Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Stratechery)   By re-recording her album which she now owns herself, the artist has created the definitive version, which her fans will now stream instead of the original owned by Scooter Braun. Call it the Non-Fungible Taylor Swift   (stratechery.com) divider line
    More: Interesting, Fearless, Universal Music Group, Taylor Swift, Big Machine Records, Music industry, Record label, Love Story, Future of Music  
•       •       •

756 clicks; posted to Entertainment » on 14 Apr 2021 at 5:10 AM (4 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



51 Comments     (+0 »)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2021-04-13 10:29:44 PM  
Oh, I think she's very fungible
 
2021-04-14 3:31:19 AM  
No, it's the non-fungible Becky.
 
2021-04-14 5:14:21 AM  
Never get into business with someone who goes by the name, "Scooter".
 
2021-04-14 5:18:20 AM  

Ragin' Asian: Never get into business with someone who goes by the name, "Scooter".


Ibid politics.

images.wsj.netView Full Size
 
2021-04-14 5:19:02 AM  
Becky died because her marijuana had fungus in it.
 
2021-04-14 5:30:38 AM  
people don't need to spend their money for something they already own just so she has even more money. this is fleecing your fans
 
2021-04-14 5:31:16 AM  
I thought Scooter sold her stuff to a private equity group last year. Also think he sold his company to a South Korean company within the past month.
 
2021-04-14 5:34:02 AM  

Ragin' Asian: Never get into business with someone who goes by the name, "Scooter".


Unless they're stage managing a live puppet variety show

i.pinimg.comView Full Size
 
2021-04-14 5:38:38 AM  

Warrior Kermit: people don't need to spend their money for something they already own just so she has even more money. this is fleecing your fans


The point is that any future licensing of her music for a commercial,TV show, movie etc will now be using her new tracks and profit her instead of Scooter.

She's not making her fans go by new copies of her album.  extreme fans will buy them anyway.
 
2021-04-14 5:50:56 AM  

AquaTatanka: Warrior Kermit: people don't need to spend their money for something they already own just so she has even more money. this is fleecing your fans

The point is that any future licensing of her music for a commercial,TV show, movie etc will now be using her new tracks and profit her instead of Scooter.

She's not making her fans go by new copies of her album.  extreme fans will buy them anyway.


And also the radio and streaming services.
 
2021-04-14 6:06:33 AM  
And yet the music still sucks.
 
2021-04-14 6:07:03 AM  
 
2021-04-14 6:07:35 AM  

Warrior Kermit: people don't need to spend their money for something they already own just so she has even more money. this is fleecing your fans


And the fans will eat it up.
 
2021-04-14 6:08:49 AM  
Fark user imageView Full Size

Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2021-04-14 6:11:11 AM  
Karens are here
 
2021-04-14 6:41:56 AM  

Tyrone Slothrop: Warrior Kermit: people don't need to spend their money for something they already own just so she has even more money. this is fleecing your fans

And the fans will eat it up.


It has more to do with royalties than anything else. Selling the same songs to fans (which will probably happen for some die-hards) is an incidental, and probably very small, amount of the revenue this will earn. Basically, Scooter tried to act like a dick when he refused to sell her back her rights (even when she offered much more than they are worth), so now he gets nothing from future licensing agreements.
 
2021-04-14 6:48:04 AM  
You mean she hasn't been re-recording the same album all this time?
 
2021-04-14 6:48:57 AM  
As someone who is friends with a lot of musicians and authors, a few who make a decent living from it, I think this is brilliant. If she does this with all of her albums then she owns the new masters. So, if someone wants to use her music for a movie or whatever, and doesn't want to deal with social media backlash for using the old version, she'll get all the money instead of someone who had nothing to do with it's production. It's so crazy it just might work because, as I understand it, she's quite popular.
 
2021-04-14 7:11:38 AM  

Warrior Kermit: people don't need to spend their money for something they already own just so she has even more money. this is fleecing your fans


Wh... What?? Why I never...

media1.tenor.comView Full Size
 
2021-04-14 7:24:17 AM  
I'm curious about why this isn't plagiarism or some other form of IP theft. Just because I did it from scratch doesn't mean I can release replicas of other artists work.
 
2021-04-14 7:26:39 AM  

Invincible: I'm curious about why this isn't plagiarism or some other form of IP theft. Just because I did it from scratch doesn't mean I can release replicas of other artists work.


Braun owns the master recordings of the songs but not the songs themselves.
 
2021-04-14 7:28:30 AM  
She's not the first artist who has done this. Foreigner recut their hits with Kelly Hansen, KISS did this with their hits and I believe Def Leppard did too.
 
2021-04-14 7:28:45 AM  

Invincible: I'm curious about why this isn't plagiarism or some other form of IP theft. Just because I did it from scratch doesn't mean I can release replicas of other artists work.


P&C
 
2021-04-14 7:37:56 AM  
Remember kids-

If you don't like your contract, just complain to your fans and work around it.
 
