Current Events > Taylor Swift album 1989 (Taylor's Version) releases TODAY

(+) Yeah! (+)

i like it

What's the difference?

ElMaton04 posted...

What's the difference?

By listening to this one you help give billionaire Taylor swift more money

Who cares?

TheGoldenEel posted...

By listening to this one you help give billionaire Taylor swift more money

Better than giving it to the investment firm Scooter Braun sold the rights to?

Anyway, you get five new tracks and some are suggesting improved vocal performance.

ai123 posted...

Better than giving it to the investment firm Scooter Braun sold the rights to?

it doesnt really matter to me either way

at the end of the day this is a billionaire using her immense wealth and rabid fanbase to spite some other rich people, conveniently getting said rabid fans to pay her a second time for the same records

sucks that she got a raw deal with her masters, I guess, but its the same raw deal that thousands of musicians get and as far as I can tell all shes doing with her platform on the matter is lining her pockets

so I dont feel specifically bad for born-rich nepo-baby Taylor swifts predicament here

TheGoldenEel posted...

it doesnt really matter to me either way

at the end of the day this is a billionaire using her immense wealth and rabid fanbase to spite some other rich people, conveniently getting said rabid fans to pay her a second time for the same records

sucks that she got a raw deal with her masters, I guess, but its the same raw deal that thousands of musicians get and as far as I can tell all shes doing with her platform on the matter is lining her pockets

so I dont feel specifically bad for born-rich nepo-baby Taylor swifts predicament here

you really just came up with something to get mildly annoyed about out of nowhere

ssk9716757 posted...

you really just came up with something to get mildly annoyed about out of nowhere

the Taylors version thing mildly annoys me, yes

i say this as someone whos generally a fan of taylor swift

TheGoldenEel posted...

it doesnt really matter to me either way

at the end of the day this is a billionaire using her immense wealth and rabid fanbase to spite some other rich people, conveniently getting said rabid fans to pay her a second time for the same records

sucks that she got a raw deal with her masters, I guess, but its the same raw deal that thousands of musicians get and as far as I can tell all shes doing with her platform on the matter is lining her pockets

so I dont feel specifically bad for born-rich nepo-baby Taylor swifts predicament here

What has being a 'nepo baby' got to do with anything? She didn't get where she is just by virtue of having rich parents. Just ask all the failed rich kid musicians. Of which there are many.

She had a problem, She's solving it in a smart way and making money. I don't have anything other than admiration for that.

ai123 posted...

What has being a 'nepo baby' got to do with anything? She didn't get where she is just by virtue of having rich parents. Just ask all the failed rich kid musicians. Of which there are many.

She had a problem, She's solving it in a smart way and making money. I don't have anything other than admiration for that.

The record deal she that her problem stems from is one she only got because her rich dad invested in the label in the first place

instead of just being happy that deal led to her being unfathomably rich, shes using her influence to get her (presumably mostly not rich) fans to spend 40 bucks a pop buying her new records again for the the primary purpose of sticking it to Scooter Braun et al.

(And as an aside, I know previously all the tswift vinyl manufacturing was backing up vinyl pressing for independent artists but idk if thats still the case)

as far as I can tell shes done nothing to help other struggling artists, her only goal in this is to become even more filthy stinking rich and thats something that doesnt sit well with me imo

I've lost my connection with Taylor Swift. Time was she was hot and was basically someone dreamy for guys to fawn over like girls for the Beeb but nowadays I can't see her the same way.

A worse version of a mediocre pop album?!

When she made the old album she was a tiny girl and now shes an old woman so you feel less gross rubbing it listening to the new version

idk how anyone can be mad at her for this. scooter braun is a typical predatory shitbag who wanted to control her music catalog and thought he had her over a barrel, but she turned the tables on him and exposed him for the villain he is while taking back control over her own work. it's a good thing and sets a good precedent

andel posted...

idk how anyone can be mad at her for this. scooter braun is a typical predatory shitbag who wanted to control her music catalog and thought he had her over a barrel, but she turned the tables on him and exposed him for the villain he is while taking back control over her own work. it's a good thing and sets a good precedent

shes doing a thing that she can literally only get away with because shes arguably the biggest pop star in the world.

its just billionaire with a huge fanbase vs some other billionaire.

to be clear my belief that billionaires are inherently bad people doesnt have a except for Taylor swift clause in it

there are no good guys here, theres no precedent being set that will help anyone but Taylor Swift moving forward

Already up on Apple Music. Its my favorite album from her as well so will be listening o my way home from work today.

TheGoldenEel posted...

The record deal she that her problem stems from is one she only got because her rich dad invested in the label in the first place

instead of just being happy that deal led to her being unfathomably rich, shes using her influence to get her (presumably mostly not rich) fans to spend 40 bucks a pop buying her new records again for the the primary purpose of sticking it to Scooter Braun et al.

(And as an aside, I know previously all the tswift vinyl manufacturing was backing up vinyl pressing for independent artists but idk if thats still the case)

as far as I can tell shes done nothing to help other struggling artists, her only goal in this is to become even more filthy stinking rich and thats something that doesnt sit well with me imo

Nobody's twisting your arm forcing you to put in your credit card number to order the album. And if you listen on Spotify or whatever you won't even notice.

