-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
Taylor Swift can't perform her own songs at the AMAs because she doesn't own them
- Thread starter Typhon
- Start date
I'm old enough to remember Prince, yeah.
but this however, is a mess. It's not like Taylor Swift wasn't given a chance to own her own songs, and Taylor Swift was certainly rich and powerful enough to get them. It wasn't a Prince vs Warner Bros situation. They settled, ended in good terms, until Swift learnt that they are selling the rights to someone who manages Kanye.
Not to mention it's not really new for the Taylor Swift brand to spin stories to make herself look better. At this point, I'm in the 'let them fight' team.
The only option that they gave her as far as owning her music again was to re-sign with their label for another 10 years. They never offered her the ability to just outright buy her music back.
They were gonna let her earn back her master's if she released six more albums under BM, which was a ridiculous deal that she of course rejected.
They never gave her the chance to buy her master's outright and she said she would've done that if presented with the opportunity.
That wasn't true according to the contract that was posted by Big Machine. Taylor got caught lying before so I wouldn't put it past her to lie about this as well.
Nope. I just have no compassion for the super-millionaire fight with other hyper-millionaires.
an predatory industry with outrageous contract deals and that doesn't mean anything? hmm
... You thought that was a solid response to what you quoted?
Alright then.
She was a child, you dingus
Imagine all the 15 year olds signing the same shit terms today who don't get as big as Swift.
Her life isn't being controlled, she can literally do anything she wants except sing songs that she doesn't own the rights to. In fact, she could probably just sing the songs and breach her contract and it would barely make a dent in her half a billion net worth.
Is it "capitalist slave mentality" to think that you shouldn't be able to do whatever you want with something you don't own rights to?
Yes it's called repudiation and I explained it earlier in the thread. It's a basic element of contract law, so she had 3 years to repudiate but she didn't because it was working out well at the time.
No one should be allowed to own the rights to an artists' creative work.
Just because we have multiple industries, with the music industry foremost among them, that lives on forcing aspring talent into giving up ownership of their own creations doesn't make it right.
This is why contemporary capitalism is poisonous. All industries are controlled by people who demand rights to/control of the work performed by others, including profiting from that work, in exchange for access. Its gatekeeping by the people who built and/or inherited the gates.
Just because we have multiple industries, with the music industry foremost among them, that lives on forcing aspring talent into giving up ownership of their own creations doesn't make it right.
This is why contemporary capitalism is poisonous. All industries are controlled by people who demand rights to/control of the work performed by others, including profiting from that work, in exchange for access. Its gatekeeping by the people who built and/or inherited the gates.
What about people who make logos for things?
but I digress, I'm not sure what the reward would then be for the label if they didn't get the rights to the product produced with their own money through recording, marketing, dissemination of content etc.
Maybe a contract that's excessively lengthy with a high percentage of total sales, but I'm sure people wouldn't be fond of that either. Need to remember that these labels probably fund hundreds of artists who never go anywhere at all. They likely hedge their money on the odds that they'll get a few artists blow up.
Last edited:
Taylor and Scott, and their respective teams, aren't really amateurs. Both parts know how to play this out the way it's best for them.
For Taylor it's clearly the empathy angle, and you're eating it whole.
I always thought it was weird how so many artists go on to try to start their own labels. It's like a take on a prymaid scheme when you think about it.
I always notice when someone takes a bold stand against empathy. It certainly comes usually in written or spoken form.
It's easy to have no empathy to the 120+ people employed by the label who were being paid to "create" Taylor Swift. To which Taylor is apparently still owing money to.
It's clear she knows that and is exploiting the lack of empathy that we have to the teams behind the "art", as most people think that an artist like Taylor was the only person responsible for her art.
It's almost ironic that these trash contracts exist so that people like Taylor can't just run away with the creations, branding, fame, etc. that is a team work of world class talent.
If the audience put any value towards the teams behind the artists then we wouldn't need shit contracts to make it a net positive in the long run.
Not sure if you're accusing me of taking a stand against empathy. I do have a problem against biased empathy, which isn't empathy at all.
Specially knowing that both parts here are masters at generating social buzz through controversial drama that is all planned out ahead.
Anyone who thinks this is negative to any of the sides clearly is eating it. This feels like the next chapter on Taylor vs Kanye, which benefited them both tremendously and arguably got them where they are.
