The singer announces that she owns the masters to her first six albums, for the first time ever.
  • melsaskca@lemmy.caEnglish
    2·
    2 days ago

    If you are a fan then you won’t care that you bought same albums more than once. No different than me buying my Queen albums on vinyl, then 8-track, then cassette, then CD, then digital file.

  • Maeve@kbin.earth
    7112·
    3 days ago

    Lemmy has drastically changed, recently. I’m sure this isn’t the first time, but this is the most drastic change since I’ve been here, since the massive API fee increase announcement at that other site.

    • Scrubbles@poptalk.scrubbles.techEnglish
      1122·
      3 days ago

      You’re leaving out some major portions of the story there:

      In August 2018, as per Billboard, Swift’s attorney Donald Passman and her management team proposed to Big Machine Label Group that the masters be sold back to Swift as their contract was nearing expiration; the label group responded that it would happen only if she renewed her recording contract with Big Machine, agreeing to create more albums under the label for the next decade. The two parties never arrived at an agreement.

      Hanging her master’s over her head to be locked into another decade’s worth of work isn’t exactly “LITERALLY” offering her. From the sounds of it her team tried to negotiate she pay more money even to own them to not resign, and they refused all of her offers.

      She moved on, and was content with her new record deal. It wasn’t until Big Machine was purchased by private equity, mostly headed by Scooter Braun, did she actually decide to re-record her albums because they were now owned by him, and there was no way to buy them at all.

      Taylor was 100% in her rights to re-record her masters and it was a legal way for her to gain ownership of her music again. Whether you like her or not, artists deserve the right to own their music, not have it dangled in front of them as a carrot to keep producing golden eggs.

      There’s even a wikipedia article on the entire subject, and it’s pretty well documented now too. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taylor_Swift_masters_dispute

      • TachyonTele@lemm.eeEnglish
        60·
        3 days ago

        Exactly. The people complaining have no understanding of how record labels work, and how they dick over their artists.

        Edit. Holy crap, what did I miss? Came back to read new comments and it’s all deleted. The person even deleted their account. People be cray.

    • FrChazzz@lemm.eeEnglish
      172·
      3 days ago

      My 4 y/o daughter has only recently become OBSESSED with “Shake It Off.” she asked me to play it in the car. Using Siri we get “Taylor’s Version” and within seconds my daughter just goes “no, I want the REAL one not the fake one!”

      • Mouselemming@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
        301·
        3 days ago

        Then maybe you can explain to her that both are real and both are Taylor.

        Once upon a time there was a teenager named Taylor Swift who wanted to be a singing star. She could sing and write songs but she didn’t know how to produce them, which means get them on the radio so people can hear them, and get on stages for concerts, and make money from selling them. A business man said, I can make you famous if you promise I can own all your original songs. That way I’ll get some money every time they get played, and you’ll get some too. So she promised. And she wrote and sang lots of songs, and did concerts and worked hard, and became famous, and she got paid money but she felt a little sad that he owned all her songs.

        And then one day he sold all her beautiful music to a mean bully. She tried to buy them back, she had plenty of money now, but the bully said “NO. They’re mine!” Well, Taylor was mad. And she was grown up now. And she had learned a lot about how to do all the business part of producing. So she decided to use her own money and make new versions of every single song she’d ever done, with all the things she had learned, and add some new songs as well. She got to work, and it was a lot of hard work because she knew some people were going to like the original version better but she hoped some would prefer the new ones. Or at least they would be interested to compare them. And that’s just what happened. All her Swifties loved having new familiar songs to sing and dance dance dance to, and talk about which version they liked best. And they agreed it’s okay to disagree about which version is better. Because they’re all Taylor, just at different times in her life.

        EDIT:

        I guess I should add,

        And there were also a lot of guys who got really mad because she was famous and had money and was pretty and she only seemed to be interested in her fans and her friends and her boyfriend and not THEM. So they say nasty stuff about her. Especially a certain orange chicken taco man really hates her because she didn’t want him to be President. He won anyway. Sometimes life is like that, and we just gotta shake it off, and go on doing our best to help make a good life in a good world.

      • halcyoncmdrEnglish
        93·
        3 days ago

        Wow, she already is stuck in a nostalgia bubble and can’t tell that the newer recording is objectively better? I’m not even a Taylor fan but the original release of Shake It Off is clearly inferior to the newer “Taylor’s Version”.

        • Mouselemming@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
          12·
          3 days ago

          When you’re 4, whatever you experienced first is the real thing and anything claiming to be the same is fake. That’s why they hate fancy restaurant burgers.

          Thus my little fairy tale in the thread.

    • dulcetsunshine@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
      729·
      3 days ago

      But she saw it as an opportunity to play the victim for the 50th time and drain the pockets of her cult […] with those stupid ass re-recordings

      This is what I came to post. About how funny it is that she waited until she milked her fans to buy the same 5 albums for a second time (? not sure how many of the re-recordings she did and I can’t be bothered to look) to buy these back.

      I can’t imagine this kind of greed.

      • elucubra@sopuli.xyz
        English
        2·
        2 days ago

        I think I mayhave heard 2-3of her songs, so no Swiftie here.

        She’s a Billionaire. She creates value. She offers it to people who willingly buy it.

        Nothing like billionaires who manipulate markets, hoard resources, or land, or housing.

        Yes, I’ve heard the jet controversy, and there are other questionable things, I’m sure, but in the Billionaire context, I’d say she’s on the decent side of the spectrum.

        She’s OK by me.

      • Cyrus Draegur@lemm.eeEnglish
        927·
        3 days ago

        Everyone taking her side like “ohhh won’t someone pleeeeease have sympathy for this blood-sucking billionaire?!?!?!” in here make me SICK.

        FUCK OFF

        You are correct and so is Marte.

        • Semjaza@lemmynsfw.comEnglish
          261·
          3 days ago

          She might not need sympathy, but in a conflict between artists on one side and record labels and private equity on the other, for me at least who I’m backing is pretty easy.

          Better she has them than the other side, and no one has to buy a new copy. It’s not like a video game release where they kill the original server.

          • Cyrus Draegur@lemm.eeEnglish
            34·
            2 days ago

            false dichotomy.

            art belongs in the public domain.

            no billionaire has the right to exist.

            • Semjaza@lemmynsfw.comEnglish
              31·
              2 days ago

              It’s not a false dichotomy, those were the two outcomes of the struggle for ownership of her masters. We might want other options, but I think it’s a step better than private equity keeping ownership, don’t you?

              It’s fine to assert both your viewpoints as a moral goal and value. Alas, us just making assertions and statements of morality doesn’t end Capitalism or less to reallocation of resources in a more sustainable, equitable manner.

          • pulsewidthEnglish
            191·
            3 days ago

            People have sympathy for artists that have been screwed out of owning their own music by middleman record labels - a tale as old as record labels themselves?

            And this artist in particular, while imperfect, gives a whole lot of money to positive charities, is pro trans rights, pro LGBT, and anti Trump.

            Gosh, how hard to comprehend the sympathy.

OSZAR »