Current Events > Which side do you support in the fued between taylor swift and the guys that own

(+) Yeah! (+)

.....most of her old music? this story is making big news.
---

eh, sounds like bad lawyering on both sides...
---

Wait wut is this?
---

wasn't most of that music made in a clean room of a studio completely detached from taytay and all she did was perform it?

the performances are hers, sure, but the music itself isn't

Generally speaking, I will always support the artists over their labels.

The whole music business is so fucking corrupt and stacked against the artists that it takes most of them years to ever make money from their songs, that's why they tour so much and make merchandise.
---

HolierThanMao posted...

wasn't most of that music made in a clean room of a studio completely detached from taytay and all she did was perform it?

the performances are hers, sure, but the music itself isn't

IDK where you got that from.
---

TSwift is pretty bitchy about the rights to her music, so any grief she gets is fine by me.
---

From what I understand, Taylors label sold the rights to her music before she had a chance to buy them herself, and the owner is being ultra petty.

so I side with Tay. But she also makes more money in an hour than I do in a year so I not that worried about it

---

AlisLandale posted...

From what I understand, Taylors label sold the rights to her music before she had a chance to buy them herself, and the owner is being ultra petty.

so I side with Tay. But she also makes more money in an hour than I do in a year so I not that worried about it

didn't read much about that. The articles just mostly describe that she's mad at them. Sold the rights to her music before she had a chance to buy them? So now will they sell them back to her now? prob not after a huge markup
---

I always have trouble siding with artists that cash checks for a decade and then once they have clout try to strong arm their way out of the contract that made them famous in the first place.

There are absolutely exploitative labels and contracts out there, but like... how much is she worth? Are we supposed to feel bad that she doesn't own her old songs when she has a net worth of $260 million? She's a songwriter... just make more.

---

s0nicfan posted...

I always have trouble siding with artists that cash checks for a decade and then once they have clout try to strong arm their way out of the contract that made them famous in the first place.

There are absolutely exploitative labels and contracts out there, but like... how much is she worth? Are we supposed to feel bad that she doesn't own her old songs when she has a net worth of $260 million? She's a songwriter... just make more.

yeah didn't that happen with kesha? She signed a terrible contract, later she accused dr. luke of rape
---

s0nicfan posted...

She's a songwriter... just make more.

i think one of the pieces of this that isn't as visible is that usually the artist isn't the only songwriter and there's a laundry list of producers who 'co-wrote' every song (leading to the clean room production comment noted above)

seems like a lot of artists have just accepted that reality and focused on making their money touring--merchandise and ticket sales largely go to the artist.

i lost interest in taylor's argument after she refused to work with spotify on the basis of what kind of deal small artists got--when in truth their availability on spotify was critical advertising that enhanced their potential to earn money touring. it was pretty obvious her actual problem was not wanting to share revenue with spotify for advertising she didn't need. seemed very two-faced.
---

Spotify is a huge ripoff. As I saw Ice T say once, "Spotify pays 0.007 cents per play...motherfuckers figured out how to split a penny."
---

being on spotify is about getting visibility not getting paid
---

Sackgurl posted...

being on spotify is about getting visibility not getting paid

Good thing.
---

She sold the rights to her music for millions of dollars.

How does she not understand this simple concept?

Seriously: This is about as dumb as someone who built their own house, sold it, then wonders why they can't live in the house. "But I built it!!"

---

garlic powder posted...

She sold the rights to her music for millions of dollars.

How does she not understand this simple concept?

Seriously: This is about as dumb as someone who built their own house, sold it, then wonders why they can't live in the house. "But I built it!!"

i didn't hear this. she sold the rights to her music for millions of dollars?
---

i'm on the side against taylor swift, in general
ugh she is terrible
---

In most cases, I side with the artist over the company. This is double so when sleezebags like Scoot Braun are involved.

And I'm not even a Taylor Swift fan.
---

Rich fuckers fighting rich fuckers on who gets to be richer.
---

JebronLames posted...

s0nicfan posted...

I always have trouble siding with artists that cash checks for a decade and then once they have clout try to strong arm their way out of the contract that made them famous in the first place.

