|
|
Post by impulse on Nov 16, 2019 17:27:43 GMT -5
She is far from the first artist to re-record their catalog to get control back of their own flippin' material from labels, and she has the right to do so next year. Also the guys who run the label she is "spiting" are, to my knowledge, known for being absolute scum of the earth even by music industry standards. People love to dump on Swift, but she has the weight to throw around that a lot of little artists don't, and it pisses people off when she does. In this case, the story as I read it is she wanted to buy the songs out but they refused and wanted to only accept another contract to exchange new albums for rights to each old one. Since she has the right to re-record next year anyway, she said nah, and they are now exploiting a loophole to turn the screws out of spite. We can speculate all day on the motives of each player, but at the end of the day this is showing how copyright is being wielded as a bludgeon and not in a way to benefit the artist.
She's welcome to re-record it if she wants, of course. Historically, those recordings don't have nearly the appeal as the original recording that burrowed into our collective brains. If she's going to go that route, she might as well be recording them right now and release them starting next year. If she re-imagines the old songs in a new setting, I probably will buy them. They wouldn't replace the originals; I just like hearing alternate versions. Sometimes I prefer her acoustic demos to the shiny finished versions. I'm not upset that she's exercising her clout to pursue deals that are in her best interest. Perhaps her threat to re-record the songs was simply her own bargaining tactic to bring the other side to the table. That's how the game is played. I have no knowledge of the particular people with whom she is jostling. They may very well be reprehensible. Or not. I do know that she described "getting even" as one of her core values in the liner notes of an early album. Maybe she's grown beyond that, but it colors my perception of her. As do her tell-all songs, which are all variations on "My boyfriends leave me because they are terrible people" instead of "Why do I seem to drive so many men away?" Very well-said, all of that. I also agree that personally I rarely if ever choose a re-recording if I have any remotely convenient access to the original that I have love and history with. I get why the artists do it, and it sucks for them all around, but the re-recordings never seem to have the same magic of the originals. It's probably just because my brain knows it doesn't sound exactly like the one I'm used to.
Wasn't she really young when she got started? Edgy attitudes would not be too surprising among that general population, let alone a musician trying to cultivate an image. Maybe she grew out of it, maybe not. Given what I've ready of the situation, I don't blame her for her actions. I don't know too much more about her. Not a huge fan or anything as it's not really my go to style, but I will say Shake It Off is catchy as hell.
I don't know much about current 'stars' or their deals and misdeals, but I know enough about historical situations like John Fogerty vs. Saul Zaentz of Fantasy records, and the Pete Ham - Stan Polley - Warner Brothers traingle of doom (also taking Tom Evans also of Badfinger). Uh, I'm pretty much with the actual creator on anything, even creators I don't like, so I can't argue about these things dispassionately about what may or may not be on the tiniest line of type on a piece of paper and the proper interpretation of such. There's a lyric "whoever's making the rules is gonna come out the winner." I think Bill Cowsill wrote that, he learned things the hard way, and his Dad was the manager. There are some awesomely horrific stories out there that put Taylor Swift (or Jack & Roz Kirby) in the dust, but good luck to her, and hope she doesn't get too much rope and hangs herself. Re-recording is something artists have had to do for decades thanks to mechanical rights situations... all those K-Tels LPs had a lot of them, and The Everlys, James Taylor and Neil Diamond had to redo stuff to have greatest hits collections be available at all. Yeah, I get that traditionally the labels put up a lot of the costs and bore the risks and yeah, they had the networks and facilities to get it out, and they deserve to be compensated, but it just got so brutally and excessively one-sided. It's impossible overlook that a ton of artists got massively taken advantage of. As someone else said in one of these posts, maybe it was you actually, don't throw the baby out with the bathwater, but IMO turnabout is fair play. I'd prefer longterm to see a far more reasonable copyright situation become the norm though. |
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Dec 7, 2019 23:53:14 GMT -5
I had an interesting experience today. I subscribe to digital on Marvel unlimited and Comixology and wanted to find and purchase a DC comic from the 70's. For some reason, they didn't offer, or I couldn't find out how to do it on my app on my iPad. I searched on my computer and was able to find the issues that I wanted and purchased it from my amazon account. It downloaded it to comixology and I have it. Why couldn't I find it on the iPad ?
|
|
|
|
Post by hondobrode on Dec 9, 2019 10:42:49 GMT -5
I have thousands of issues on Comixology and have never had that happen before.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 9, 2019 14:07:10 GMT -5
The problem with digital is that it's not easy to swat a fly with an iPad. You could damage an expensive iPad by trying to swat a fly. Far better to swat a fly with a £3 comic!
