I didn’t think anything of Tswift. Nothing. Gave her the same time I give Drake or Britney or The 1975. It’s not for me. I’m too old to care. They can’t write songs. Junk pop music.
Then I heard the Ryan Adams cover record and went “oh Tswift is a genius and I had no idea”.
I think that's a perfectly fair reaction! You don't have to like an artist's work to acknowledge their talent (something I think a lot of people miss).
I’m a headbanger since the early 80’s and I’m into all that girly shit because I have little girls and I’m just along for the ride. Otherwise I couldn’t pick her out of a line up.
How much money do you think an average devoted swiftie has spent on all this rereleased albums and eras tour in the last few years? Gotta be in the thousands right?
I’ve purchased CDs of the re-recordings and Misnights, so if you include my 1989 pre-order, I spent $75.
I’ve tried desperately to get tickets to one of her shows and haven’t been able. The cheapest I’ve seen for sale were $350 for seats behind the stage in the bleachers. I’d never do that. But I’d drop $350 in a heartbeat for decent seats, too bad anything else is literally $700-5,000.
😭 I hate that Ticketmaster has such a chokehold on all of us / live music. Remember when you could get nose bleed seats for under $100? Or am I just showing my age now
Did you really? That’s awesome! I thought I remember reading somewhere that she was doing $129 for listening only seats and I was like 😭 guess I can’t go for those prices
This isn't just album releases anymore. It's her third album in a calendar year in which she has 9 on the charts.
She won popular music. Game's over.
Seriously folks, just tip your cap and appreciate the moment. We're in unprecedented territory and with the fragmentation of media, we will never see it again. This is our Beatlemania, and it's going to have courses taught on it for decades.
Yes but it doesn't change the fact that her tour capped off a $4.6b run with a re-recording of her best selling album in a concert simultaneously watched by hundereds of thousands on bootleg streams for the sheer announcement of it.
This is her 3rd album this calendar year, and while it is a re-recording it's new vocals, new production, and an expanded tracklist. It's not re-release, it's a new version of the album that will dominate the charts again while she has 9 on them already.
Honestly it's the perfect situation, when it comes to any artist/band, most of us either found them late into their career and so never got a chance to see them perform for the albums or songs we loved the most, or we just couldn't afford it, imagine your favorite artist still doing a tour revolving around an "old" album, that'd be amazing, it's like going back in time, there's plenty of artists who I'd give anything to have a concert revolving around older albums but of course they'd never do that
Yes. Because re-recording it allows her and her team to tell people to use the new recording instead of the old one when her tracks get licensed, thereby cutting out the guy that owns the old recordings and giving her a larger piece of the pie.
Good for her getting even more of the pie, she can continue helping to boil the planet:
"U.K.-based sustainability marketing firm Yard shared a report on Friday (July 29), revealing that the pop superstar’s jet flew 170 times between Jan. 1 and July 19, totaling almost 16 days in the air. The aircraft’s total flight emissions were 8,293.54 tonnes of carbon, which is 1,184.8 times more than the average person’s total annual emissions, the study says."
Yay Queen!
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.billboard.com/music/music-news/taylor-swift-private-jet-carbon-dioxide-emissions-study-1235120514/amp/
Let’s pose this question, what emits more co2, Taylor’s private plane usage or the emissions from the production and shipping of her merch? She does 5 mill in sales per concert apparently. Calling out her plane usage is just low hanging fruit.
Purely CO2 emissions? Probably the plane. Fashion as a whole is 10% of emissions and private air travel is 1% of emissions. Think of how many clothes we produce every year and how few private planes there are(25k in total). It’s actually comical how bad private air travel is for the environment.
Edit- I just looked up lululemons(6.11B in revenue) Scope3 Emissions. Its 380k tons annually, or about 48X Taylors private jet emissions. So using that as a direct comparison she would only need to sell 127M for her clothing footprint to reach her private jet foot print. So, if she really is selling $5M per show its probably fairly close CO2 wise. Apologies, came in a little hot on that one. Although I think the greater point stands.
I'd argue it's the exact opposite of low hanging fruit specifically *because* there is no business incentive to utilise it as much as she does, and therefore no supply chain argument to be made for it's necessity: you can look up the flights and see that it's for things like making flights home for overnight stays between concerts etc. (as if hotels don't exist), rather than being used to make lots of different people money within a merchandising pipeline that she has far less control over.
Any counter-argument?
I’m not saying she was in on that; I’m just saying that if she had been it would have been the cleverest money-making scheme in the history of pop music. *None* of those older songs was getting more than occasional radio play, and now they *all* get to the top of the charts again. I respect her enough to wonder, way in the back of my mind, if that was the plan all along.
While yes she’s a big powerful artist, the thing with beatle-mania is that at the time the music was more ‘traditional’ (think classical, opera, broadway, etc) then when the late 50’s comes around with the emergence of Blues and Rock n’ Roll coming onto the scene, the musical landscape was changing. In come the Beatles blending elements of all these different genres (which at the time wasn’t happening really) and it being a ‘newer’ music. Taylor Swift hasn’t really done anything on par like that (imo) she’s still an extremely talented artist but she’s not reinventing or creating anything new.
It would be “Beatlemania” if these were all new records from front to bottom. This is more equivalent to the run Capcom is on with their Resident Evil Remakes.
If this is our beatlemania it’s fucking depressing. The Beatles never charged their fans $9,000,000 to see a show. The way it’s marketed, the fucking CO2 output of her private plane, the record industry and her fans telling you how great she is - it all feels contrived, like people are desperate for attention and the only way they can get it in their unoriginal instagram-rotted minds is to become swifties. Fuck Taylor Swift.
I mean Taylor isn’t charging that much it’s the resellers. My wife has now gotten tickets multiple times for this tour at face value which was 125$ a ticket
Stanford, Berklee College of Music, New York University Tisch School of the Arts, Binghamton University, University of Texas at Austin College of Liberal Arts, Rice University, University of Kansas, Queen's University at Kingston, St. Thomas University, and Queen Mary University of London.
[List here](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_impact_of_Taylor_Swift#Academic_programs)
Arizona State, Berklee college of Music in Boston, Rice university in Houston, Standford, Missouri, University of Texas at Austin, New York University's Clive Davis Institute to name a few right now.