There are absolutely exploitative labels and contracts out there, but like... how much is she worth? Are we supposed to feel bad that she doesn't own her old songs when she has a net worth of $260 million? She's a songwriter... just make more.

yeah didn't that happen with kesha? She signed a terrible contract, later she accused dr. luke of rape

Thats pretty much exactly what happened.
---

The problem with music label contracts is that they always suck unless you already an established name.

If you are new artist you have zero leverage to negotiate better ownership of the songs. So every deal is going to look bad in retrospect. It isn't unusual for artists to leave a label and have that label keep the song rights, but the reason this case stands out is that for the most part those former labels will continue to let the artists use those songs because it's generally mutually beneficial to both parties to do so. The artists gets to perform favorites, the label gets continued visibility for the songs they hold the rights to.

What makes Taylor's case unique is that her old label and songs are held by Scooter Braun, a person who doesn't like Taylor Swift, and the company has some bad blood (pun not intended) with Taylor for leaving. So they are providing a lot more obstruction than you typically see.
---

JebronLames posted...

garlic powder posted...

She sold the rights to her music for millions of dollars.

How does she not understand this simple concept?

Seriously: This is about as dumb as someone who built their own house, sold it, then wonders why they can't live in the house. "But I built it!!"

i didn't hear this. she sold the rights to her music for millions of dollars?

No unsigned artist sells the rights to their music for that much. She signed what is probably a standard recording contract that granted the publishing rights to the label in exchange for them promoting her, etc. And now that she's left, they're being assholes and not even letting her perform them in media settings (on TV, etc).
---

Kinda reminds me of Kesha incident, minus the rape accussation.
---

s0nicfan posted...

I always have trouble siding with artists that cash checks for a decade and then once they have clout try to strong arm their way out of the contract that made them famous in the first place.

There are absolutely exploitative labels and contracts out there, but like... how much is she worth? Are we supposed to feel bad that she doesn't own her old songs when she has a net worth of $260 million? She's a songwriter... just make more.

The issue is not money.

The issue is they won't allow her to perform her old songs.

She is barred from doing show with her old hits.

darkphoenix181 posted...

s0nicfan posted...

I always have trouble siding with artists that cash checks for a decade and then once they have clout try to strong arm their way out of the contract that made them famous in the first place.

There are absolutely exploitative labels and contracts out there, but like... how much is she worth? Are we supposed to feel bad that she doesn't own her old songs when she has a net worth of $260 million? She's a songwriter... just make more.

The issue is not money.

The issue is they won't allow her to perform her old songs.

She is barred from doing show with her old hits.

Okay thats a really shitty move on the record companies end.
---

Is it possible she burned a bridge so badly with her former record label that maybe she deserves this?

These stars are egomaniacs. Wouldn't surprise me in the least.

---

Prestoff posted...

Okay thats a really shitty move on the record companies end.

Basically they are claiming her singing an old hit for a christmas special is her doing a new recording.

The contract says she cannot make new recordings of those songs, without permission ofc.

Normally I side with the artist. It's shitty that this can happen, and overall I wish the industry could become less exploitative.

However, I hate Taylor Swift as an artist and person, so I'm glad that if this sort of thing is happening, it happens to her. The world is a slightly better place for the lack of her ability to perform her old songs anyway.
---

darkphoenix181 posted...

The issue is not money.

The issue is they won't allow her to perform her old songs.

She is barred from doing show with her old hits.

She doesn't own those songs, and she walked away from her contract with them of her own volition. What was she expecting? That they were going to let her freely use all of that music when she is no longer contractually tied to them in any way? She tried to have her cake and eat it too, and they told her to piss off. Seems fair.

---

s0nicfan posted...

She doesn't own those songs, and she walked away from her contract with them of her own volition. What was she expecting? That they were going to let her freely use all of that music when she is no longer contractually tied to them in any way? She tried to have her cake and eat it too, and they told her to piss off. Seems fair.

There is nothing fair about calling a live performance a new recording.

They are not using fair language to bar her from this.

garlic powder posted...

Is it possible she burned a bridge so badly with her former record label that maybe she deserves this?

These stars are egomaniacs. Wouldn't surprise me in the least.

Big Machine was literally built around Taylor Swift, but it was becoming very obvious the Big Machine was about to be sold so she didn't want to resign with them just to have the label and thus her contract to be sold to an unknown entity. When she signed with Universal, one of the conditions was that she own her own masters, which was something that Big Machine had no interest in, which didn't help with the resigning.
---

darkphoenix181 posted...

