datdude said:

are wypipo really in such denial about how whiteness actually works in the world? SIGH. the answer is a resounding NO. reason #1 just stated, reason #2 she has a bazillion young fans (mostly also white) and 3# she is too "acclaimed"

Its a help but also the fact that she is a WOMAN was the reason she was not even offered the chance to buy her own music that seems to be overlooked, the view was she is just another empty headed blonde like many in the pop days like Britney etc...so why should we even offer her a chance to buy her music lets just sell it and make $$$$. Also i would also debate the whole re-recording of music and it being successful had nothing to do with her race, it had to do with the timing of it and also the ability to keep the music as close to the orgiinals as possible. Billy Joel couldnt today go back and re do his zillion selling albums and make them sell more, and hes a white male, with a huge selling history. His problem would be the timing, the sound, the prodution all of that. This is why Prince had no clue what he was talking about "redoing all my albums" it was a nice thing to say and grabbed attention, but after that one song remaster went nowhere, did he ever mention it again?

lastdecember said:

datdude said:

are wypipo really in such denial about how whiteness actually works in the world? SIGH. the answer is a resounding NO. reason #1 just stated, reason #2 she has a bazillion young fans (mostly also white) and 3# she is too "acclaimed"

Its a help but also the fact that she is a WOMAN was the reason she was not even offered the chance to buy her own music that seems to be overlooked, the view was she is just another empty headed blonde like many in the pop days like Britney etc...so why should we even offer her a chance to buy her music lets just sell it and make $$$$. Also i would also debate the whole re-recording of music and it being successful had nothing to do with her race, it had to do with the timing of it and also the ability to keep the music as close to the orgiinals as possible. Billy Joel couldnt today go back and re do his zillion selling albums and make them sell more, and hes a white male, with a huge selling history. His problem would be the timing, the sound, the prodution all of that. This is why Prince had no clue what he was talking about "redoing all my albums" it was a nice thing to say and grabbed attention, but after that one song remaster went nowhere, did he ever mention it again?

After all that drama didn't Scooter Braun wind up selling the catalogue anyways?

CynicKill said:

lastdecember said:

Its a help but also the fact that she is a WOMAN was the reason she was not even offered the chance to buy her own music that seems to be overlooked, the view was she is just another empty headed blonde like many in the pop days like Britney etc...so why should we even offer her a chance to buy her music lets just sell it and make $$$$. Also i would also debate the whole re-recording of music and it being successful had nothing to do with her race, it had to do with the timing of it and also the ability to keep the music as close to the orgiinals as possible. Billy Joel couldnt today go back and re do his zillion selling albums and make them sell more, and hes a white male, with a huge selling history. His problem would be the timing, the sound, the prodution all of that. This is why Prince had no clue what he was talking about "redoing all my albums" it was a nice thing to say and grabbed attention, but after that one song remaster went nowhere, did he ever mention it again?

After all that drama didn't Scooter Braun wind up selling the catalogue anyways?

Yeah he sold them to some holdings company for 300million. Basically she is just trying to devalue the masters at this point by just going in and redoing them all from scratch, keeping them close to what she did change what she wants, and then she tosses in new things on the albums. Yeah it was a battle to have a chance to buy them, they said she had the chance, but she said they said you can have a chance only if you give us another new album, at this point that deal was over she owed them no new material so when she said NO she says they went ahead sold them and also took a live show from 2008 and released it and she had no say so though she voiced it in social media she did a prince like thing and told fans she didnt authorize it dont buy it.

lastdecember said:

CynicKill said:

After all that drama didn't Scooter Braun wind up selling the catalogue anyways?

Yeah he sold them to some holdings company for 300million. Basically she is just trying to devalue the masters at this point by just going in and redoing them all from scratch, keeping them close to what she did change what she wants, and then she tosses in new things on the albums. Yeah it was a battle to have a chance to buy them, they said she had the chance, but she said they said you can have a chance only if you give us another new album, at this point that deal was over she owed them no new material so when she said NO she says they went ahead sold them and also took a live show from 2008 and released it and she had no say so though she voiced it in social media she did a prince like thing and told fans she didnt authorize it dont buy it.

Right, she has at least reached out to her base and told them everything that is going on.

TrivialPursuit said:

CynicKill said:

That being said they still might be mad at her chess move, to the point that I hear they want to put stipulations on artists re-recording their material.