Last edited:
Your take certainly is something. So if an artist needs security for a concert they should start their own security company because they risk hiring a firm that has exploitative practices. And they should be expected to multiply that practice by a hundred because they need to ensure nothing funny is going on with the cleaning crew, food vendors, roadies, marketing firm, ticket brokers, etc... They are held responsible for all of that.
Wow!
Yep. Idk how people can have no compassion here.
This is a "look at this bitch eating crackers" situation.
How does lacking empathy, for an almost a half a billionaire, complaining and pissed at a deal that she signed that enabled her to make her fortune equate to a bitch eating crackers situation?? You don't know the definition of the term if that's how you really feel.
Ok. sure take away security. What about the countless other things I mentioned??
Ok.
I don't know what to say to you. We just won't ever see eye to eye on this.
Of course not, because you can't even answer the question I asked.
I am addressing it though. Normally someone wants the artist playing their songs, but then again most artists aren't slandering the current owners of their songs. Taylor's been full of shit before on things, so more than likely everyone is just sort of being difficult here. Taylor made a lot of money while on that contract, and so did the owner of the record company.. and so did a lot of other people.
You have a fundamental misunderstanding of contract law and of the role of record labels. It has nothing to do with "siding with the corporations".
Point is Scooter Braun bought Big Machine which owns the rights to Taylor's songs whilst she was under contract with Big Machine. End of. That very fact probably played a HUGE part in driving a price for Big Machine (i.e., the target asset).
Taylor Swift, giver her background/family, very much knows this and is simply trying to put pressure on Braun using PR to avoid having to pay due compensation (or negotiate in good faith with the rights owners).
I can see how this isn't ideal for her. But honestly, I'm having a real hard time caring. She has amassed an amazing fortune through the deals she has made during her career. It is what it is. If the specifics of her contract were abusive then that should be addressed but I don't have the knowledge to judge contract law, and really neither does most of the public, so posting about how it's unfair in social media is a pure PR play to gain sympathy.
The money they make distributing and selling the product during their deal with the artist.
You think music production companies only make money thanks to decades of royalties or something? They're making money off artists day one. They shouldn't be allowed to do so on someone else's creative work into perpetuity.
If someone contracts you to make a specific thing and gives design input then its a collaborative effort. Especially on something like a logo where the company collaborating owns the specific name and brand that the logo is stemming from.
People who actually contribute to the production of music should get a cut too. If someone writes all the songs for a pop star and the pop star performs them that should be an equal ownership stake for the two of them, not entirely held by music producers for simply being the ones with the money and the access into the industry. An access restriction that they themselves created.
How would that be any different? Isn't the issue that nobody can perform songs that aren't cleared in case the AMA's want to replay/resell the telecast?
No, just Taylor Swift. She isn't allowed to perform because of a contract thing that says she can't re-record/perform her older songs until November 2020. She plans to re-record her first five albums then, and is really looking forward to it. They apparently would let her perform them if she agreed to not re-record them in a year (and stopped talking about Scott and Scooter).
Also, since it hasn't been posted here, Big Machine released a statement on their website saying that they made a deal with Dick Clark Productions for the AMAs (which only mentions "their artists' " and never directly references Taylor Swift):
But then Dick Clark Productions denied that any such thing ever happened.
Last edited:
So the American Music Awards are on.
Billie Joe Armstrong sang a bit of the chorus for" Bad Blood" while playing "Basket Case."
Taylor Swift performed a medley of "The Man/Love Story/I Knew You Were Trouble/Blank Space/Shake it Off (with Camila Cabello and Halsey)/Lover".
Billie Joe Armstrong sang a bit of the chorus for" Bad Blood" while playing "Basket Case."
Taylor Swift performed a medley of "The Man/Love Story/I Knew You Were Trouble/Blank Space/Shake it Off (with Camila Cabello and Halsey)/Lover".
Yeah, those were older songs bookended by new ones.
Gonna have to wait and see if any news comes out.
scooter Braun apparently released a statement saying she is able to hence why she did tonihht
Oh, yeah, when she started her performance, she was wearing a shirt with the names of all of her old albums while she was singing part of "The Man." She turned around and "Fearless" was on the back, then she took the shirt off and started singing her old songs.
Last edited:
At about 4:44 he goes "SO BABY NOW WE GOT BAD BLOOODDD" and then he stops suddenly after starting the say the next part.
And here's Taylor Swift's performance.