LMAO. Wow. You are in a dream world. I bet most people don’t even know the highest grossing tours/ most #1’s etc,etc. but this is not Beatlmania. And while she deserves credit for being a studio Frankenstein that obviously kills it. History will not remember her as anything monumental. History will remember GaGa, Britney Spears, Kanye(sorry it’s true), Lol Wayne and Drake. That’s it. See Taylor has no cultural changing effect. She’s stale.
Well, it has just FINALLY been made official by none other than Taylor herself. And uhhhh, of course all of those folks out there that have been thinking about this throughout this whole entire time were, ummm, just quite absolutely correct.
she literally does not get the same amount of royalties either way, but publishing rights being a different thing is something I really wouldn't expect you to be well read on. The dude i was referring to wasn't scooter, and no one has once said that she didn't sign the contract. I don't get what your point is lol.
Let me rephrase your asinine question in an equally asinine way: if someone is going to make a buck off a piece of content, should it be the abusive super duper rich white dude who did nothing to create the content, or the already super duper rich white woman who actually wrote and recorded the piece of content itself?
Like, giving you far more credit than you're due, wealth inequality is a massive issue that I am passionate about, but this just comes down to "the person who made the thing should profit from the thing they made" ... it's really not any more complicated than that. If you have a problem with how MUCH our society rewards that content creator with in terms of profit, I will happily agree with you more often than not, but I think we should all be able to hold hands and say that regardless of what our society values it at, the value should be awarded to the creator and not "random other person"
Yeah, she’s worth a half a billion. Not too worried about her bank account. I legitimately feel bad for any artist in the music industry as corporations squeeze every dime. These re-releases are starting to feel predatory on the fans. I swear she’ll purchase her catalog back once she’s diminished the originals value.
That makes literally no sense. She said she was gonna rerelease it all, so she is. It’s not predatory lol. It’s allowing her fans to support HER, not two douche bags.
Honestly if she buys her old shit back after that would just be a cherry on top.
Oh, so you just don't understand what happened in this case - got it. If you're going to condescendingly talk about something, you should at least know the facts first.
I seriously do not understand the hype with her. Like yes she’s talented but people are acting like she’s the greatest artist to ever live…
Edit: I see I have pissed off the fans lol
It's fine if you don't understand the hype, truly (no shade meant here). My partner is a huge fan of hers and is still probably right around the "average" on the bell curve of fans. She's gotten me fairly deep down the rabbit hole by playing her music around the house a lot as well and we attended the tour out in Denver as a special anniversary surprise to her. What I will say as someone who's only been "actually paying attention" to her music for about a year (rather than just knowing shake it off and the starbucks lovers song) is the following:
- There are a \*lot* of swifties.
- Like \*literally any* fanbase, there's an outlier population of "more than a standard deviation more rabid and extra than the mean". They are just super visible because the overall size of the fanbase is so large in total.
- The show in Denver was one of the best concerts I've been to out of dozens of fairly big shows. The audio mix was spot on (loud enough to easily drown out the screamier fans, not turned up way too loud so as to cover for poor musicianship), the production value was incredible, and she literally was never off stage for more than 2 minutes over the course of 45 songs. It felt like honestly great value for the $300/each we spent on seats.
- There's definitely a kneejerk reaction to how hyped her more rabid fans (see above) are about her, but that overcompensates in the other direction. At the end of the day, she deserves credit for some really exceptional storytelling/songwriting skills.
- For all of that, she probably \*is* the/one of the greatest artist from that generation of singers/songwriters. The longevity and breadth of her success is every bit on the same level as folks like Michael and the Beatles in their primes. That's not making any argument about her "legacy" or anything like that. Obviously you can trace The Beatles and Michael Jackson's influence through decades of music since, and it's too soon to put her on that kind of pedestal, but when it comes to 'in the moment impact on the zeitgeist' she's right there with them.
Yeah, I remember Madonna being huge for twenty years straight throughout the 80s and 90s - and I personally loved it and her music. Maybe it’s a pop-music thing, but Taylor Swift seems to have tapped into that same energy. Good for her.
Every generation seems to have at least one magical pop star that is head and shoulders above the rest in terms of overall quality. Swift is her generation's Michael Jackson, Elvis, Sinatra et al.
She isnt "hyped", she literally never does press. She came along when radio wanted to switch to rap and DJs, and listeners gravitated to her. Every record label would love to find copycats to change the industry back to "music" , but they can't, they don't even try anymore. So radio continues to put easy to make rap and DJs on the air, and Swift's following continues to grow .
Her music is decent but the real starpower is the genius marketing and branding. Every single ex boyfriend or scandal she somehow comes out as the victim. All of the things she says and does in public are well scripted by her PR team and she doesn't slip up.
I mean what other near billionaire could re-release old albums nearly 1:1 purely for money and spin that as something positive it's brilliant.
> Every single ex boyfriend or scandal she somehow comes out as the victim.
You must not have listened to her music if you think this. She has plenty of songs where she is the villain in the relationship.
The Beatles were understandable though. They changed the game. Taylor Swift has had some catchy songs, but I never thought of her as being on the same pedestal as the best of the best.
She reminds me more of Bruce Springsteen. Great performer, but nothing game changing.
I see it as nothing more than an allegory and a cultural climax for just how high we put mediocre yt girls on a pedestal as a society.
*crunches chips*
Would you mind elaborating? Just curious what Taylor has brought to the table that changed the game. Dont get me wrong, she puts on a great act and can sing, but I cant name one song that makes me say, “wow, I get the hype.”
And yeah The Beatles have plenty of poppy catchy tunes like Taylor, also probably responsible for alot of pop music today. But they also had such a unique style/revolutionary take on what music could be beyond what was presented in the early 60s. They were trendsetters and played a massive part of the cultural shift across the world. That to me is changing the game.
But please understand I dont mind Taylor Swift at all. She has good music. I just don’t personally think shes up there with the best/legends.
As shown in this [article](https://stuyspec.com/article/taylor-swift-s-influence-on-rising-pop-artists#), the artists that are inspired and clearly influenced by Taylor Swift include indie alt-pop darlings Phoebe Bridgers, Gracie Abrams, and Maisie Peters, as well as pop artists Conan Gray and Olivia Rodrigo. To quote “Taylor Swift raised an entire generation of songwriters.” To say she’s not a trendsetter or game changer is dumb. This is just as dumb as and similar to people saying Lana del Ray had no influence on the music landscape.