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 9, 2019 17:23:36 GMT -5
The problem with digital is that it's not easy to swat a fly with an iPad. You could damage an expensive iPad by trying to swat a fly. Far better to swat a fly with a £3 comic! or buy a fly swatter for under a buck. -M |
|
|
|
Post by impulse on Dec 9, 2019 17:28:44 GMT -5
I mean, the iPad is pretty solid. I'm sure it would squash the fly flat if you hit it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on Dec 11, 2019 6:43:20 GMT -5
I mean, the iPad is pretty solid. I'm sure it would squash the fly flat if you hit it. There’s probably an app for that, too! |
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Jan 10, 2021 9:10:57 GMT -5
I don't know if he ever really said this but it's funny.  |
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,867
|
Post by shaxper on Jan 10, 2021 11:48:13 GMT -5
I don't know if he ever really said this but it's funny. He didn't say it, but it's priceless anyway. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 10, 2021 12:00:51 GMT -5
I don't mind reading digital on a large, widescreen monitor and then getting the actual comics if I like them.
That's how I came across the book in my screen name, RAGS.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 10, 2021 13:00:36 GMT -5
I don't mind reading digital on a large, widescreen monitor and then getting the actual comics if I like them. That's how I came across the book in my screen name, RAGS.
I agree. I think digital (like streaming for movies and TV) is great for discovery and exploring new content. One can then make informed decisions on where to allocate resources when buying for permanent collections. It's why I prefer paying for access to digital libraries (like Marvel Unlimited) rather than buying digital products. It's become an important part of curating my collection. -M |
|
|
|
Post by wildfire2099 on Jan 11, 2021 21:06:21 GMT -5
I've gotten a bit more used to reading digital stuff with Hoopla (and to a lesser extent via amazon giving me free digital book money for accepting slow shipping), but I can't really picture paying for it... I don't think I'd use something like Marvel unlimited enough to justify the cost.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 11, 2021 21:24:53 GMT -5
I've gotten a bit more used to reading digital stuff with Hoopla (and to a lesser extent via amazon giving me free digital book money for accepting slow shipping), but I can't really picture paying for it... I don't think I'd use something like Marvel unlimited enough to justify the cost. would you read 3 $3.99 issues a month? That would more than cover the cost. If you read 1 trades worth of books a month, you are coming out ahead vs, buying physical copies of the books in terms of cost. -M |
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Jan 12, 2021 21:59:32 GMT -5
I've gotten a bit more used to reading digital stuff with Hoopla (and to a lesser extent via amazon giving me free digital book money for accepting slow shipping), but I can't really picture paying for it... I don't think I'd use something like Marvel unlimited enough to justify the cost. would you read 3 $3.99 issues a month? That would more than cover the cost. If you read 1 trades worth of books a month, you are coming out ahead vs, buying physical copies of the books in terms of cost. -M I love MU. I am currently reading West Coast Avengers from the beginning and am wondering why I should keep the full run of the series that I have in the attic. |
|
|
|
Post by Randle-El on Jan 12, 2021 23:37:34 GMT -5
I've been using Marvel Unlimited to keep up with a small handful of titles that I used to read in physical form. Something that I was not expecting though -- I'm quite enjoying Marvel's Star Wars output these days. In particular, the main Star Wars series as well the the Darth Vader series. I've never been a fan of the event/crossover/reboot craziness that dominates Marvel's main line, and tend to read the titles that steer clear of that stuff. The Star Wars books feel like this imprint that still sets its stories in a shared universe, but avoids a lot of the editorial nonsense of the regular superhero books.
|
|
