Taylor Swift - Folklore

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

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.

― triggercut, Monday, November 16, 2020 9:28 PM (seven minutes ago)

any cursory following of her well publicized battles w/ apple & spotify would tell you that she's been more vocal about the relationship between artists and streaming services than any other artist of her stature that i can think of. she fought apple when it started apple music w/ a free trial that affected royalty payments to artists, and kept her music off of spotify for three years over essentially their entire business model. she hasn't triggered a paradigm shift or fallen on her sword on behalf of every other musician, but my takeaway from that is the extent to which even the most powerful musicians in the world are at the mercy of consolidated corporations/platforms when it comes to the distribution of music and the profits from it.

again, she's a complicated figure -- her music is always spon-conned out the ass, she decided to go back on spotify eventually and plays very nice w/ them now. she is no anti-capitalist hero. but to argue that she's never used her power to advocate for the rights of musicians w/ less power is flatly wrong. like, literally, i would advise doing some googling and reading very basic articles like on page 1 of the results page and then circling back to this thread bcuz it's clear that you don't know what you're talking about when it comes to this subject.

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

the idea that scooter braun should be spared the wrath of stans is really funny to me. the entirety of his wealth is based upon cultivating an insanely rabid stan base around justin bieber and then milking that to the point of justin bieber having mental breakdowns on stage. if there's anyone on earth who can't complain about the other side of the coin, it's him.

Maybe she should tell her fanbase to stop using Spotify, tbh

Sorry, that followed a thought that I didn't actually type:

she's been more vocal about the relationship between artists and streaming services than any other artist of her stature that i can think of.

Yes, this is true, because there are so few (if any) other artists of her stature. Claiming she's been "fighting" Spotify (compared to how the indie community is screaming about it) is kinda disingenuous. I like her music a lot! but she's not my friend

the idea that scooter braun should be spared the wrath of stans is really funny to me.

and the Big Machine staffers who got a fun “day off”? and the Pitchfork writer who received death threats that were reported in the press, but never (please correct me if I’m wrong, I would like to be wrong here) addressed by Taylor (whereas other artists speak out & cool down their stanbase when it comes even to more standard-issue hashtag campaigning and online harassment)?

I’m a fan of her music, but her willingness to weaponize stans and overlook or even encourage the perception of real-life danger – especially after experiencing such threats herself – makes me think she is not a cool person. (The Soros boogeyman stuff was pretty weird too, tbh)

any cursory following of her well publicized battles w/ apple & spotify would tell you that she's been more vocal about the relationship between artists and streaming services than any other artist of her stature that i can think of. she fought apple when it started apple music w/ a free trial that affected royalty payments to artists, and kept her music off of spotify for three years over essentially their entire business model.

Happy to see any articles from other less powerful artists who have come out and said that the actions of Taylor Swift have made an actual material impact on the amount of control they have over their music, or over the amount of money that they earn.

when taylor turns one third of the USA into a socialist utopia triggercut is gonna have some real egg on their face.

Way to move the goalpost there

Anyway did folklore come out in July? Feels like two years ago

Must be nice having such a good faith in capitalists to believe that any of this was about anything but the amount of money she herself stood to earn.

Happy to see any articles from other less powerful artists who have come out and said that the actions of Taylor Swift have made an actual material impact on the amount of control they have over their music, or over the amount of money that they earn.

― triggercut, Monday, November 16, 2020 9:52 PM (four minutes ago)

look, i'm just having the argument on your terms -- you asked for her to advocate for other artists with less power than her, and i pointed out that there have been several very well publicized instances of her using her platform to do this. again, try doing some reading. your standard of taylor swift "having made an actual material impact on the amount of control" artists have over their music, or the amount of money they earn, shows an extreme naivety about the entire nature of the music industry, or a desire to argue disingenuously on a subject on which you claim to not be taking any sides. i guess we can continue to try and find out which it is.

J0rdan give a link instead of saying "try doing some reading"! I'm interested but no I'm not going to google on your behalf

Also

she's been more vocal about the relationship between artists and streaming services than any other artist of her stature that i can think of.