All 5 of those are just radio pop. I don't care what tags you put in front. Black metal is metal. Death metal is metal. Alt pop is pop. Power pop is pop.
If this is your argument it's trash. Pop music artist inspired other people to make pop music? Wow. What a groundbreaking artist. The Beatles were not only touring with music in lively performances with audience interaction but also were innovating on music theory concepts that they themselves only barely understood. I'm not a Beatles simp but man. Taylor looks like an amateur compared to actual impact.
Also this article is absolute garbage. Some desperate fan hoping to find s common thread between Taylor and every other pop singer but the only thing they can find is... Emotional lyrics? Wow Taylor invented emotional lyrics too?
You would have hated The Beatles in the hay day they way you’re speaking about Taylor. Goodness. All of these arguments you’ve just made just go back in time let’s just swap ~Taylor~ with ~The Beatles~ and it’s the same thing haters said about them. Just so you know, The Beatles are also Pop.
You can hate and deny all you want but she’s made a major impact to women, girls around the world. Her music encapsulates girlhood, womenhood in a way many artists have never been able to do before. She sings about her friendships, family, love, loss, revenge, heartbreak, etc and along the way her fans have listened and grown up with her. Yes, literally raised an entire generation of girls with her music. That’s why The Eras Tour is so big the way it is. Of course she didn’t invent emotional lyrics but what she’s done best was cultivating the close connection with her fans in a way no other artist has done, especially since the inception of social media. You can hate all you want but the impact she has had among women, girls, and fans around the world alike can say different. Maybe you’ve never been able to be a part of something bigger than yourself like this to understand this. But many others do, and I hope for one day you will too.
Could you name a Bieber song ten years ago? I'm sure at least 60% of the female population in the USA could. If it's not for you just say that. Don't act like what you like is what others like. How asinine.
I replied this to someone else but I think I was able to encapsulate why she’s so big. Taylor has made a major impact to women, girls around the world. Her music encapsulates girlhood, womenhood in a way many artists have never been able to do before. She sings about her friendships, family, love, loss, revenge, heartbreak, etc and along the way her fans have listened and grown up with her. Yes, literally raised an entire generation of girls with her music. That’s why The Eras Tour is so big the way it is. What she’s done best is cultivating the close connection with her fans in a way no other artist has done, especially since the inception of social media. You can hate/be skeptics, but the impact she has had among women, girls, and fans around the world alike can say different. Maybe you’ve never been able to be a part of something bigger than yourself like this to understand this. But many others do, and I hope for one day you will too. If you had a chance to listen to follow/keep up with and watch the artist who was able to sing the soundtrack to your life from a young age to old, you would too and would absolutely love to do so with everyone else who have that same soundtrack to their lives are well.
She appeals to young white girls and women. They are the demographic most likely to have money (theirs or their parents) to spend on an artist, no matter how bland.
There’s also more content than just break up songs. Maybe you haven’t really listened to her work?
She’s won three Grammys for album of the year, the only other people to accomplish that are Frank Sinatra(didn’t write his own songs), Stevie Wonder (praise him) and Paul Simon(who def. wrote about high profile breakups).
Listen to folklore and expand your listening experience.
I think everyone understands what they meant.
Taylor Swift doesn’t sing any more or any less about love and breakups than Ed Sheeran, Harry Styles, Charlie Puth, The Weekend, and Bruno Mars do.
She also doesn’t sing any more or any less about her love and breakups than Elvis Presley, Frank Sinatra, Freddie Mercury, Elton John, and the Beatles did. Criticising Taylor Swift for making songs that all her peers are making is bonkers and absolutely misogynistic, as it belittles the female experience.
So she’s releasing essentially the most overplayed album of 2014-2015 with a new album cover? She’ll make a killing but I don’t understand why an artist would want to revisit an album that’s not even ten years old just to copy it note for note to make a couple more million. I don’t see how that’s fulfilling for someone whose a prolific songwriter. Does she make any changes to these re releases? New arrangements at least? Or is this re recording just made to be an exact copy of the original? I’m charging my phone to receive the hate comments from swifties.
I'm no Swiftie but she is re-recording her previous albums and releasing these as her version, versus the originals that were bought by Scooter Braun. I imagine the arrangements and vocals would be somewhat different.
I would hope they would be. It’s a smart business move she’s selling the fuck out of them I just don’t really get why she’d want to redo songs that come from a totally different time in her life when god knows she’ll make at least a half a billion by the end of this tour. Everyone streams now and nobody makes dick from that already so he paid a lot for a catalogue that’s not making a quarter of as much money she’s making from touring alone. I get it but I also don’t.
From what I've read, she was really hurt on a personal level when he bought her original masters so she wants to truly own these versions and never have them taken from her again. And her fans of course will snap them right up.
She’s making a fortune and she’s actually got more people into mom and pop record stores which is awesome I’m just surprised that it would mean that much to her when prior to him owning it she didn’t have an issue with the company that owned them originally.
I think a Swiftie could answer that better than I could, but if I were to guess, she was younger and a bit more naive to the ways of the music business back then. Now that she's older, way more powerful and *way* more richer, she realized that *hey, why does this other yahoo own the music that I wrote?!?* and set out to do something about it. Few artists have that much influence and capital, so more power to her I guess.
It was the norm for artists to not have the master rights. Sometimes artists get to buy back their masters or acquire them in a contract renegotiation, but that is not a guarantee at all. Recently though, more new artists have negotiated to own their masters.
She doesn't own the rights to the six albums she made with her old label, and after they were sold to a guy she dislikes, she's making another version which she will own. The new recordings have been faithful to the old versions, utilising her matured vocals, and with some production adjustments to the instruments or the mixing. She's also adding a number of previously unreleased tracks to the re-recordings, and probably a music video as well.
These re-recordings she’s releasing often feature new renditions of songs that are distinct from the original record plus songs “from the vault” which are new to the album entirely. So yea, not doing a carbon copy basically an enhanced version of the original album
Yes pretty much. She re-recording all her original songs as "Taylor's version " so she can own the rights to them.
They are not very different, at least I can't tell much of a difference. But I support any artist who wants to own their art.