They. Who are they? And why do they matter? Who are these people that she's allgedly pissing off?

She's selling records. She's making deals with Target and other vendors to rack her music. And fans are buying the shit out of it. She has a right to do whatever she wants. People can be mad at her for that, but she doesn't care. She has enough money to live on the rest of her life if she wants. And the moulah she's making from the re-records are an even bigger lion's share.

Prince was independent for twenty years, and sold records. He made the money. Hell, even a shit album like NewPower Soul bought him a house if Spain of all places. He was never black balled from selling records. (Look at the Musicology stunt that he got away with.)

There is no they in people recording their own music. The law and rules are clearly defined. If an artist is under a contract, then what they record and release is owned by the record company. Prince talked about that clearly, as did other artists. If an artist is not under a contract and re-records one of their songs, they own the new master. Why? Because there is no larger entity that they're tied to and must reliquish ownership to - other than themselves. They are their own godhead, as it were, not Warner, or anyone else. They are their own record company in that way. That's the whole of the stipulation.

If an artist is no longer under a contract, then any stipulations or whatever aren't in effect anymore. They can't write a contract that says, "you can't ever record this music again for yourself," because that dictates the artist's life and freedom as an artist. That leaves them under a binding contract for live, and that is slavery. We done away with that (mostly) years ago. Clearly, Swift's (and Prince's) contracts had expired in full, so they were truly free agents to do what they wanted.

Prince started to own his music in 1993, when NPG Records was formed. He owned everything from there on out, although it was still part of his requirements for records to WB. That's why Paisley Park was dissolved. That company agreed to give up ownership of "Raspberry Beret" or "Forever In My Life," etc. Everything. But NPG was his own stuff. That's why NPG Records was never dissolved after his WB and publishing contracts had expired. NPG was wholly independent of WB in those ways.

It's also why there one is business handling 1993 onward, and another business handling everything before that.

Prince & Michael were MARTYRS of this Business called Music!!! Anything else is Smoke, Mirrors & BULLSHIT!!!!

woogiebear said:

TrivialPursuit said:

They. Who are they? And why do they matter? Who are these people that she's allgedly pissing off?

She's selling records. She's making deals with Target and other vendors to rack her music. And fans are buying the shit out of it. She has a right to do whatever she wants. People can be mad at her for that, but she doesn't care. She has enough money to live on the rest of her life if she wants. And the moulah she's making from the re-records are an even bigger lion's share.

Prince was independent for twenty years, and sold records. He made the money. Hell, even a shit album like NewPower Soul bought him a house if Spain of all places. He was never black balled from selling records. (Look at the Musicology stunt that he got away with.)

There is no they in people recording their own music. The law and rules are clearly defined. If an artist is under a contract, then what they record and release is owned by the record company. Prince talked about that clearly, as did other artists. If an artist is not under a contract and re-records one of their songs, they own the new master. Why? Because there is no larger entity that they're tied to and must reliquish ownership to - other than themselves. They are their own godhead, as it were, not Warner, or anyone else. They are their own record company in that way. That's the whole of the stipulation.

If an artist is no longer under a contract, then any stipulations or whatever aren't in effect anymore. They can't write a contract that says, "you can't ever record this music again for yourself," because that dictates the artist's life and freedom as an artist. That leaves them under a binding contract for live, and that is slavery. We done away with that (mostly) years ago. Clearly, Swift's (and Prince's) contracts had expired in full, so they were truly free agents to do what they wanted.

Prince started to own his music in 1993, when NPG Records was formed. He owned everything from there on out, although it was still part of his requirements for records to WB. That's why Paisley Park was dissolved. That company agreed to give up ownership of "Raspberry Beret" or "Forever In My Life," etc. Everything. But NPG was his own stuff. That's why NPG Records was never dissolved after his WB and publishing contracts had expired. NPG was wholly independent of WB in those ways.

It's also why there one is business handling 1993 onward, and another business handling everything before that.

Prince & Michael were MARTYRS of this Business called Music!!! Anything else is Smoke, Mirrors & BULLSHIT!!!!

Facts. Mike was buying everyones masters. Wish he kept himself healthy enough to keep it going smh

paisleypark4 said:

Astasheiks said:

In yoiu all Opinions, Will the Music Industry Black Ball Taylor Swift now that she is getting her Masters back liked they did Prince?