This is the first Taylor's Version that isn't straight up better than the original, to me. A few of the songs are better, a few are worse. Her inflection on New Romantics is totally different and feels like it lost the angsty adolescent vibe that was key to song. The vault tracks seem like they'd fit Lover or Reputation better ("Slut!" especially sounds like a Lover track,) I can see why they got cut.

TheGoldenEel posted...

The record deal she that her problem stems from is one she only got because her rich dad invested in the label in the first place

instead of just being happy that deal led to her being unfathomably rich, shes using her influence to get her (presumably mostly not rich) fans to spend 40 bucks a pop buying her new records again for the the primary purpose of sticking it to Scooter Braun et al.

(And as an aside, I know previously all the tswift vinyl manufacturing was backing up vinyl pressing for independent artists but idk if thats still the case)

as far as I can tell shes done nothing to help other struggling artists, her only goal in this is to become even more filthy stinking rich and thats something that doesnt sit well with me imo

Her goal was to reclaim the rights to her own music. I can understand why she would want to own her songs, rather than just think 'oh well, I'm rich so it doesn't matter'.

Swift releases music for the same reason those poor 'struggling bands' do (let's not romanticize them). If people would rather listen to her songs than theirs, that's not because she did anything wrong.

I enjoy obscure artists' music as much as anyone, but I sure don't have a chip on my shoulder about more popular musicians enjoying their success and, yes, their wealth.

ai123 posted...

I enjoy obscure artists' music as much as anyone, but I sure don't have a chip on my shoulder about more popular musicians enjoying their success and, yes, their wealth.

Just to be clear, theres a vast difference between simply enjoying success and wealth and being a billionaire

ai123 posted...

Anyway, you get five new tracks and some are suggesting improved vocal performance.

I remember when albums were all new material, usually 45-70 minutes and the performances were based on the writing and talent of the band.

I miss the glory days of album rock.

TheGoldenEel posted...

it doesnt really matter to me either way

at the end of the day this is a billionaire using her immense wealth and rabid fanbase to spite some other rich people, conveniently getting said rabid fans to pay her a second time for the same records

sucks that she got a raw deal with her masters, I guess, but its the same raw deal that thousands of musicians get and as far as I can tell all shes doing with her platform on the matter is lining her pockets

so I dont feel specifically bad for born-rich nepo-baby Taylor swifts predicament here

You should probably avoid speaking about things like this if youre only going to do surface level research about why this such a huge movement for her/her fanbase.

TheGoldenEel posted...

Just to be clear, theres a vast difference between simply enjoying success and wealth and being a billionaire

So when does the switch flick from 'good' to 'evil'?

Taylor Swift suddenly became a bad person when her bank account reached a level set by you? Or did she slowly creep towards malevolence with each dollar?

Most billionaires are terrible people. But they would still have been terrible people if they were living on welfare.

Torgo posted...

I remember when albums were all new material, usually 45-70 minutes and the performances were based on the writing and talent of the band.

I miss the glory days of album rock.

Did you recently come out of a coma and miss the four brand new albums she's released since 2019?

BearlyWilling posted...

You should probably avoid speaking about things like this if youre only going to do surface level research about why this such a huge movement for her/her fanbase.

Last Taylors version album topic someone posted some deep dive video that basically just said all the facts as Im stating them, only framed in a way thats sympathetic to poor underdog Taylor Swift

Torgo posted...

I remember when albums were all new material, usually 45-70 minutes and the performances were based on the writing and talent of the band.

I miss the glory days of album rock.

I definitely long for the days of the 10 track 40-45 minute album.

I sure don't miss the 18 track, bloated with should-have-been outtakes, 70 minute CD era.

obviously

bump

bump I'm listening to it right now

The only song I enjoyed on 1989 was New Romantics, and that was only on the deluxe edition. Since I didnt care for the bill of the original 1989, Im not going to listen to this version.

VeesMcGees posted...

The only song I enjoyed on 1989 was New Romantics, and that was only on the deluxe edition. Since I didnt care for the bill of the original 1989, Im not going to listen to this version.

tbh I find that odd, it's not like New Romantics is vastly different from the rest of the album.

I only listen to the Deluxe version BTW, all the added songs are good

Shishiwakamaru posted...

tbh I find that odd, it's not like New Romantics is vastly different from the rest of the album.

I only listen to the Deluxe version BTW, all the added songs are good

I found the other songs too repetitive or outright boring. New Romantics had a funner energy that was just catchier and allowed to overcome annoyances I had with songs like Bad Blood and Welcome to New York.

IMO the best bonus track is Is It Over Now?

TheGoldenEel posted...

as far as I can tell shes done nothing to help other struggling artists, her only goal in this is to become even more filthy stinking rich and thats something that doesnt sit well with me imo

https://www.universalmusic.com/taylor-swift-signs-exclusive-global-recording-agreement-universal-music-group/

When Taylor Swift announced her new record deal on Monday with Universal Music Group and Republic Records, she coupled the long-awaited deal with an unusual provision: As part of her joint contract with the label, UMG must promise to hand over to artists, on a non-recoupable basis, a portion of the windfall from its Spotify shares in the future.
Not just to Swift, but to all its artists.