2021-04-14 7:39:12 AM  

Ragin' Asian: Never get into business with someone who goes by the name, "Scooter".


images-na.ssl-images-amazon.comView Full Size
 
2021-04-14 7:47:08 AM  

FarkaDark: Will she treat the writers of her songs the same way?


Article released by major company about letter produced and ghostwritten by Max Martin. It's everything I hate about modern "letter". Look at letters, not even a hint of real instrument like quill pen or even typewriter. Look at performers, it's sheer corporate idea of inclusiveness and edginess. And despite of all efforts to make it as woke as possible, they still put photo of male on top. Or worse, could be attempt to tap into incel focus group. Overproduced to the brim too. I don't even have to pay attention to words to know it's about themselves (hedonism) or money (materialism) or both (hedonism). In the past letter writers like Lenon could write
about improving society with milk and bread while in prison, these days they refuse to use milk in making world better because it's an animal product!?
 
2021-04-14 7:57:39 AM  

LewDux: FarkaDark: Will she treat the writers of her songs the same way?

Article released by major company about letter produced and ghostwritten by Max Martin. It's everything I hate about modern "letter". Look at letters, not even a hint of real instrument like quill pen or even typewriter. Look at performers, it's sheer corporate idea of inclusiveness and edginess. And despite of all efforts to make it as woke as possible, they still put photo of male on top. Or worse, could be attempt to tap into incel focus group. Overproduced to the brim too. I don't even have to pay attention to words to know it's about themselves (hedonism) or money (materialism) or both (hedonism). In the past letter writers like Lenon could write
about improving society with milk and bread while in prison, these days they refuse to use milk in making world better because it's an animal product!?


Big pharm makes drugs that could help your problem out quite a bit
 
2021-04-14 8:33:12 AM  

LewDux: [Fark user image image 637x405]
[Fark user image image 630x354]


Exploding while attempting entry?
 
2021-04-14 8:37:30 AM  
i.redd.itView Full Size
 
2021-04-14 8:39:07 AM  

Wellon Dowd: LewDux: [Fark user image image 637x405]
[Fark user image image 630x354]

Exploding while attempting entry?


Canceled by  President Tyrone
 
2021-04-14 8:43:46 AM  

scotchcrotch: Remember kids-

If you don't like your contract, just complain to your fans and work around it.


Nothing is stopping Scooter from underbidding her, offering package deals, or otherwise making the versions he owns more attractive than the ones she just did. Also, he didn't buy the masters from her, but a third party, meaning she had no say over how she could use her own work.
 
2021-04-14 8:46:10 AM  

Warrior Kermit: people don't need to spend their money for something they already own just so she has even more money. this is fleecing your fans


It's not. One, there are new songs included. Two, everyone streams it. And three, the primary purpose is not to re-sell records but have versions of the songs she's free to do what she likes with - license them out for movies, etc.
 
2021-04-14 8:47:32 AM  

FarkaDark: Will she treat the writers of her songs the same way?


Not sure she's one of the people to accuse of this.
 
2021-04-14 9:14:32 AM  

Warrior Kermit: people don't need to spend their money for something they already own just so she has even more money. this is fleecing your fans


Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2021-04-14 9:52:07 AM  

Unscratchable_Itch: As someone who is friends with a lot of musicians and authors, a few who make a decent living from it, I think this is brilliant. If she does this with all of her albums then she owns the new masters. So, if someone wants to use her music for a movie or whatever, and doesn't want to deal with social media backlash for using the old version, she'll get all the money instead of someone who had nothing to do with it's production. It's so crazy it just might work because, as I understand it, she's quite popular.


You think she is the first person to do this?  She isn't.
 
2021-04-14 10:09:21 AM  

luidprand: scotchcrotch: Remember kids-

If you don't like your contract, just complain to your fans and work around it.

Nothing is stopping Scooter from underbidding her, offering package deals, or otherwise making the versions he owns more attractive than the ones she just did. Also, he didn't buy the masters from her, but a third party, meaning she had no say over how she could use her own work.


I think the reason this is a big deal is that to use the Scooter owned version they would also need her to sign off, which she won't. So his are useless without her consent.
 
2021-04-14 10:18:45 AM  
HAH!

F************CK YOU, "scooter"
 
2021-04-14 10:21:04 AM  
Scooter farked around. He found out.
 
2021-04-14 10:23:08 AM  

MHudson: Warrior Kermit: people don't need to spend their money for something they already own just so she has even more money. this is fleecing your fans

It's not. One, there are new songs included. Two, everyone streams it. And three, the primary purpose is not to re-sell records but have versions of the songs she's free to do what she likes with - license them out for movies, etc.


Case in point, this ad used the re-recorded version of Love Story months before the new album was released.

Match Made In Hell
Youtube YPq23RWpgPM
 
2021-04-14 10:23:38 AM  

luidprand: scotchcrotch: Remember kids-

If you don't like your contract, just complain to your fans and work around it.

Nothing is stopping Scooter from underbidding her, offering package deals, or otherwise making the versions he owns more attractive than the ones she just did. Also, he didn't buy the masters from her, but a third party, meaning she had no say over how she could use her own work.