There is nothing fair about calling a live performance a new recording.

They are not using fair language to bar her from this.

Are they recording the live performance to make into a live CD or DVD?

---

Gheb posted...

Big Machine was literally built around Taylor Swift, but it was becoming very obvious the Big Machine was about to be sold so she didn't want to resign with them just to have the label and thus her contract to be sold to an unknown entity.

Which was smart.

Her new stuff is mega hits.

that's literally how the business works. for decades upon decades.

young people need to be aware that their decisions have consequences in the future. her success doesn't make her any different than any other musician who did the same thing but didn't become successful.

sucks for her, but she'll be fine as long as she can make well-liked music on her own
---

s0nicfan posted...

Are they recording the live performance to make into a live CD or DVD?

Nope. The amas don't put out a CD.

Also, looks like she can do it next year all she wants. Take that haters!

https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-news/can-taylor-swift-be-banned-from-performing-amas-big-machine-913150/

the singer is saying that the two executives are preventing her from performing her older hits at the American Music Awards but the validity of both the claim and the alleged action are murky.

The singer claimed shes not allowed to perform my old songs on television because they claim that would be re-recording my music before Im allowed to next year. But in a statement Friday, Big Machine shot back that the narrative [Taylor has] created does not exist, adding that Swifts allegations are based on false information and that the label did not ever tell the singer she couldnt perform at the AMAs. All we ask is to have a direct and honest conversation, the company wrote. We do not have the right to keep her from performing live anywhere. In true Swift fashion, she responded immediately, via a rep, that Big Machine did deny the request for [] the American Music Awards.

Artists get jerked all the time and Im not feeling bad for Taylor Swift.

---

s0nicfan posted...

darkphoenix181 posted...

The issue is not money.

The issue is they won't allow her to perform her old songs.

She is barred from doing show with her old hits.

She doesn't own those songs, and she walked away from her contract with them of her own volition. What was she expecting? That they were going to let her freely use all of that music when she is no longer contractually tied to them in any way? She tried to have her cake and eat it too, and they told her to piss off. Seems fair.

This is actually generally how it works. The old label will allow for performances of the songs they own because it is beneficial for the old label to have the artist regularly performing these songs as they get their revenue from sales, streaming, and radio licensing of the songs. Also because when it comes down to artist vs label public opinion disputes, the label always loses, so it isn't an ideal PR move to be the corporation seen as blocking the beloved artist, even if the company has the legal right to.

I'm also not convinced that "performing at the AMA's is a re-recording" would actually hold up either, but there literally isn't enough time for that legal battle to take place.
---

i'd rather believe a faceless corporation of probable assholes than taylor swift
---

Ok so

Basically next month or so she can record all her old songs legally.

Apparently they don't want her to perform them before the time is up to be dicks and also cause it would popularize interest in the new recordings and not theirs.

Basically, they mad af because she gonna take them to the cleaners and wreck them.

Gheb posted...

I'm also not convinced that "performing at the AMA's is a re-recording" would actually hold up either, but there literally isn't enough time for that legal battle to take place.

The article I linked says it is but usually record labels don't bar these because they boost sales of albums.

Issue here is taylor gonna make new albums in 2020 and they mad.

darkphoenix181 posted...

Ok so

Basically next month or so she can record all her old songs legally.

Apparently they don't want her to perform them before the time is up to be dicks and also cause it would popularize interest in the new recordings and not theirs.

Basically, they mad af because she gonna take them to the cleaners and wreck them.

I believe she is not allowed to re-record the masters until November 2020. Not that anyone would reasonably consider a live televised performance to be a re-recording of masters.
---

The Trent posted...

i'd rather believe a faceless corporation of probable assholes than taylor swift

I unironically agree
---

I remember Henry Rollins once talked about this in an interview.

Rollins: "Okay, here's how the record industry works in thirty seconds. The label loans you money to record an album for them, then they charge you back and take most of your profits. It's a really good scam. They'd get people like Chuck Berry when they were twenty, twenty-one years old, and say 'We're gonna take three-quarters of your publishing, okay? Sign this.' "

Interviewer: "And how do you feel about this?"

Rollins (*laughs*): "I'm glad I have a good attorney."
---