Infinite glitch
-
This post did not contain any content.
ngl that whole 'taylors version' thing was pretty smart
-
This post did not contain any content.
She was never quiet about this.
-
This post did not contain any content.
Original albums re-released as “Justice Editions” with one extra track at the end of Taylor thanking her fans and no other changes in 5…
-
ngl that whole 'taylors version' thing was pretty smart
Making a few billion dollars on a sold out global tour was pretty smart too.
-
Making a few billion dollars on a sold out global tour was pretty smart too.
Also she's pretty.
-
Also she's pretty.
She can't keep getting away with it
-
She can't keep getting away with it
-
She can't keep getting away with it
Where are those meddling kids when we need em
-
ngl that whole 'taylors version' thing was pretty smart
It's also great leverage. Sell me the rights, or I'll destroy the value of your asset.
-
This post did not contain any content.
It’s always smart to own your work. Look at what happened to so many artists who made a small percentage of the value of their albums, while music execs took the lion’s share.
-
Original albums re-released as “Justice Editions” with one extra track at the end of Taylor thanking her fans and no other changes in 5…
Are you suggesting cult-like behaviour from cult members?
-
Also she's pretty.
In a fetal alcohol syndrome kind of way, yes.
-
ngl that whole 'taylors version' thing was pretty smart
wrote on last edited by [email protected]The music labels have responded by trying to make artists wait much longer before they can try something similar:
It’s significant, Greenstein said, that the first Taylor’s Version wasn’t released until she’d been off Big Machine for three years. Until then, she was legally bound not to re-record any of the material, and this time frame was typical of record deals in the past. But this is the part of the equation that Swift likely changed for good.
“For decades, major labels were somewhat rational when it came to the prohibition of re-recordings,” Greenstein said. “But now they’re going to be asking, ‘What’s the risk of a Taylor’s Version?’”
In response, record companies are now trying to prohibit re-recordings for 20 or 30 years, not just two or three. And this has become a key part of contract negotiations. “Will they get 30 years? Probably not, if the lawyer is competent. But they want to make sure that the artist’s vocal cords are not in good shape by the time they get around to re-recording.”
-
Original albums re-released as “Justice Editions” with one extra track at the end of Taylor thanking her fans and no other changes in 5…
In 10 different colour variants!
-
It’s always smart to own your work. Look at what happened to so many artists who made a small percentage of the value of their albums, while music execs took the lion’s share.
Not necessarily. Look at things like America's got talent. You sell your act to get world wide recognition. You can only become valuable by promising that value to a corporation with means to market your talent.
I feel like music is becoming corrupt. A tool to pander, an advert, measured by the ability to reach the largest audience. It's supposed to be about sending a message, but it feels like we're being sold one.
The internet exists and now more than ever people have the tools and resources to create, so it's wild that only big brands have such an iron monopoly on creativity. It's super disappointing.
-
This post did not contain any content.
OH THANK GOD THAT A BILLIONARE GETS TO MAKE MORE MONEY!
Anyway, I got to preform in front of 20 people because the company I work for decided to work with Ticketmaster. -
It’s always smart to own your work. Look at what happened to so many artists who made a small percentage of the value of their albums, while music execs took the lion’s share.
Her popularity could conceivably tank.
-
OH THANK GOD THAT A BILLIONARE GETS TO MAKE MORE MONEY!
Anyway, I got to preform in front of 20 people because the company I work for decided to work with Ticketmaster.wrote on last edited by [email protected]We choose to give money to her. It’s our collective decision that she deserves this money because we like the music.
This is where any Marxist argumentation falls over a lot of the times because it cannot convincingly explain what happens when you willingly want to reward certain talented person more than the other people
The famous Wilt Chamberlain argument
-
We choose to give money to her. It’s our collective decision that she deserves this money because we like the music.
This is where any Marxist argumentation falls over a lot of the times because it cannot convincingly explain what happens when you willingly want to reward certain talented person more than the other people
The famous Wilt Chamberlain argument
She has that money because she was given a platform none of us will ever have access to.
-
Her popularity could conceivably tank.
Yeah, no. Lol.