Was that a breach of contract?
 
2021-04-14 10:49:22 AM  

Invincible: I'm curious about why this isn't plagiarism or some other form of IP theft. Just because I did it from scratch doesn't mean I can release replicas of other artists work.


It's her own work, not other artists'.

Someone basically spent IIRC hundreds of millions on her back catalog, which she had a deep interest in owning herself, and apparently didn't bother to ask whether a powerful pissed-off artist might fark them sideways.

Step 1: routinely deny sync licenses, exercising her rights as songwriter
Step 2: destroy value in those masters by releasing new versions
Step 3: license the new versions

That isn't her doing anything wrong. That's just someone else getting bitten in the ass by their disregard for her.
 
2021-04-14 11:52:22 AM  

FarkaDark: Will she treat the writers of her songs the same way?


What is this even supposed to mean?
 
2021-04-14 11:57:23 AM  

AquaTatanka: Warrior Kermit: people don't need to spend their money for something they already own just so she has even more money. this is fleecing your fans

The point is that any future licensing of her music for a commercial,TV show, movie etc will now be using her new tracks and profit her instead of Scooter.

She's not making her fans go by new copies of her album.  extreme fans will buy them anyway.


Exactly. It's purely about re-gaining control of her own music.

Even then, it seems like she's adding a bunch of value to it, too. According to Wiki, the new version has double the songs of the original, including six songs that have never been released before.

So even the fans getting "fleeced" are getting something out of it. If this was an album I liked, I'd be all over a release like this.
 
2021-04-14 1:02:50 PM  

Unscratchable_Itch: As someone who is friends with a lot of musicians and authors, a few who make a decent living from it, I think this is brilliant. If she does this with all of her albums then she owns the new masters. So, if someone wants to use her music for a movie or whatever, and doesn't want to deal with social media backlash for using the old version, she'll get all the money instead of someone who had nothing to do with it's production. It's so crazy it just might work because, as I understand it, she's quite popular.


The problem with artists who go back and tinker with their works is that it isn't the same thing.

As a fan of heavy metal Dave Mustaine has been the poster boy of going back and screwing with his masters.  And every time something off of "Rust In Peace" comes up on a Spotify playlist and I can hear the obvious changes I don't think "Oh wow, this is better" it's more jarring and I'm reminded what an incredible tool Dave Mustaine is.

It's her IP and she can do whatever she wants to it.  Monetizing the fark out of your catalog when you already have more than enough money will come off more as greedy than it will "shrewd businesswoman."
 
2021-04-14 1:03:27 PM  

shoegaze99: FarkaDark: Will she treat the writers of her songs the same way?

What is this even supposed to mean?


It's a link.
Apparently song writers are tired of performers claiming ownership of when they did not create. Her name is mentioned.
 
2021-04-14 1:28:03 PM  

FarkaDark: shoegaze99: FarkaDark: Will she treat the writers of her songs the same way?

What is this even supposed to mean?

It's a link.
Apparently song writers are tired of performers claiming ownership of when they did not create. Her name is mentioned.


I'm aware that it's a link, I'm just not aware of how it's relevant. She's the writer or co-writer on all of her music, her collaborators have talked about how prepared she is and to what extent the writing is hers, and her collaborators do not give away their songwriting credits. They are credited clearly and compensated for it. Hell, that recent documentary on her Folklore album was constantly making clear what a collaborative effort it was.

Nothing in that article has anything to do with the way she's worked over the years. Even the article itself says "the letter was not directed at any specific artists" immediately after mentioning her. She's only mentioned as an example of the level of stars the songwriters have worked with.

Lots of pop stars demand writing credits despite not actually writing any of the music, but Taylor Swift is not one of them. Everything I've read makes it clear she's pretty transparent about what songs originate from her own demos, what songs began as someone else's instrumental music, etc. Stories from her collaborators are consistent in that regard. She guides every project and has an active role in writing all her music, usually as the lead songwriter.
 
2021-04-14 3:03:49 PM  
Skarekrough:

It's her IP and she can do whatever she wants to it.  Monetizing the fark out of your catalog when you already have more than enough money will come off more as greedy than it will "shrewd businesswoman."


Like you said, it's her IP. And I rather she come off as "greedy" than letting some shiatstain on humanity like "scooter" Braun, who hasn't a creative a bone in his miserable, body profit off of HER work.
 
2021-04-14 3:38:02 PM  

Wellon Dowd: LewDux: [Fark user image image 637x405]
[Fark user image image 630x354]

Exploding while attempting entry?



I'd explode while attempting entry, IYKWIMAITYD.
 
2021-04-14 4:03:30 PM  
The way it played out when this saga first started shows that even though she's a good businesswoman, she's still a whiny, petty little girl who Michael J. Fox was right about keeping his son away form.
 
2021-04-14 4:10:07 PM  

LewDux: In the past letter writers like Lenon could write
about improving society with milk and bread while in prison


It's funny because Lenin's birthday, Part One: On writing in invisible ink | Returns to Sender
 
Displayed 50 of 51 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking





On Twitter



  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.