Solaria Posted November 3 Posted November 3 Do you guys think she really didnt know or did she decide to let it happen? Reintroducing her catalogue to newer generations like this is a genius businessmove. Thoughts?
Bubble Tea Posted November 3 Posted November 3 I think it was a genuine need for her to have control and to feel powerful and have vengeance upon her enemies, disguised as artistic integrity. The whole masters thing is kinda annoying. Labels promote and make these singers stars so that their music is sellable and popular and they can use it to make money. Artists then want to claw back ownership and all that money too? Signing to a label is give and take, like any job. The work I do at my job isn't "mine", it's owned by the company. That's why they pay me. 10 1 9
By the Water Posted November 3 Posted November 3 If this such an easy cash grab, what's stopping other artists from doing it? 3 9 2 1 3
Popular Post ChooseyLover Posted November 3 Popular Post Posted November 3 What in the r/travisandtaylor subreddit is this question? 2 1 24
Solaria Posted November 3 Author Posted November 3 Just now, By the Water said: If this such an easy cash grab, what's stopping other artists from doing it? They don't have the pull Taylor has. But we knew that already. The question is, if this was genuinely a cold business move, is it fair that she framed it as her being backed into a corner in order to rally her fans to buy these versions?
AshleyLovescats887 Posted November 3 Posted November 3 Both. She actually wants the masters and hates the current owners of them, but the TVs have been huge successes, so she is hyping them up 4
Popular Post tost1 Posted November 3 Popular Post Posted November 3 If it was geuine she would release them asap and not spread them out to gain as much money as possible with them 20 4 2
itshyolee Posted November 3 Posted November 3 Both, but probably a little more on the business side. 1
Popular Post By the Water Posted November 3 Popular Post Posted November 3 3 minutes ago, Solaria said: They don't have the pull Taylor has. But we knew that already. The question is, if this was genuinely a cold business move, is it fair that she framed it as her being backed into a corner in order to rally her fans to buy these versions? It's funny I didn't see this discussion when Taylor first announced she was re-recording her albums. It's almost like no one expected them to be as big as they ended up being because, well, they're re-recordings 2 18
Popular Post Cheeky Posted November 3 Popular Post Posted November 3 They're a genuine business move. 3 2 15
Popular Post Badgalbriel Posted November 3 Popular Post Posted November 3 Both? You think your faves are releasing their albums out of pure charity? The f? 15 6
Popular Post Illuminati Posted November 3 Popular Post Posted November 3 (edited) She dedicated over 5 years for this, countless hours in the studio and had to work three times as hard to make sure she wasn't just releasing old music. She had to make it not just a vanity project but something that would make profit AND to get fans engaged with the new versions. I'd say it was a business move based on genuine intentions, she was never gonna just sit under Scooter's foot. Edited November 3 by Illuminati 20 2
Vixen Eyes Posted November 3 Posted November 3 19 minutes ago, By the Water said: If this such an easy cash grab, what's stopping other artists from doing it? They don't have to because they havent mentioned any desire to
Vixen Eyes Posted November 3 Posted November 3 16 minutes ago, tost1 said: If it was geuine she would release them asap and not spread them out to gain as much money as possible with them I think she's spacing them out to jot oversaturate and overwhelm everyone by releasing everything at once. But also there were the lawsuits for Speak Now and one of the songs on 1989. And the thing that an artist can't release an exact rerecording any less than like 6 years after the original was released
Rep2000 Posted November 3 Posted November 3 (edited) 31 minutes ago, By the Water said: If this such an easy cash grab, what's stopping other artists from doing it? Make the OTHs name a single re-recording that actually makes profit (beside Taylor's) and see them cricket right after that. Re-recordings are infamously not profitable *until Taylor. Which makes it a terrible "business move", otherwise artists would be re-record their biggest hits left and right by now. And even after Taylor managed to break the mold, we still haven't seen another example after her. She's the exception, not the norms - once again. Edited November 3 by Rep2000 1 1 1
PerfectCure Posted November 3 Posted November 3 They are a clear business move. Unless you're an indie artist or truly passionate about your music, everything in the industry is about business. The marketing involved to make everything seem very genuine (re-shooting the covers, adding new songs to each album, crafting stories around each release etc.) was also brilliant, so kudos to Taylor & her team I guess. 3
JoJo Posted November 3 Posted November 3 Both. She was genuinely upset about the her masters being sold to Scooter, but she and her team must've realized how profitable the re-recordings would be once her fans started to encourage her to release the TVs. 1
Bey_Rihstan Posted November 3 Posted November 3 (edited) A Great Business move. She wasn't the first with the idea to re-record old music because of a terrible situation (Jojo, Frank Sinatra, Def Leppard etc) but she did revitalize the idea and bring it new life. She did more than just re-record and impersonate the old album covers. Taylor pretty much created entirely new eras based on old material, added new songs onto each and then embarked on a world tour to further promote them + her current material. She scratched the nostalgia itch that those who grew up listening to her had while simultaneously introducing her prior songs to a completely new album that may only be familiar with certain hits and new albums. Brilliant idea tbh There's a reason they're so spaced out. she couldve just re-recorded, tossed them out and went on about her day but her and the team saw how profitable SHE could make them. Very few of today's artists could do that even a fraction as well. Edited November 3 by Bey_Rihstan 1
MidnightsAtPeace Posted November 3 Posted November 3 both and there's nothing wrong with it your favorite artists rerelease the same albums for their anniversary with an additional live demo and even that is totally okay. taylor had an understandable reason to re-record and re-release her first six albums, and she's also making sure they add to her already incredibly impressive legacy.
Jacobdaniel Posted November 3 Posted November 3 47 minutes ago, By the Water said: If this such an easy cash grab, what's stopping other artists from doing it? you need a fanbase as large and delusional as taylor's to pull it off. normal people won't go ape **** over an album they've already heard 1
TouchinFree Posted November 3 Posted November 3 (edited) Business. Also a loophole to boost sales and become "One of the biggest selling female artists". Its not fair comparing her sales which are doubled to artists that have one version of each To add to that, here's another take that will get me the most downvotes, is that she'd ruined her re-recordings and i still use the scooter versions. Like what did she do to "Love story" Wildest dreams sounds amazing though Edited November 3 by TouchinFree 3 3
Recommended Posts