Her name is literally on the music and she still can't use it because Capitalism. Let that sink in.
-
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.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Taylor Swift can't perform her own songs at the AMAs because she doesn't own them
- Thread starter Typhon
- Start date
She didn't though. But she pays for it. And so many are falling over themselves to blame her Now that she speaks up. Repulsive stuff, mate.
See a woman get power and this shit always happens.
lmfao at these pathetic takes. Imagine being so salty about a young woman's success that you cape for this.
It's pretty standard for these sorts of threads to be full of "well she signed up to be exploited and made a ton of money so I dunno what she's complaining about" takes.
Yes because let's pretend the people in power when the contract was written weren't trying to exploit someone they knew they could make money out of and aren't still trying to exploit her now, when she doesn't even work for them any more. Why are you siding with the corporations on this? They didn't write the songs, they didn't perform the songs, they didn't connect with fans. They just hired a recording room and now they want to force her to do things for them in return for the "right" to play her own songs at her own concerts.
Imagine actually defending corporations exploiting their workers.
It's called "spin". They want to put out a statement that makes her seem like the bad guy instead of them so they very carefully pick their words and dance around the actual issues. They want to appear reasonable so they can sucker more kids into contracts, since for every million Taylor Swift has made with actual work you can bet the corporation behind her makes ten with very little.
Well since she continues to play in China, i really don't feel sorry for her or any celebrities who do, like Kanye saying hes in debt on twitter while going full MAGA, like my sympathy gets low then, Scooter is a complete shithead though & fuck people like Bieber for defending him.
Yep, that's why I don't feel sorry for her. I'm a sexist my guy, it's so obvious. You win!
No, blame the adults who let her sign that contract. A contract is a contract.
She is very rich and successful. In part thanks to those contract.
Maybe they where not that horrible?
I get her frustration but (a) she signed the contract and (b) she knows full well she has a huge following of absolutely die hard fans and she is telling them to "let Scooter Braun and Scott Borchetta how you feel about this"? Seems like she's inciting dog piling to me, and for something that is her fault at the end of the day.
I'm having a hard time seeing Taylor Swift as some sort of exploited victim when the deal allowed her to become a worldwide mega celebrity. This whole saga reeks of a bunch of petty rich people fighting amongst themselves. Well, at least they were fighting amongst themselves until Taylor turned on her drone army.
Last edited:
Yep
It's why I wrote off the majority of 'takes' in this topic. Just fucking pathetic. "Bu-bu-but everyone gets exploited!" fuck off.
Not surprised to see the few hot takes above my post. Probably men who feel belittled that a woman is using her position of power to fight back against exploitative machines. no worries, I know you're small. Minuscule, even.
Van Halen did the same thing to Sammy Hagar. Sammy wanted to play "finish what ya started" on the show live at Darryl's house. The Van Halen brothers said no.
I spent two years working on a game that in one of those years made in excess of 80 million Euro. At the time I was working on it there was probably less than 20 people doing actual work on it.
I signed a contract saying that anything I wrote was owned by the company.
By Taylor Swift's argument I should be a millionaire. Few people here would argue that I should be, myself included.
I signed a contract saying that anything I wrote was owned by the company.
By Taylor Swift's argument I should be a millionaire. Few people here would argue that I should be, myself included.
This is kinda rotten. She was 15 and got screwed over. I gave Sapkowski endless shit because he gave away the rights to royalty from Witcher books because he thought gaming would not take off. After Witcher 3 he was locked in court battles with CDProjekt to get royalties. He was sour and mad and understandably so, but dude was a grown ass man who made a bad call and wanted $$. But I think CDP did settle with him and it's cleared now.
Taylor Swift got done dirty in this deal though and i don't blame her for trying to get her songs back.
Taylor Swift got done dirty in this deal though and i don't blame her for trying to get her songs back.
Wow, some real garbage takes in this thread. She isn't rich or famous because of the contracts she signed. She's rich and famous because she's ridiculously talented (and hard working. Art takes effort). If any of you spouting your bullshit capitalistic arguments had half the talent this woman has, you wouldn't be grumbling about her on a video game forum.
While personally, her music doesn't appeal to me(I'm a post-rock person), I'll fight for any artist who's been exploited and stripped of ownership of their own art. Regardless of their wealth or fame.
While personally, her music doesn't appeal to me(I'm a post-rock person), I'll fight for any artist who's been exploited and stripped of ownership of their own art. Regardless of their wealth or fame.
She was 15. A contract should not be a tool to control lives. Period. Yall buy straight into that capitalist slave mentality. Shit aint cool either way, full stop.
Some of these peeps would prolly have more empathy if she was The Man.
Lol, you don't think anyone else was exploited on her path to becoming a multi-millionaire??? You don't think people were exploited to distribute her music? To create her merchandise? That cognitive dissonance.
Probably because unlike you and other people in this thread, they don't hate her simply because she's a popular musician that has money. They recognize that it's bullshit that record companies for decades have taken advantage of artists.