Is she getting them back? I only seen she has been re-recording her albums from scratch including her outtakes with great results and reviews.

She is not getting her masters back. If she was truly being blackballed, they could just take her name out of the charts with her re-recordings.

Cinny said:

paisleypark4 said:

woogiebear said:

Prince & Michael were MARTYRS of this Business called Music!!! Anything else is Smoke, Mirrors & BULLSHIT!!!!

Facts. Mike was buying everyones masters. Wish he kept himself healthy enough to keep it going smh

No. He bought publishing. That's totally different.

Cinny said:

paisleypark4 said:

Is she getting them back? I only seen she has been re-recording her albums from scratch including her outtakes with great results and reviews.

She is not getting her masters back. If she was truly being blackballed, they could just take her name out of the charts with her re-recordings.

she doesn't need them in one sweep she totally devalued them, the holdings company that bought them from Scooter is probably wanting to kill him at this point but then again these holding companies don't really care they have money to burn and they made a really bad purchase for her masters.

MotownSubdivision said:

Cinny said:

She is not getting her masters back. If she was truly being blackballed, they could just take her name out of the charts with her re-recordings.

That is a fair point. We've seen streaming numbers get cooked for big names. The industry could pull some strings to diminish Taylor if they truly wanted. Her not winning yet another unwarranted AotY Grammy would be (refreshingly) fishy but not a clear indication of being blackballed.

Thing is she is not really a streaming artist she is one of the last that still gets fans to buy product, vinyl, cds, box sets, Ltd editions, bonus track versions. The combination of her and Adele last year gave the cd industry it's first rise in sales since 2005. I don't think anything the Grammys does at this point matters, the show and their way of catering to whining artists already devalued them.

lastdecember said:

Cinny said:

She is not getting her masters back. If she was truly being blackballed, they could just take her name out of the charts with her re-recordings.

she doesn't need them in one sweep she totally devalued them, the holdings company that bought them from Scooter is probably wanting to kill him at this point but then again these holding companies don't really care they have money to burn and they made a really bad purchase for her masters.

Enh, I don't know, radio, television, and movies still play her old shit.

lastdecember said:

Cinny said:

lastdecember said:

she doesn't need them in one sweep she totally devalued them, the holdings company that bought them from Scooter is probably wanting to kill him at this point but then again these holding companies don't really care they have money to burn and they made a really bad purchase for her masters.

Enh, I don't know, radio, television, and movies still play her old shit.

well she re issued two albums so far, and already with Red she managed to have a hit with a song that never was a hit. She is holding onto 1989 which is considered her best in many circles, with songs like Blank Space and Shake It Off she will probably do just enough to separate the new from the original.

MotownSubdivision said:

lastdecember said:

Thing is she is not really a streaming artist she is one of the last that still gets fans to buy product, vinyl, cds, box sets, Ltd editions, bonus track versions. The combination of her and Adele last year gave the cd industry it's first rise in sales since 2005. I don't think anything the Grammys does at this point matters, the show and their way of catering to whining artists already devalued them.

She's not an artist who relies on streams but she is still an artist in the streaming era who benefits more than most others because of her name value. Watering down Taylor's streams won't do too much to her because she's well passed established by now with a dedicated fanbase but it is a tactic that can be employed against her.

which is again I don't buy into streaming numbers and views on you tube as the mainstream seems to use it. It's funny how artists now can have a million views or likes or whatever and most people have no clue who they are, it's like a phony stardom they are being sold.

datdude said:

are wypipo really in such denial about how whiteness actually works in the world? SIGH. the answer is a resounding NO. reason #1 just stated, reason #2 she has a bazillion young fans (mostly also white) and 3# she is too "acclaimed"

they might have to whiteball Taylor (is that already a billiards term?)

lastdecember said:

paisleypark4 said:

I've heard some re-recordings like SHeila E. trying to re-do Glamorus Life and Ready For The World redoing "Oh Sheila" with less than stellar results. We see it all over streaming. If you dont have the same equipment as the original and mastering techniques it will not sound right, especially being 35 years removed from the technology.

Luckily for Swift, she still has all of that, plus the musicians to re-create her works the way they did.

.

Somehow I agree. