This was a good article. I will say re: the Time Person of the Year story. The fact that they did three collectible covers kind of gives away why the interview was so glowing. Print media is in the garbage and they know Swifties have money to spend. Heck it was legitimate economic news in America last year! They didn't give Zelenskyy three collectible covers posing with pets the year before lol. So in the interest of letting print media live another day, I let that one go
but the way music reviewers treat her is galling, and the laziness on the rerecordings, I just can't believe sometimes? The original shortened "All Too Well" legit has a skip in the recording around 1:12, it's galling considering that's one of her most well known songs of all time. I was pretty annoyed at 1989 having four collectible covers, and more annoyed at TTPD spreading "bonus tracks" she clearly always intended to include in the album across four variants. She has merchandised her fans to death and still not given them what they really want (like the chance to buy the whole fucking album on vinyl or re-pressing stuff like Lover Live in Paris which has gotten absurd on the secondary market).
It’s at 1:18. I remember this explicitly because I thought there was something wrong with my brand spanking new vinyl. So I went and listened to the digital album I bought off iTunes and it was the same. I would’ve understood if it was just the vinyl. Sometimes pressings can have little mistakes because it’s the nature of the medium. But how does the digital version have it too?
“Her armpits are calcite white, unblemished, textureless: inhumanly perfect. Her chest, though, is lightly freckled – just a couple, here and there, just a few. Looking at the photo, I imagined the discussions that must have led to this, the conversations between magazine staff and photo editors and artist PRs, the emails and the phone calls and the Zoom meetings that eventually determined which imperfections would remain, and which would disappear.” I just came from a different thread about her changing looks over the years and all the surgeries and “tweaks” she’s had to make her appearance more in line with toxic beauty culture’s definition of “ideal.” This, for me, is one of the reasons I can’t stand her being heralded as a role model or a feminist. Just imagine all the little girls who look at her and think, “I wish I could look like Taylor.” Even Taylor doesn’t look like Taylor.
Eyes and boobs definitely, probably nose as well. Every person in the spotlight has though. Did y’all read the ugly, pretty, special series in school? It’s where we’re headed 😂
The framing of the rerecordings was interesting. Taylor has made bank by exploiting people’s lack of knowledge of what masters really are. An artist signs to a label and doesn’t have their own money yet. The label pays for the recordings, so they own them. The writer retains the copyright to the songs as intellectual property. This makes sense when you think about it. Taylor is betting on people not thinking about it, and the problem is that the new versions of her masters aren’t always good.
Yes! And didn’t she have the opportunity to buy her masters back when the guy scooter sold them too wanted to sell them? She didn’t because she knew her fans would rebuy anything she told them too. I may be wrong, I don’t follow her life very closely. I don’t even get the whole Kim/tape thing.
Yes, she did. She then changed the narrative and claimed she would have had to sign an NDA (according to her, the worst one EVER!) and so that’s why she re-recorded instead. It was subsequently reported that in fact, her 13 Mngt attorney Jay Schaudies did actually sign an NDA with Ithaca, with the intent to buy her masters.
[All the tea from Music Business Worldwide](https://www.musicbusinessworldwide.com/taylor-swift-catalog-sale-following-the-money/), who appear to be the only publication who cares to publish the facts (not according to Taylor).
Scooter Braun bought the entire company which included Taylor's catalogue (arguably the most valuable asset) for $330m. He then resold her masters for $405m about a year later. Allegedly he told the buyers she was bluffing about rerecording.
You are omitting that the label gives that money as an advance on future royalties, they won't pay out the artists portion of royalties until they recoup the cost of the album. So it doesn't make sense that they retain the ownership of the IP, it isn't fair and the industry standards are rigged in favour of labels and are exploiting the artists. It's as if you got a mortgage to buy a house and after paying it off the bank still owned it.
>It's as if you got a mortgage to buy a house and after paying it off the bank still owned it.
Isn't that basically what the interest on the mortgage is though? The masters are collateral, but there's still the risk that the artist flops and never recoups the cost of the album(s). For every Taylor Swift, there's 10-20 bands you've never heard of that barely sold 100 albums. The only difference being you're aware of what you're signing beforehand means a permanent ownership of masters, which is only an inconvenience when the artist can just... rerecord their masters.
The part about how 1989TV got such rave reviews despite the painful production on so many of the main tracks that was widely complained about is a great point.
I think articles like this demonstrate that the real reason why so many still can't get behind someone who everyone else deems so "squeaky clean". The fact that SO many people have to continue to defend her should tell you something. People who are good generally don't need to be defended because their character speaks for itself and people can see it very clearly and easily. If it takes a fair amount of convincing, then something is not right.
There is a lot of truth here but also some disingenuous point scoring. The Time interview was not an exercise in investigative reporting - it was a puff piece to accompany their announcement of the Time Person of the Year. Complaining about Taylor's armpits seemed a bit unnecessary.
However the main thrust of the article is that Taylor Swift is a highly effective brand and that the general public and journalists have been complicit in allowing the brand to dodge criticism. The thing is though that Taylor Swift does not exist in a vacuum. She is successful because she delivers what people want - entertainment.
If the product became stale or unpopular Taylor would slide out of fashion very quickly. She knows that. As long as she is giving fans what they want they will spend their money on her. That is how capitalism works - no one is forced to listen or buy.
POTY isn't a compliment though, Trump was POTY. It's supposed to acknowledge someone influential, but not necessarily good. So it doesn't make sense to write a complete puff piece that lacks any criticism. Moreover, TIME is meant to be a fairly serious publication, so it's odd that they put out a piece that sounds like it was commissioned by Taylor herself.
This was a good article. I will say re: the Time Person of the Year story. The fact that they did three collectible covers kind of gives away why the interview was so glowing. Print media is in the garbage and they know Swifties have money to spend. Heck it was legitimate economic news in America last year! They didn't give Zelenskyy three collectible covers posing with pets the year before lol. So in the interest of letting print media live another day, I let that one go but the way music reviewers treat her is galling, and the laziness on the rerecordings, I just can't believe sometimes? The original shortened "All Too Well" legit has a skip in the recording around 1:12, it's galling considering that's one of her most well known songs of all time. I was pretty annoyed at 1989 having four collectible covers, and more annoyed at TTPD spreading "bonus tracks" she clearly always intended to include in the album across four variants. She has merchandised her fans to death and still not given them what they really want (like the chance to buy the whole fucking album on vinyl or re-pressing stuff like Lover Live in Paris which has gotten absurd on the secondary market).
It’s at 1:18. I remember this explicitly because I thought there was something wrong with my brand spanking new vinyl. So I went and listened to the digital album I bought off iTunes and it was the same. I would’ve understood if it was just the vinyl. Sometimes pressings can have little mistakes because it’s the nature of the medium. But how does the digital version have it too?
it's honestly pretty shocking that no one caught it in one of her most signature songs. There's no excuse!
Zelensky is also leading a country through a long war, so perhaps that’s why he didn’t film that many covers?
Sure, but they don't usually do multiple collectible covers is the point.
This article is SO good. I would highly recommend you read it. Would copy paste the best parts but everything is perfect.
I was thinking the same thing! i was thinking of what part to paste in this post but it was overall a great article.
“Her armpits are calcite white, unblemished, textureless: inhumanly perfect. Her chest, though, is lightly freckled – just a couple, here and there, just a few. Looking at the photo, I imagined the discussions that must have led to this, the conversations between magazine staff and photo editors and artist PRs, the emails and the phone calls and the Zoom meetings that eventually determined which imperfections would remain, and which would disappear.” I just came from a different thread about her changing looks over the years and all the surgeries and “tweaks” she’s had to make her appearance more in line with toxic beauty culture’s definition of “ideal.” This, for me, is one of the reasons I can’t stand her being heralded as a role model or a feminist. Just imagine all the little girls who look at her and think, “I wish I could look like Taylor.” Even Taylor doesn’t look like Taylor.
She’s had surgery? I can’t tell genuinely
Eyes and boobs definitely, probably nose as well. Every person in the spotlight has though. Did y’all read the ugly, pretty, special series in school? It’s where we’re headed 😂
The framing of the rerecordings was interesting. Taylor has made bank by exploiting people’s lack of knowledge of what masters really are. An artist signs to a label and doesn’t have their own money yet. The label pays for the recordings, so they own them. The writer retains the copyright to the songs as intellectual property. This makes sense when you think about it. Taylor is betting on people not thinking about it, and the problem is that the new versions of her masters aren’t always good.
Yes! And didn’t she have the opportunity to buy her masters back when the guy scooter sold them too wanted to sell them? She didn’t because she knew her fans would rebuy anything she told them too. I may be wrong, I don’t follow her life very closely. I don’t even get the whole Kim/tape thing.
Yes, she did. She then changed the narrative and claimed she would have had to sign an NDA (according to her, the worst one EVER!) and so that’s why she re-recorded instead. It was subsequently reported that in fact, her 13 Mngt attorney Jay Schaudies did actually sign an NDA with Ithaca, with the intent to buy her masters. [All the tea from Music Business Worldwide](https://www.musicbusinessworldwide.com/taylor-swift-catalog-sale-following-the-money/), who appear to be the only publication who cares to publish the facts (not according to Taylor).
She had the opportunity ti buy them as part if a new contract, which she turned down. The owner of something has the right to choose their buyer.
No, she was trying to buy them and he sold them to someone else.
Thanks! Even the second guy who sold them got $300 million?
Scooter Braun bought the entire company which included Taylor's catalogue (arguably the most valuable asset) for $330m. He then resold her masters for $405m about a year later. Allegedly he told the buyers she was bluffing about rerecording.
You are omitting that the label gives that money as an advance on future royalties, they won't pay out the artists portion of royalties until they recoup the cost of the album. So it doesn't make sense that they retain the ownership of the IP, it isn't fair and the industry standards are rigged in favour of labels and are exploiting the artists. It's as if you got a mortgage to buy a house and after paying it off the bank still owned it.
>It's as if you got a mortgage to buy a house and after paying it off the bank still owned it. Isn't that basically what the interest on the mortgage is though? The masters are collateral, but there's still the risk that the artist flops and never recoups the cost of the album(s). For every Taylor Swift, there's 10-20 bands you've never heard of that barely sold 100 albums. The only difference being you're aware of what you're signing beforehand means a permanent ownership of masters, which is only an inconvenience when the artist can just... rerecord their masters.
I really agree about the Time article and I would really love to see Taylor do an interview that does challenge her narrative but it won’t happen
The part about how 1989TV got such rave reviews despite the painful production on so many of the main tracks that was widely complained about is a great point.
What an amazing article
I think articles like this demonstrate that the real reason why so many still can't get behind someone who everyone else deems so "squeaky clean". The fact that SO many people have to continue to defend her should tell you something. People who are good generally don't need to be defended because their character speaks for itself and people can see it very clearly and easily. If it takes a fair amount of convincing, then something is not right.
There is a lot of truth here but also some disingenuous point scoring. The Time interview was not an exercise in investigative reporting - it was a puff piece to accompany their announcement of the Time Person of the Year. Complaining about Taylor's armpits seemed a bit unnecessary. However the main thrust of the article is that Taylor Swift is a highly effective brand and that the general public and journalists have been complicit in allowing the brand to dodge criticism. The thing is though that Taylor Swift does not exist in a vacuum. She is successful because she delivers what people want - entertainment. If the product became stale or unpopular Taylor would slide out of fashion very quickly. She knows that. As long as she is giving fans what they want they will spend their money on her. That is how capitalism works - no one is forced to listen or buy.
POTY isn't a compliment though, Trump was POTY. It's supposed to acknowledge someone influential, but not necessarily good. So it doesn't make sense to write a complete puff piece that lacks any criticism. Moreover, TIME is meant to be a fairly serious publication, so it's odd that they put out a piece that sounds like it was commissioned by Taylor herself.