-deal-spotify-758102/

A source close to the matter tells Rolling Stone that Swift’s alignment with UMG chairman/CEO Sir Lucian Grainge’s approach to artist payments — specifically, his interest in offering Spotify equity to artists without withholding any money owed — was instrumental in the singer’s decision to sign a deal with Universal over the other labels. While sources declined to give financial details, citing the still-hypothetical nature of the matter, Swift said in her announcement that the Spotify provision involves “much better terms” than what Sony and Warner offered.

“As part of my new contract with Universal Music Group, I asked that any sale of their Spotify shares result in a distribution of money to their artist, non-recoupable,” Swift wrote in an Instagram post. “They have generously agreed to this, at what they believe will be much better terms than paid out previously by other major labels.” Swift added that the Spotify provision “meant more to me than any other deal point” of the new contract, which also gives her ownership of her masters going forward, and that it’s a sign “we are headed toward positive change for creators — a goal I’m never going to stop trying to help achieve, in whatever ways I can.”

"While sources declined to give financial details"

“They have generously agreed to this, at what they believe will be much better terms than paid out previously by other major labels.”

PR puff pieces aren't news. Absolutely useless information without any specifics as to how that is going to, or has actually helped any artist in a meaningful way.

Every time I try and unpack my thoughts on this it always ends up with "well, this would all be solved if we just shot Scooter Braun into the sun". Anyway:

First off I think it's unreasonable for anyone to expect TS to actually be "on the right side of history"-- she's a businesswoman and her politics are a method of accumulating profit

Second I don't think it can really be understated how shitty that whole Kim/Kanye "we recorded your phone call" situation must've been for TS-- a narrative that got turned into a "white woman's tears" narrative but ffs watch "Famous" again and tell me she doesn't have a right to be pissed/upset, and pissed/upset at Scooter's participation in it

Third it is not "greed" that motivated Scooter Braun to purchase Big Machine, it was abusive control, full-stop-- Taylor's accusations of this being tied to toxic masculinity are otm as far as I'm concerned

Fourth it is ugly to me that Taylor would take to Twitter to sic her rabid fans on Scooter (and, specifically, the head of Big Machine, who seemingly did nothing wrong but prognosticate that TS would be upset about a sale to Scooter; maybe he should've prognosticated? but his decision was surely not malicious) resulting in death threats on them both, and their families and employees

Fifth I believe Scooter et al. when they claim that Taylor is twisting the narrative when she says they're "blocking" her capacity to perform her own songs

Sixth it seems totally reasonably that Scooter would, in light of these tweets, request an non-disparagement agreement of TS-- and totally unreasonable that TS would then publicly characterize this request as something that "assaulters use to silence their accusers"

Seventh I think this "I'm going to re-record the back catalogue" is an obviously empty threat-- Ithaca bought the publishing to these songs, as well as the masters, so Scooter et al. are gonna be controlling and profiting off their usage regardless of what recording is being used. This threat just strikes me as another form of leverage, idk

In short

I don't think TS should be tweeting bullshit about Scooter Braun so that his family or the Big Machine employees get harassed, instead we should collectively be figuring out a way of shooting him into the sun