If you want to help actual struggling artists then you should support things like universal health care, raising the minimum wage, and student loan forgiveness. Cyber bullying some rich dudes on behalf of Taylor Swift isn't going to help.
Werent her parents like stockbrokers or something? You would think they would have gotten her a lawyer before she signed a contract like this.
Shes worth almost half a billion dollars, why is she not a capitalist? I think we should be allowed to hate on the music industry & not feel too sorry for Taylor at the same time.
What BS is this lol. Taylor has been working since she was 15. She writes, sings and records all her songs since she was 15, from her first album till her latest one. She never worked a day, she never flipped burgers at fucking McDonalds! LMAO.
I don't mean to defend the industry as a while but let's not also pretend that this contract was probably out of the ordinary and that in the vast majority of artist's case maybe not so bad a deal. It's only a super terrible deal for Taylor Swift because she blew up, most artist's never even have any hits.
Now, that's not to say that the whole industry couldn't use a rework in how it does business, I just feel like it was less of a "we gotta exploit this girl while she's young" and more of a "we gotta hedge our bets on all these unknowns because the vast majority aren't going to go anywhere." To me it's like a different shit industry, insurance.
And again I still also hate contracts with minors, even with parental consent, I think those should be able to be broken and if that changes the calculus for signing child stars so be it. Shit, most shouldn't be working in the first place.
And I totally think her new deal was 100% sour grapes, she was going to take their cash cow from them and they're desperate to squeeze every drop of blood from her they can before it's over. Not something I'm a fan of.
User Banned (1 week): trolling while in junior phase
No empathy for a White with damn near half a bill in the bank. Fuck outta here with that "buT TheY be aRtiStS, itS DIFFERENT" bullshit, they'll be gutted by the poor when we rise up as well as any other elite
Well, Taylor's also done a lot to help those smaller artists
So you think the music industry needs to be reformed because of the abuses laid upon the artists but only if the artist wasn't successful. If the artist became popular then you don't care about the same abusive policies that applied to them as well.
LMAO this place. What does this even mean? Taylor will grow old rich like so many other rich people have been doing for a long time.
So she's no fucking different than all those other elites we rail against?
I mean if you want to generalize people in some way to feel better you do you.
Well not only is this putting words in my mouth, but very few artists get a contract like Taylor's anyway, not everyone has a rich white father to get them connections early on. So it's kind of a mute point.
I also think people are forgetting how Taylor in 2016 didn't say a word about Trump because as a very good capitalist, she knew politics might hurt her bottom line, yet we are suppose to fight for her?
Artist #13218407 with what turned into a bad music contract.
Hard industry to get a decent contract in because the new artist has no leverage and the investment/risk made by the label taking a chance on them can be significant. Many artists are signed, basically none are expected to reach a fraction of Swift's success. For every Swift, there are several thousand signed artists that you've never heard of and never will hear of because they'll never get big or make a headline despite their best efforts.
I'm not sure what the solution here is, but it's interesting to see that most people do not realize that by and large the artists do not own their songs. Generally because they wouldn't have been able to afford to pay to have the necessary talent brought in to create, write, mix, master, and distribute them on their own. To give access to expensive studio/recording space for dozens or hundreds of hours. To negotiate their radio spins nationally and internationally. To produce those expensive music videos. To get those songs on all the essential streaming services and manage their social media. To get them on tours with others and book talent, dancers, hotels, and so on. To pay for access to the PR team, the stylists.
There is a massive machine behind and supporting every single artist bigger than the local band in your city, and the people that make up this necessary background team do not come cheap, I assure you. Without those elements in place, most songs you love would have never existed, or you otherwise never would have heard them. Some of your favorite artists wouldn't exist. Sometimes in a rare circumstance, it results in something like this Swift issue where she has clearly outgrown the projected future for her in the industry.
There should be mechanisms available to the artists after X years to buy their music library back based on some fair but somewhat steep price and it shouldn't become available for others to buy the rights until or unless the artist declines to buy their own rights or until X number of years have passed without them buying them. And certainly they must be able to perform it, even if a cut has to go to someone else. They should never be unable to perform their songs. But beyond that I just don't know. People are not properly considering the full picture. Because most of you don't know how the recording industry works or just how much goes into helping make an artist.
Hard industry to get a decent contract in because the new artist has no leverage and the investment/risk made by the label taking a chance on them can be significant. Many artists are signed, basically none are expected to reach a fraction of Swift's success. For every Swift, there are several thousand signed artists that you've never heard of and never will hear of because they'll never get big or make a headline despite their best efforts.
I'm not sure what the solution here is, but it's interesting to see that most people do not realize that by and large the artists do not own their songs. Generally because they wouldn't have been able to afford to pay to have the necessary talent brought in to create, write, mix, master, and distribute them on their own. To give access to expensive studio/recording space for dozens or hundreds of hours. To negotiate their radio spins nationally and internationally. To produce those expensive music videos. To get those songs on all the essential streaming services and manage their social media. To get them on tours with others and book talent, dancers, hotels, and so on. To pay for access to the PR team, the stylists.