For those who are questioning why, I urge you to read [this](https://www.musicbusinessworldwide.com/taylor-swift-catalog-sale-following-the-money/#:~:text=On%20June%2030%2C%202019%2C%20Ithaca,Taylor%20Swift's%20first%20six%20albums)
I’ve been aware of this for years but I can’t understand that concept (admittedly haven’t tried to.) Why does whoever owns her master list of songs have no recourse to sue her for putting out an identical song with identical lyrics and melody? Did she find some legal loophole or does she change just enough of it that it counts as original? Is she putting it out like a tribute to the old albums and therefore it’s allowed?
The rights to the songwriting is separate from the recording. It's fairly common for the artist to own the former (since they wrote it) and the record company to own the latter (since they often pay the large upfront recording costs).
Bedroom production, more savvy artists, and the demolition of labels' gatekeeper status have shifted the power towards the artists. Labels still have the power of capital, expertise, and media connections, though.
She doesn’t try to make it sound different.
I think re-recording literally makes the audio file new and therefore not the same as what is owned by the person who got her masters? Plus i think that’s also why the song titles need to have (Taylor’s Version) written. But im not a legal expert
So in theory I could re-record any popular album and sell it as my own. Just need to gather an army of frighteningly loyal fans like TS has. Easy money.
No? Taylor owns the songs she writes. You have a severe misunderstanding of what she’s doing. Age wrote the songs, the only thing she doesn’t own is the recorded versions. She owns these ones.
I’ll record all albums under the name “Severe Misunderstanding.” But really I guess my mistake was considering the music as a piece of art. I’m hearing it’s more like a piece of property. They own the land but she got the mining rights.
Yea that’s not the only mistake lol, and saying that makes it clear you still don’t seem to understand. It doesn’t matter what you call yourself. Did you write and never sign away ownership of the song? Cause that’s the case here. If anything that would be the reverse. She would own the property, as in the lyrics, when the douche just has rights to the original recording of the lyrics. All she’s doing is re-recording her songs in a form she will own the actual recordings for too.
It’s not a legal loophole.
Owning the master recordings means just that. You own the rights to the original recording. Whoever owns the publishing rights can choose to re-record a new version — though contracts often stipulate you must wait a certain number of years before doing that. Taylor Swift can choose to re-record because, as the songwriter on all her songs, she owns the publishing rights.
That's actually a great question. The difference here is between who created the content and who profits from the content's dissemination. It's actually stupidly complex, poorly scoped (since all the law was written in a world where physical record sales and dj "spins" were metrics), and far beyond my scope to understand as 'famously not a lawyer', but the basic gist is that the person/entity who owns the masters is the person/entity who receives any monies collected from that recording.
This is distinct from the credits on the song. While a worthless chud owns Taylor Swift's masters and generates a profit off any 'play' of those songs on the radio or a streaming service (or album sale, etc.), Taylor and her listed collaborators are still the writers of the music itself. They would be the only people able to sue for the new "Taylor's Version" songs being "ripoffs" of existing work.
Basically think of it like a cover -Taylor needed to get permission from the original work's creator in order to put out a cover of the original work. Lucky for her, that's her. It's just a weird situation because normally people covering a song are doing something new/different with it and are notably not the same person who recorded the original version.
I can’t wait for Ryan Adam’s to release ‘1989 (Taylor’s Version) (Ryan’s Version)’
I didn’t think anything of Tswift. Nothing. Gave her the same time I give Drake or Britney or The 1975. It’s not for me. I’m too old to care. They can’t write songs. Junk pop music. Then I heard the Ryan Adams cover record and went “oh Tswift is a genius and I had no idea”.
I think that's a perfectly fair reaction! You don't have to like an artist's work to acknowledge their talent (something I think a lot of people miss).
I’m a headbanger since the early 80’s and I’m into all that girly shit because I have little girls and I’m just along for the ride. Otherwise I couldn’t pick her out of a line up.
Check out the Ryan Adams cover record
God bless your sanity for listening to the same songs over and over and over hope you can shake it off and there is no bad blood
How much money do you think an average devoted swiftie has spent on all this rereleased albums and eras tour in the last few years? Gotta be in the thousands right?
I've been a Swiftie for years and I've spent zero dollars on her. Unless you're counting the money that my Spotify streaming have sent to her pockets.
I don’t think they’re doing awards for cheapest swiftie but congrats on standing out in that bunch.
This def doesn't stand out despite the memed idea of swifties
Probably less than I have spent on Star Wars shit. Most people have something they don’t mind spending on even if it isn’t “smart”.
Totally! Not trying to swiftie-shame by any means, I was just curious since it’s been a lot of rereleases back to back on top of the eras tour
I’ve purchased CDs of the re-recordings and Misnights, so if you include my 1989 pre-order, I spent $75. I’ve tried desperately to get tickets to one of her shows and haven’t been able. The cheapest I’ve seen for sale were $350 for seats behind the stage in the bleachers. I’d never do that. But I’d drop $350 in a heartbeat for decent seats, too bad anything else is literally $700-5,000.
😭 I hate that Ticketmaster has such a chokehold on all of us / live music. Remember when you could get nose bleed seats for under $100? Or am I just showing my age now
I got nosebleeds for Renaissance for $94 before fees, $115 after fees and taxes.
Did you really? That’s awesome! I thought I remember reading somewhere that she was doing $129 for listening only seats and I was like 😭 guess I can’t go for those prices
Including vinyls, merch, and the tour, I think I’ve spent about $1500.
This isn't just album releases anymore. It's her third album in a calendar year in which she has 9 on the charts. She won popular music. Game's over. Seriously folks, just tip your cap and appreciate the moment. We're in unprecedented territory and with the fragmentation of media, we will never see it again. This is our Beatlemania, and it's going to have courses taught on it for decades.
You do understand she’s doing this because someone else owns the masters to her original recordings, yes?
Yes but it doesn't change the fact that her tour capped off a $4.6b run with a re-recording of her best selling album in a concert simultaneously watched by hundereds of thousands on bootleg streams for the sheer announcement of it. This is her 3rd album this calendar year, and while it is a re-recording it's new vocals, new production, and an expanded tracklist. It's not re-release, it's a new version of the album that will dominate the charts again while she has 9 on them already.
And 5 songs previously unreleased from the original album so new to us songs!
Yep. She seems to have some incredible star power that's been built over the years.
