celeb news SZA reveals feeling devastated after Rihanna stole ‘Consideration’ for her album

[lonnie]

24 minutes ago, swissman said:

At the time Anti was released SZA was 25. Assuming the writing for the album was not done solely in the three months prior to that, then she would have been 24. Two of her three EPs were self-released, and the third one was on an independent label. In outlining her age and industry experience, my point is that she quite simply may not have fully grasped the legal obligations she may have signed onto which is not an inherent excuse, but a reason for why she may have felt a way about the song being taken from her as it may not have been something she was expecting could happen by sharing the song in that setting. It's reasonable to think that you, the artist, the creator, would have power and ownership over what you've created. Foolish or not, her fault or not, does that change how she's allowed to feel about the consequences?

 

But beyond all that, my point here was calling her a "liar" and going out of your way to bash SZA for sharing a story about how she now understands her art cannot be summed up by one song is totally getting it wrong. If you wish to debate people here who are coming for Rihanna, by all means do so. But coming for SZA who is not whining about it, but recalling feelings she no longer feels to display how she's grown and exceeded the creative limits she thought she had, is entirely out of context.

Rihanna was not the first major artist SZA had worked with. She had worked with Beyonce and Nicki Minaj before she worked on Anti. Even if you could make the excuse that she had no debut album, or had little experience, she must have known how writing camps work before she worked with Rihanna simply because it wasn't her first. And it was foolish, no way around it, whatever and however she feels.  She certainly must know the the optics of a newer artist claiming she felt gutted and that her career was compromised because she was "forced" to give away her song to and by a more established artist. If what she felt had no implications other than herself in this situation, then fine. 

 

And what exactly were the consequences? SZA's story always has new additions whenever she's told it these past years (this is not the first time she's spoken about it). She was featured on the song, got a broader audience, got on the biggest stage she had ever been on prior to that moment, income from the song, etc. It's not like her contributions were never acknowledged. None of that sounds like a terrible thing which is why some really don't understand how she was so negatively affected with that situation or why on earth she carried on the way she did and is still whining (and she is whining because how else do you explain a person still clinging to this story as she is) about it eight years later. She's in a Grammys campaign and this narrative helps her case and that's probably why she even added the new details about already having a video of the song shot. But as the reaction in this thread shows, her placing herself as a victim in that story makes it seem as though she was, at the very least, taken advantage of, and at worst robbed. 

 

[swissman]

13 minutes ago, lonnie said:

Rihanna was not the first major artist SZA had worked with. She had worked with Beyonce and Nicki Minaj before she worked on Anti. Even if you could make the excuse that she had no debut album, or had little experience, she must have known how writing camps work before she worked with Rihanna simply because it wasn't her first. And it was foolish, no way around it, whatever and however she feels.  She certainly must know the the optics of a newer artist claiming she felt gutted and that her career was compromised because she was "forced" to give away her song to and by a more established artist. If what she felt had no implications other than herself in this situation, then fine. 

 

And what exactly were the consequences? SZA's story always has new additions whenever she's told it these past years (this is not the first time she's spoken about it). She was featured on the song, got a broader audience, got on the biggest stage she had ever been on prior to that moment, income from the song, etc. It's not like her contributions were never acknowledged. None of that sounds like a terrible thing which is why some really don't understand how she was so negatively affected with that situation or why on earth she carried on the way she did and is still whining (and she is whining because how else do you explain a person still clinging to this story as she is) about it eight years later. She's in a Grammys campaign and this narrative helps her case and that's probably why she even added the new details about already having a video of the song shot. But as the reaction in this thread shows, her placing herself as a victim in that story makes it seem as though she was, at the very least, taken advantage of, and at worst robbed. 

 

If you are upset that this may shed negative light onto Rihanna, that's valid, but it seems you're more interested in tearing SZA's story apart, faulting her, and belittling her feelings about the situation than merely defending the label/Rihanna. I think SZA should absolutely be allowed to feel a way about it at the time and to recount it in the context she has, even if her own mistakes contributed to her not being able to release the song herself.