There is a massive machine behind and supporting every single artist bigger than the local band in your city, and the people that make up this necessary background team do not come cheap, I assure you. Without those elements in place, most songs you love would have never existed, or you otherwise never would have heard them. Some of your favorite artists wouldn't exist. Sometimes in a rare circumstance, it results in something like this Swift issue where she has clearly outgrown the projected future for her in the industry.
There should be mechanisms available to the artists after X years to buy their music library back based on some fair but somewhat steep price and it shouldn't become available for others to buy the rights until or unless the artist declines to buy their own rights or until X number of years have passed without them buying them. And certainly they must be able to perform it, even if a cut has to go to someone else. They should never be unable to perform their songs. But beyond that I just don't know. People are not properly considering the full picture. Because most of you don't know how the recording industry works or just how much goes into helping make an artist.
Why are people pretending that this "exploitative" deal didn't make her a multi-millionaire? This also wasn't her first record deal, and again, her father was involved and knew what he was doing, btw. Worst case scenario she can re-record all of her music next year and none of this matters anyway. Why am I supposed to care about someone worth nearly 400 million having to wait a year to make more millions?
Any other rich person and none of y'all would care. But she's a celebrity so it's an injustice. No, she's just another rich person with rich people problems. And the huge tragedy in her life just happens to be the reason any of you care about her in the first place and made her a shit ton of money in the process. If only everyone could get exploited like this.
And let's cut the crap with pushing the "she's a woman so you hate her angle" because it's completely irrelevant to my ambilivance towards this 'tragic' story.
Any other rich person and none of y'all would care. But she's a celebrity so it's an injustice. No, she's just another rich person with rich people problems. And the huge tragedy in her life just happens to be the reason any of you care about her in the first place and made her a shit ton of money in the process. If only everyone could get exploited like this.
And let's cut the crap with pushing the "she's a woman so you hate her angle" because it's completely irrelevant to my ambilivance towards this 'tragic' story.
If you can't tell the difference between how someone like Taylor Swift made her millions and someone like Donald Trump made his billions, you're so blinded by your hatred of wealth as a concept you've forgotten that wealth isn't inherently bad - it's how it's acquired, how much is stolen from others, whether tax is paid on it and how it's used that we "rail against".
You can absolutely become a multi-millionaire without hurting anyone. Taylor Swift earned that money honestly, writing music that hundreds of millions of people enjoy and going on tours to perform in front of those fans. Don't see why you'd ever have a problem with that unless you have no respect for creative work.
You don't think there is any exploitation
In the production (sound engineers, people who make her equipment)
The distribution, pressing CDs, making music videos, etc.
The production of her merchandise and clothing in 3rd world countries
Her concerts, the people who build the stage, run the facilities and do security.
The multitude of companies she sponsors like AmEx, Comcast, and Apple
You don't become a millionaire in America without exploitation. You're experiencing what we call cognitive dissonance.
Last edited:
What people don't get it that record companies put out a lot of money in the beginning to try make a return on the artist.. a lot of acts fail to make a return at all.
It's an investment.. and if you basically borrow money (which in a sense is what you're doing by signing the contract) then yeah, you sign over some form of future returns later, be it in ownership or % of sales, etc.
It's easy for Taylor to think she did this all on her own, but that's not true either. There was all the people behind the scenes that got her out there. She had the talent, but someone else fronted the money and PR to begin with to make it all come together.
It's an investment.. and if you basically borrow money (which in a sense is what you're doing by signing the contract) then yeah, you sign over some form of future returns later, be it in ownership or % of sales, etc.
It's easy for Taylor to think she did this all on her own, but that's not true either. There was all the people behind the scenes that got her out there. She had the talent, but someone else fronted the money and PR to begin with to make it all come together.
bUt TaYlOr SwIfT iS hEoIcAlLy RAgInG aGaInSt ThE mAcHiNe
Hear hear fight Capitalist artists sucking of the teat of the blue collar common Private Equity Firm and Record Label.
I'm anti capitalism, that's why I stand with Private Equity Firms and Record Labels!
But lol at never worked a day. Shows the level of respect you have for artists.
None of those people work for her, right? They're employed by the corporations that pay for those things because it's profitable to do so. Or do we hold her accountable for the people getting screwed over by the corporation screwing her over just because they're all paid to be working on the same job?
Take Taylor Swift out of that equation and put literally any other artist in the same position. Do you suggest we now hate every successful musician on the planet? What about writers? Do we rail against them for the printing presses that produce their books, the people that work with them on book tours?
I guess we might as well just hate any kind of success at all, even if that means defending corporations for exploiting everyone they can for every penny they can - regardless of whether they're paid minimum wage or worth hundreds of millions.
Hear hear
In fact, Private Equity Firms and people who happened to gain control of her music against her will preventing her from performing her work is good praxis. I hope they really fuck with her. It's so dope what they're doing. Really sticking it to her, really awesome to see some true blue Anti-Capitalist disruption! So badass.
Knowing what Taylor Swift is thinking while not adressing the topic at hand, does certainly remind me of a old tagline of yours.