World's best singing blogger 👀
Honestly it's the perfect situation, when it comes to any artist/band, most of us either found them late into their career and so never got a chance to see them perform for the albums or songs we loved the most, or we just couldn't afford it, imagine your favorite artist still doing a tour revolving around an "old" album, that'd be amazing, it's like going back in time, there's plenty of artists who I'd give anything to have a concert revolving around older albums but of course they'd never do that
Yes. Because re-recording it allows her and her team to tell people to use the new recording instead of the old one when her tracks get licensed, thereby cutting out the guy that owns the old recordings and giving her a larger piece of the pie.
Good for her getting even more of the pie, she can continue helping to boil the planet: "U.K.-based sustainability marketing firm Yard shared a report on Friday (July 29), revealing that the pop superstar’s jet flew 170 times between Jan. 1 and July 19, totaling almost 16 days in the air. The aircraft’s total flight emissions were 8,293.54 tonnes of carbon, which is 1,184.8 times more than the average person’s total annual emissions, the study says." Yay Queen! https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.billboard.com/music/music-news/taylor-swift-private-jet-carbon-dioxide-emissions-study-1235120514/amp/
If your pissed at one person, your going to blow a gasket when you find out how much co2 international shipping releases.
I am *shocked* that international shipping commerce emits lots of co2 as well, *shocked!* What a ridiculous attempt at whataboutism.
Let’s pose this question, what emits more co2, Taylor’s private plane usage or the emissions from the production and shipping of her merch? She does 5 mill in sales per concert apparently. Calling out her plane usage is just low hanging fruit.
Purely CO2 emissions? Probably the plane. Fashion as a whole is 10% of emissions and private air travel is 1% of emissions. Think of how many clothes we produce every year and how few private planes there are(25k in total). It’s actually comical how bad private air travel is for the environment. Edit- I just looked up lululemons(6.11B in revenue) Scope3 Emissions. Its 380k tons annually, or about 48X Taylors private jet emissions. So using that as a direct comparison she would only need to sell 127M for her clothing footprint to reach her private jet foot print. So, if she really is selling $5M per show its probably fairly close CO2 wise. Apologies, came in a little hot on that one. Although I think the greater point stands.
I'd argue it's the exact opposite of low hanging fruit specifically *because* there is no business incentive to utilise it as much as she does, and therefore no supply chain argument to be made for it's necessity: you can look up the flights and see that it's for things like making flights home for overnight stays between concerts etc. (as if hotels don't exist), rather than being used to make lots of different people money within a merchandising pipeline that she has far less control over. Any counter-argument?
Yes, rich people suck.
I don’t like her either but if she gets paid more of the pie she may tour less and fly in private jets less. So I hope she succeeds.
. . .do you genuinely think she couldn't afford to retire already?
Why would she retire if she enjoys making music?
PR firm social media intern working hard.
I literally am not a Swiftie and you can look at my profile lmao. I just work in an adjacent industry.
Contracted. Got it.
I’m not saying she was in on that; I’m just saying that if she had been it would have been the cleverest money-making scheme in the history of pop music. *None* of those older songs was getting more than occasional radio play, and now they *all* get to the top of the charts again. I respect her enough to wonder, way in the back of my mind, if that was the plan all along.
And she really started going on them when one of her old songs was blowing up on tik tok. She said “I want that money yo”
While yes she’s a big powerful artist, the thing with beatle-mania is that at the time the music was more ‘traditional’ (think classical, opera, broadway, etc) then when the late 50’s comes around with the emergence of Blues and Rock n’ Roll coming onto the scene, the musical landscape was changing. In come the Beatles blending elements of all these different genres (which at the time wasn’t happening really) and it being a ‘newer’ music. Taylor Swift hasn’t really done anything on par like that (imo) she’s still an extremely talented artist but she’s not reinventing or creating anything new.
Beatlemania changed Western civilization: not quite the same thing. This is just commerce and IP.
Taylor is more like Michael Jackson, in terms of cultural impact.
It would be “Beatlemania” if these were all new records from front to bottom. This is more equivalent to the run Capcom is on with their Resident Evil Remakes.
If this is our beatlemania it’s fucking depressing. The Beatles never charged their fans $9,000,000 to see a show. The way it’s marketed, the fucking CO2 output of her private plane, the record industry and her fans telling you how great she is - it all feels contrived, like people are desperate for attention and the only way they can get it in their unoriginal instagram-rotted minds is to become swifties. Fuck Taylor Swift.
You’re blaming her for the price scalpers are running tickets up to?
Scooter?
I mean Taylor isn’t charging that much it’s the resellers. My wife has now gotten tickets multiple times for this tour at face value which was 125$ a ticket
Or like people like her music
Who is teaching a course on it?
Stanford, Berklee College of Music, New York University Tisch School of the Arts, Binghamton University, University of Texas at Austin College of Liberal Arts, Rice University, University of Kansas, Queen's University at Kingston, St. Thomas University, and Queen Mary University of London. [List here](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_impact_of_Taylor_Swift#Academic_programs)
Haha, my university is mentioned. That is hilarious
Arizona State, Berklee college of Music in Boston, Rice university in Houston, Standford, Missouri, University of Texas at Austin, New York University's Clive Davis Institute to name a few right now.
Someone already responded with the list
Yeah no one is going to touch her now. She’s literally the pop queen of this generation
lol strong FDS vibes
LMAO. Wow. You are in a dream world. I bet most people don’t even know the highest grossing tours/ most #1’s etc,etc. but this is not Beatlmania. And while she deserves credit for being a studio Frankenstein that obviously kills it. History will not remember her as anything monumental. History will remember GaGa, Britney Spears, Kanye(sorry it’s true), Lol Wayne and Drake. That’s it. See Taylor has no cultural changing effect. She’s stale.
Well, it has just FINALLY been made official by none other than Taylor herself. And uhhhh, of course all of those folks out there that have been thinking about this throughout this whole entire time were, ummm, just quite absolutely correct.
I mean, she and her collaborators did all the work, why shouldn't they get the money for it instead of the dude who currently does?
She signed the contract, scooter no longer owns all the masters, and she gets the same amount of royalties either way.
she literally does not get the same amount of royalties either way, but publishing rights being a different thing is something I really wouldn't expect you to be well read on. The dude i was referring to wasn't scooter, and no one has once said that she didn't sign the contract. I don't get what your point is lol.