In 2015, Project Panther (which is controlled and owned by Jay-Z) bought Aspiro (the developers of Tidal) for $56m. (Tidal continues to pay their artists 4x per play what Spotify pays.)

But yeah I can feel your eyes rolling as I'm typing this

ok, a point for jay z. i forgot about tidal.

here's a news article in the guardian about how she wrote a blog post directed at apple over their decision to not pay royalties during their initial free trial period, siding w/ indie labels such as beggars, and got them to reverse the decision

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/jun/22/apple-music-royalties-free-trial-taylor-swift

and look, apple still pays shit royalties and taylor swift does commercials for them. i'm not painting her as a hero. she's a populist and a capitalist at heart -- i wrote a whole long article on this subject myself.

https://www.spin.com/featured/taylor-swift-pop-music-me-essay/

but to say she doesn't use her platform to advocate for artists w/ less power than her isn't true. and from there i would consider who has the power here -- the three label corporations and two streaming services that currently control how we consume basically the entirety of music, or one taylor swift.

And fair point abt the free trial session re: Apple. I wonder how much that concession cost Apple! probably a lot, tbh

In this situation, Swift has more and less power than we'd think-- she definitely has "more" power in the ruination of an indie label (Big Machine) or an individual (Scooter Braun) with her capacity to activate her fanbase. She has "less" power with regards to her own career than we'd think-- she, too, has to negotiate contracts and will find her creations bought and sold by individuals she'd prefer not to buy and/or sell her work. Considering that a "constructive" solution to The Streaming Problem (TIDAL) failed, I'd be interested to see what kind of "destructive" solution Taylor might come up with re: Spotify. Seriously! Couldn't she sic her fans on Daniel Ek? That's be great

she is very devoted to the idea of her music reaching as many impressionable souls as possible -- this was her explicit reasoning for writing "me," which is a terrible song. i wonder if she would truly want to shatter the DSP system when it's how so many of her fans access her music -- she already caved on this subject once by going back to spotify after her three year hiatus. on the one hand there's the obvious fact that being on streaming makes her more money, but in terms of the overall slice of the taylor swift income pie i would imagine it's pretty small. i feel like she basically already tried the protest, and it didn't really matter bcuz no other artists joined her, and she decided she would rather ppl be able to listen to her music there than not. this is where the power dynamics come into play... what can one person even of her stature actually do, and who is she actually hurting? i think in the case of the spotify boycott she eventually reasoned her fans were losing out more so than spotify. and then to what extent are her decisions driven by her desire to be accessible to her fans vs her desire to make money. it's all very debatable but i do feel like she has tried to hash it out in a public fashion in a way that a large number of her peers are not

That's very reminiscent of Pearl Jam v. Ticketmaster. They tried, no one really had their back, and in the end they decided better to do the best they could from the belly of the beast. Which they more or less have.

She signed the fucking contract. This whining from a billionaire singer is fucking ridiculous. She got fame and fortune out of her contract and now she wants more. Fuck that.

She was 15 when she signed the contract!

Sure, she signed it alone without lawyers there explaining what it meant? Was she also a millionaire at 15 or did she have to wait to 16 before she banked her first million? She got what she wanted out of the contract. In related news, my mortgage company expects me to keep paying them money all because i signed some fucking papers. It's SO UNFAIR.

Good to see this thread revealing all of the predatory corporation bootlickers.

No one should be held to something for the rest of their lives that they signed at 15.

Sure, she signed it alone without lawyers there explaining what it meant? Was she also a millionaire at 15 or did she have to wait to 16 before she banked her first million? She got what she wanted out of the contract. In related news, my mortgage company expects me to keep paying them money all because i signed some fucking papers. It's SO UNFAIR.

― brotherlovesdub, Tuesday, November 17, 2020 11:53 AM (twenty-nine minutes ago)

psychotic posts

that is a post from everyone's conservative cousin about student loan forgiveness.

yeah I totally get giving the kids of a financial-sector goons the side-eye but that seems like a bit much even to me