 

Again, my point was merely that she may not have had the full industry/business savvy to realize what could happen by showing a song she didn't really want them to use. So while SZA worked in a writing camp before this, her experience was a situation where what she wrote FOR the writing camp was used. Thus she would have not had the specific experience to wholly prepare her for an instance where material presented in but written outside the camp and intended for personal use can (apparently) be legally deemed as owned by the label who paid you to participate in the writing camp. I'm just guessing that such a contract was in place, or else there's more to the story we are missing about how the label could have had the final word on it. We could also say "she should have read/understood the contract" but that still doesn't invalidate the feelings she may have regarding the situation she found herself in.

 

The consequences of her "foolishness" is that the song she really wanted for her own album was used for another artist. It really doesn't matter if ultimately she got exposure for it when the conversation, at least in this video, is not about how much she lost by having to give that song away, but about realizing your artistry cannot be defined or reliant on any one song. I think you are confusing her speaking about how she felt at the time for her speaking about how she feels about it now. By sliding past the clear message she's trying to make and instead saying she's "placing herself as a victim" or "whining", you're being unfair to her, twisting what she's saying, when it'd better suit your points to address how Rihanna was within her legal rights, than how wrong SZA was/is.

[Cyanide]

At least it still featured her, imo consideration being on Anti set up CTRL for success

[lonnie]

23 minutes ago, swissman said:

If you are upset that this may shed negative light onto Rihanna, that's valid, but it seems you're more interested in tearing SZA's story apart, faulting her, and belittling her feelings about the situation than merely defending the label/Rihanna. I think SZA should absolutely be allowed to feel a way about it at the time and to recount it in the context she has, even if her own mistakes contributed to her not being able to release the song herself.

 

Again, my point was merely that she may not have had the full industry/business savvy to realize what could happen by showing a song she didn't really want them to use. So while SZA worked in a writing camp before this, her experience was a situation where what she wrote FOR the writing camp was used. Thus she would have not had the specific experience to wholly prepare her for an instance where material presented in but written outside the camp and intended for personal use can (apparently) be legally deemed as owned by the label who paid you to participate in the writing camp. I'm just guessing that such a contract was in place, or else there's more to the story we are missing about how the label could have had the final word on it. We could also say "she should have read/understood the contract" but that still doesn't invalidate the feelings she may have regarding the situation she found herself in.

 

The consequences of her "foolishness" is that the song she really wanted for her own album was used for another artist. It really doesn't matter if ultimately she got exposure for it when the conversation, at least in this video, is not about how much she lost by having to give that song away, but about realizing your artistry cannot be defined or reliant on any one song. I think you are confusing her speaking about how she felt at the time for her speaking about how she feels about it now. By sliding past the clear message she's trying to make and instead saying she's "placing herself as a victim" or "whining", you're being unfair to her, twisting what she's saying, when it'd better suit your points to address how Rihanna was within her legal rights, than how wrong SZA was/is.

Now let's have SZA's words about the same situation from 2020:

 

Quote

It would have made it on to Ctrl had she listened to the advice of Top Dawg Entertainment president, Punch. “Punch gave me strict instructions not to play anything from my album, but I wasn’t about to go in there, to a room with [him] and Rihanna, and play the flops. I’m playing “Drew Barrymore” and I’m playing “Consideration”. I’m playing everything I have!” she laughs. “But Punch says, ‘I’m telling you, do not do this,’ so we agreed that I wasn’t gonna do that. Then I walk in, Pharrell is sitting there drinking wine, and I guess my hands just slipped and I played my album. I played Ctrl.”

https://www.wonderlandmagazine.com/2020/07/10/sza-summer-2020-issue/

 

Do you see how and why we're skeptical about SZA and her intentions? 

 

She willingly played not one, but several songs from her album, despite her label head advising her not to, for Rihanna and Pharrell. We don't care about the legal rights, because the ethical factor in this is what's brought to question. It seems that SZA had been advised of the repercussions by her very label and went against the advice, it's very difficult to be sympathetic in this case. The linked article mentions how SZA was writing for Ariana at around the same time (it appears nothing came out of it) and most likely had been to several of these sessions as I had said and this wasn't the first specific experience as you said.

 

SZA's feelings shouldn't take the centerstage when her remarks could be harmful to another especially when they lack the context she had given in the previous interviews. Note how she doesn't even mention how she had been warned against playing songs from her album in this current interview or that this is the first time in all these years she mentions a video already shot? If anyone's twisting anything, it's SZA. All of which is purposeful and helps her current campaign, in my opinion. All this and SZA's habit of lying is reason for the skepticism. Good for SZA finding the success she has now, but I wouldn't have heaped praise on the person I felt "forced" me to give up my centerpiece for years and still continue to. Things aren't adding up.

Edited December 6, 2023 by lonnie

[swissman]

1 hour ago, lonnie said:

Now let's have SZA's words about the same situation from 2020:

 

https://www.wonderlandmagazine.com/2020/07/10/sza-summer-2020-issue/

 

Do you see how and why we're skeptical about SZA and her intentions? 

 

She willingly played not one, but several songs from her album, despite her label head advising her not to, for Rihanna and Pharrell. We don't care about the legal rights, because the ethical factor in this is what's brought to question. It seems that SZA had been advised of the repercussions by her very label and went against the advice, it's very difficult to be sympathetic in this case. The linked article mentions how SZA was writing for Ariana at around the same time (it appears nothing came out of it) and most likely had been to several of these sessions as I had said and this wasn't the first specific experience as you said.

 

SZA's feelings shouldn't take the centerstage when her remarks could be harmful to another especially when they lack the context she had given in the previous interviews. Note how she doesn't even mention how she had been warned against playing songs from her album in this current interview or that this is the first time in all these years she mentions a video already shot? If anyone's twisting anything, it's SZA. All of which is purposeful and helps her current campaign, in my opinion. All this and SZA's habit of lying is reason for the skepticism. Good for SZA finding the success she has now, but I wouldn't have heaped praise on the person I felt "forced" me to give up my centerpiece for years and still continue to. Things aren't adding up.

I actually do not see why you're skeptical about her intentions.

 

The clip very clearly tells the story as something ultimately positive for her as an artist, stating: "In hindsight...I'm so glad that that happened and that it didn't cost me anything. If anything I just gained a bunch from it. ... and I don't know why I thought my creativity would just stop. Like it was the pinnacle of what I could make..."

 

 

Edited December 6, 2023 by swissman

[GagaChina]

[Strawberry Bubble]

I really felt happy when people told me that SZA was having a good year, I literally knew her through Consideration

[Chris]

The way this thread spiraled into a Taylor vs Rihanna stan war.

 

[istan4badgalriri]

2 hours ago, Chris said:

The way this thread spiraled into a Taylor vs Rihanna stan war.

 

Swifters are obsessed with Rih 💀

[Cleanromantic]

On 12/3/2023 at 6:37 PM, Relampago. said:

Why do Swifties hate girls like Rih and Bey so much? I mostly see the most intense vitriol for those two come from that stan base. Katy dragged Taylor, and artists like Adele and Olivia are more in her lane as far as rivalry go but it’s rarely as intense and persistent with them. 

 

And it’s always the narrative of their fans being uneducated and Rih/Bey being thieves. They even dragged SZA hard when she was trying to get a #1, despite the fact Taylor is always serving desperation when she tries to get a #1 in a week where the points are tight, despite being the biggest artist easily atm.

 

What gives? Something’s up…

Why don't you have the same problem with Beyonce, and especially Rihanna's stans coming for Taylor and downplaying her talent, musicianship, and impact... calling her bland, average looking, racist, a nazi, a terrorist, using a fan's death to attack her... Swifties at least keep it civil. The stans of others stoop so low and yet I never see you bothered by the **** they say. They can play victim all they want know, but you can't expect swifties to take the higher ground while allowing stans of former pop girls to say whatever they want.

[Mystic Boy]

1 hour ago, Cleanromantic said:

Why don't you have the same problem with Beyonce, and especially Rihanna's stans coming for Taylor and downplaying her talent, musicianship, and impact... calling her bland, average looking, racist, a nazi, a terrorist, using a fan's death to attack her... Swifties at least keep it civil. The stans of others stoop so low and yet I never see you bothered by the **** they say. They can play victim all they want know, but you can't expect swifties to take the higher ground while allowing stans of former pop girls to say whatever they want.