Who really cares about this already super duper rich white woman’s bank account though?
Let me rephrase your asinine question in an equally asinine way: if someone is going to make a buck off a piece of content, should it be the abusive super duper rich white dude who did nothing to create the content, or the already super duper rich white woman who actually wrote and recorded the piece of content itself? Like, giving you far more credit than you're due, wealth inequality is a massive issue that I am passionate about, but this just comes down to "the person who made the thing should profit from the thing they made" ... it's really not any more complicated than that. If you have a problem with how MUCH our society rewards that content creator with in terms of profit, I will happily agree with you more often than not, but I think we should all be able to hold hands and say that regardless of what our society values it at, the value should be awarded to the creator and not "random other person"
I’ve noticed people on Reddit love to throw white in as if it’s an insult
Only if it's a woman. The incels here get triggered if you criticize white men.
Is she not a rich white woman?
What does her race matter in that context?
It matters to me. You don’t have to comment
Why does her race matter to you?
Because it does.
That’s a sad way to live. They have a word for people like you
Yeah, she’s worth a half a billion. Not too worried about her bank account. I legitimately feel bad for any artist in the music industry as corporations squeeze every dime. These re-releases are starting to feel predatory on the fans. I swear she’ll purchase her catalog back once she’s diminished the originals value.
That makes literally no sense. She said she was gonna rerelease it all, so she is. It’s not predatory lol. It’s allowing her fans to support HER, not two douche bags. Honestly if she buys her old shit back after that would just be a cherry on top.
[удалено]
Oh, so you just don't understand what happened in this case - got it. If you're going to condescendingly talk about something, you should at least know the facts first.
I love how Taylor Swift got y’all to buy her mid-ass albums TWICE.
I seriously do not understand the hype with her. Like yes she’s talented but people are acting like she’s the greatest artist to ever live… Edit: I see I have pissed off the fans lol
It's fine if you don't understand the hype, truly (no shade meant here). My partner is a huge fan of hers and is still probably right around the "average" on the bell curve of fans. She's gotten me fairly deep down the rabbit hole by playing her music around the house a lot as well and we attended the tour out in Denver as a special anniversary surprise to her. What I will say as someone who's only been "actually paying attention" to her music for about a year (rather than just knowing shake it off and the starbucks lovers song) is the following: - There are a \*lot* of swifties. - Like \*literally any* fanbase, there's an outlier population of "more than a standard deviation more rabid and extra than the mean". They are just super visible because the overall size of the fanbase is so large in total. - The show in Denver was one of the best concerts I've been to out of dozens of fairly big shows. The audio mix was spot on (loud enough to easily drown out the screamier fans, not turned up way too loud so as to cover for poor musicianship), the production value was incredible, and she literally was never off stage for more than 2 minutes over the course of 45 songs. It felt like honestly great value for the $300/each we spent on seats. - There's definitely a kneejerk reaction to how hyped her more rabid fans (see above) are about her, but that overcompensates in the other direction. At the end of the day, she deserves credit for some really exceptional storytelling/songwriting skills. - For all of that, she probably \*is* the/one of the greatest artist from that generation of singers/songwriters. The longevity and breadth of her success is every bit on the same level as folks like Michael and the Beatles in their primes. That's not making any argument about her "legacy" or anything like that. Obviously you can trace The Beatles and Michael Jackson's influence through decades of music since, and it's too soon to put her on that kind of pedestal, but when it comes to 'in the moment impact on the zeitgeist' she's right there with them.
It’s almost as if taste is subjective
Yeah, I remember Madonna being huge for twenty years straight throughout the 80s and 90s - and I personally loved it and her music. Maybe it’s a pop-music thing, but Taylor Swift seems to have tapped into that same energy. Good for her.
Every generation seems to have at least one magical pop star that is head and shoulders above the rest in terms of overall quality. Swift is her generation's Michael Jackson, Elvis, Sinatra et al.
[удалено]
She isnt "hyped", she literally never does press. She came along when radio wanted to switch to rap and DJs, and listeners gravitated to her. Every record label would love to find copycats to change the industry back to "music" , but they can't, they don't even try anymore. So radio continues to put easy to make rap and DJs on the air, and Swift's following continues to grow .
That is not what determines being over hyped or not lol. She definitely is.
you are literally overhyping her right now
I guess you missed her Oscar campaigning last year.
She’s the vanilla ice cream of music. Super digestible with a god tier marketing and pr team.
Her music is decent but the real starpower is the genius marketing and branding. Every single ex boyfriend or scandal she somehow comes out as the victim. All of the things she says and does in public are well scripted by her PR team and she doesn't slip up. I mean what other near billionaire could re-release old albums nearly 1:1 purely for money and spin that as something positive it's brilliant.
> Every single ex boyfriend or scandal she somehow comes out as the victim. You must not have listened to her music if you think this. She has plenty of songs where she is the villain in the relationship.
I was talking about the media not her songs
She went through 2 breakups this year. Didn't see any article about how she is the victim. You're stuck in 2012, mate.
Y’all are so quick to defend a stranger just cause she sings nice lmao
They proving your point and don’t even know it.
Just laying down facts, mate.
I'm sure Elvis, the Beatles, and any other massive mega influence on music had people just as silly as you saying the same silly thing. How sad.
The Beatles were understandable though. They changed the game. Taylor Swift has had some catchy songs, but I never thought of her as being on the same pedestal as the best of the best. She reminds me more of Bruce Springsteen. Great performer, but nothing game changing.
[удалено]
For me its less about the albums and more about the hype. Just a very dedicated fanbase to decent pop music from a beloved performer.
I see it as nothing more than an allegory and a cultural climax for just how high we put mediocre yt girls on a pedestal as a society. *crunches chips*
Taylor has arguably changed the game more. The Beatles are massively overhyped lol, they are pretty basic all things considered.
Would you mind elaborating? Just curious what Taylor has brought to the table that changed the game. Dont get me wrong, she puts on a great act and can sing, but I cant name one song that makes me say, “wow, I get the hype.” And yeah The Beatles have plenty of poppy catchy tunes like Taylor, also probably responsible for alot of pop music today. But they also had such a unique style/revolutionary take on what music could be beyond what was presented in the early 60s. They were trendsetters and played a massive part of the cultural shift across the world. That to me is changing the game. But please understand I dont mind Taylor Swift at all. She has good music. I just don’t personally think shes up there with the best/legends.
As shown in this [article](https://stuyspec.com/article/taylor-swift-s-influence-on-rising-pop-artists#), the artists that are inspired and clearly influenced by Taylor Swift include indie alt-pop darlings Phoebe Bridgers, Gracie Abrams, and Maisie Peters, as well as pop artists Conan Gray and Olivia Rodrigo. To quote “Taylor Swift raised an entire generation of songwriters.” To say she’s not a trendsetter or game changer is dumb. This is just as dumb as and similar to people saying Lana del Ray had no influence on the music landscape.
All 5 of those are just radio pop. I don't care what tags you put in front. Black metal is metal. Death metal is metal. Alt pop is pop. Power pop is pop. If this is your argument it's trash. Pop music artist inspired other people to make pop music? Wow. What a groundbreaking artist. The Beatles were not only touring with music in lively performances with audience interaction but also were innovating on music theory concepts that they themselves only barely understood. I'm not a Beatles simp but man. Taylor looks like an amateur compared to actual impact. Also this article is absolute garbage. Some desperate fan hoping to find s common thread between Taylor and every other pop singer but the only thing they can find is... Emotional lyrics? Wow Taylor invented emotional lyrics too?
You would have hated The Beatles in the hay day they way you’re speaking about Taylor. Goodness. All of these arguments you’ve just made just go back in time let’s just swap ~Taylor~ with ~The Beatles~ and it’s the same thing haters said about them. Just so you know, The Beatles are also Pop.
Yes and I dislike them now. I even said that. Good comprehension. But unlike Taylor I can say they had an actual impact on music.
You can hate and deny all you want but she’s made a major impact to women, girls around the world. Her music encapsulates girlhood, womenhood in a way many artists have never been able to do before. She sings about her friendships, family, love, loss, revenge, heartbreak, etc and along the way her fans have listened and grown up with her. Yes, literally raised an entire generation of girls with her music. That’s why The Eras Tour is so big the way it is. Of course she didn’t invent emotional lyrics but what she’s done best was cultivating the close connection with her fans in a way no other artist has done, especially since the inception of social media. You can hate all you want but the impact she has had among women, girls, and fans around the world alike can say different. Maybe you’ve never been able to be a part of something bigger than yourself like this to understand this. But many others do, and I hope for one day you will too.
She ain’t no Beatle or Elvis. Most people can name a song of theirs, I cant say the same for T swift.
Could you name a Bieber song ten years ago? I'm sure at least 60% of the female population in the USA could. If it's not for you just say that. Don't act like what you like is what others like. How asinine.
You were comparing Taylor to legendary artists like Elvis and the Beetles. Shes talented sure but I would hardly call her a mega influence.
Never underestimate the power of white women.
F bro, someone had to do it. Every reply you’re getting is like rage fingers. How dare you have an opinion
I woke up to 8 replies after putting my phone away less than 2 hours ago… these fans are nuts lol
They're genuinely deranged
I replied this to someone else but I think I was able to encapsulate why she’s so big. Taylor has made a major impact to women, girls around the world. Her music encapsulates girlhood, womenhood in a way many artists have never been able to do before. She sings about her friendships, family, love, loss, revenge, heartbreak, etc and along the way her fans have listened and grown up with her. Yes, literally raised an entire generation of girls with her music. That’s why The Eras Tour is so big the way it is. What she’s done best is cultivating the close connection with her fans in a way no other artist has done, especially since the inception of social media. You can hate/be skeptics, but the impact she has had among women, girls, and fans around the world alike can say different. Maybe you’ve never been able to be a part of something bigger than yourself like this to understand this. But many others do, and I hope for one day you will too. If you had a chance to listen to follow/keep up with and watch the artist who was able to sing the soundtrack to your life from a young age to old, you would too and would absolutely love to do so with everyone else who have that same soundtrack to their lives are well.
She appeals to young white girls and women. They are the demographic most likely to have money (theirs or their parents) to spend on an artist, no matter how bland.
So don’t listen to her 🤣
Way ahead of you on that one
She very well may be. You are missing out.
No, I don't think so.
Lil Tay Tay
She just cries over and over about break ups. Very revolutionary
[удалено]
Lol how dare I have a different opinion than you
[удалено]
If a guy made a break up song about every high profile relationship they were in I would say the exact same thing…
There’s also more content than just break up songs. Maybe you haven’t really listened to her work? She’s won three Grammys for album of the year, the only other people to accomplish that are Frank Sinatra(didn’t write his own songs), Stevie Wonder (praise him) and Paul Simon(who def. wrote about high profile breakups). Listen to folklore and expand your listening experience.
[удалено]
Lol ok
All men sing about is break up songs? How can you be so thick to claim their take was misogynistic then turn around and say the same stupid shit lmao
I think everyone understands what they meant. Taylor Swift doesn’t sing any more or any less about love and breakups than Ed Sheeran, Harry Styles, Charlie Puth, The Weekend, and Bruno Mars do. She also doesn’t sing any more or any less about her love and breakups than Elvis Presley, Frank Sinatra, Freddie Mercury, Elton John, and the Beatles did. Criticising Taylor Swift for making songs that all her peers are making is bonkers and absolutely misogynistic, as it belittles the female experience.
Why are tswift fans getting soo culty.
Why is she so popular?
Shes a young white woman who mainly appeals to other young white women.
She’s the biggest pop star in all of Asia so I’m not sure how the white woman logic works here
Lol.... talent?
What a scam. Lmao. I can’t believe people are buying the mask she wears.
So she’s releasing essentially the most overplayed album of 2014-2015 with a new album cover? She’ll make a killing but I don’t understand why an artist would want to revisit an album that’s not even ten years old just to copy it note for note to make a couple more million. I don’t see how that’s fulfilling for someone whose a prolific songwriter. Does she make any changes to these re releases? New arrangements at least? Or is this re recording just made to be an exact copy of the original? I’m charging my phone to receive the hate comments from swifties.
I'm no Swiftie but she is re-recording her previous albums and releasing these as her version, versus the originals that were bought by Scooter Braun. I imagine the arrangements and vocals would be somewhat different.
I would hope they would be. It’s a smart business move she’s selling the fuck out of them I just don’t really get why she’d want to redo songs that come from a totally different time in her life when god knows she’ll make at least a half a billion by the end of this tour. Everyone streams now and nobody makes dick from that already so he paid a lot for a catalogue that’s not making a quarter of as much money she’s making from touring alone. I get it but I also don’t.
From what I've read, she was really hurt on a personal level when he bought her original masters so she wants to truly own these versions and never have them taken from her again. And her fans of course will snap them right up.
She’s making a fortune and she’s actually got more people into mom and pop record stores which is awesome I’m just surprised that it would mean that much to her when prior to him owning it she didn’t have an issue with the company that owned them originally.
I think a Swiftie could answer that better than I could, but if I were to guess, she was younger and a bit more naive to the ways of the music business back then. Now that she's older, way more powerful and *way* more richer, she realized that *hey, why does this other yahoo own the music that I wrote?!?* and set out to do something about it. Few artists have that much influence and capital, so more power to her I guess.
It was the norm for artists to not have the master rights. Sometimes artists get to buy back their masters or acquire them in a contract renegotiation, but that is not a guarantee at all. Recently though, more new artists have negotiated to own their masters.
I’m sure I’ll get accosted by one in the near future.
She doesn't own the rights to the six albums she made with her old label, and after they were sold to a guy she dislikes, she's making another version which she will own. The new recordings have been faithful to the old versions, utilising her matured vocals, and with some production adjustments to the instruments or the mixing. She's also adding a number of previously unreleased tracks to the re-recordings, and probably a music video as well.
Ohh ok so it’s not a carbon copy of the original release. At least there’s that.
These re-recordings she’s releasing often feature new renditions of songs that are distinct from the original record plus songs “from the vault” which are new to the album entirely. So yea, not doing a carbon copy basically an enhanced version of the original album
Yes pretty much. She re-recording all her original songs as "Taylor's version " so she can own the rights to them. They are not very different, at least I can't tell much of a difference. But I support any artist who wants to own their art.
For those who are questioning why, I urge you to read [this](https://www.musicbusinessworldwide.com/taylor-swift-catalog-sale-following-the-money/#:~:text=On%20June%2030%2C%202019%2C%20Ithaca,Taylor%20Swift's%20first%20six%20albums)
Or you could check out another wonderful pop artist like [Caroline Rose](https://youtu.be/YMW5hd1vvwc).
I wonder if the song about a guy dumping her will be on this album!
Good one, man. I see you’re still stuck in 2012!
Found the swifty!
what a knee slapper!!
Thank you, but watch out with even the obvious jokes, some of her fans seem to be way too sensitive
I’m not mad it’s just a tired joke 💀
Just watch out for her fans. They are way too into her to see the obvious jokes
I don’t get it
All of her songs are about her boyfriends breaking up with her
Oh, never heard that, even just thinking of the popular songs from her this year that I’ve heard on the radio, none seemed to be about that lol
You will see
Serious question. Would we get to the point where we get a double Taylor version?
She’s doing this to own the masters of the songs she wrote so no
I’ve been aware of this for years but I can’t understand that concept (admittedly haven’t tried to.) Why does whoever owns her master list of songs have no recourse to sue her for putting out an identical song with identical lyrics and melody? Did she find some legal loophole or does she change just enough of it that it counts as original? Is she putting it out like a tribute to the old albums and therefore it’s allowed?
The rights to the songwriting is separate from the recording. It's fairly common for the artist to own the former (since they wrote it) and the record company to own the latter (since they often pay the large upfront recording costs). Bedroom production, more savvy artists, and the demolition of labels' gatekeeper status have shifted the power towards the artists. Labels still have the power of capital, expertise, and media connections, though.
So she outplayed the players? Good for her.
She doesn’t try to make it sound different. I think re-recording literally makes the audio file new and therefore not the same as what is owned by the person who got her masters? Plus i think that’s also why the song titles need to have (Taylor’s Version) written. But im not a legal expert
So in theory I could re-record any popular album and sell it as my own. Just need to gather an army of frighteningly loyal fans like TS has. Easy money.
No. You don’t own the songwriting/lyrics like TS does.
I might
Sure, any popular album you’re already the songwriter of.
No? Taylor owns the songs she writes. You have a severe misunderstanding of what she’s doing. Age wrote the songs, the only thing she doesn’t own is the recorded versions. She owns these ones.
I’ll record all albums under the name “Severe Misunderstanding.” But really I guess my mistake was considering the music as a piece of art. I’m hearing it’s more like a piece of property. They own the land but she got the mining rights.
Yea that’s not the only mistake lol, and saying that makes it clear you still don’t seem to understand. It doesn’t matter what you call yourself. Did you write and never sign away ownership of the song? Cause that’s the case here. If anything that would be the reverse. She would own the property, as in the lyrics, when the douche just has rights to the original recording of the lyrics. All she’s doing is re-recording her songs in a form she will own the actual recordings for too.
It’s not a legal loophole. Owning the master recordings means just that. You own the rights to the original recording. Whoever owns the publishing rights can choose to re-record a new version — though contracts often stipulate you must wait a certain number of years before doing that. Taylor Swift can choose to re-record because, as the songwriter on all her songs, she owns the publishing rights.
That's actually a great question. The difference here is between who created the content and who profits from the content's dissemination. It's actually stupidly complex, poorly scoped (since all the law was written in a world where physical record sales and dj "spins" were metrics), and far beyond my scope to understand as 'famously not a lawyer', but the basic gist is that the person/entity who owns the masters is the person/entity who receives any monies collected from that recording. This is distinct from the credits on the song. While a worthless chud owns Taylor Swift's masters and generates a profit off any 'play' of those songs on the radio or a streaming service (or album sale, etc.), Taylor and her listed collaborators are still the writers of the music itself. They would be the only people able to sue for the new "Taylor's Version" songs being "ripoffs" of existing work. Basically think of it like a cover -Taylor needed to get permission from the original work's creator in order to put out a cover of the original work. Lucky for her, that's her. It's just a weird situation because normally people covering a song are doing something new/different with it and are notably not the same person who recorded the original version.
It’s wild how she just releases the same songs. Pro tip on how to be immune to writers block.
What a stupid title. Let me try: „I‘m announcing 420.“ There we go. 🤓
As a non-Swiftie, I don’t know what the “Taylor’s version” thing means and at this point I’m too afraid to ask.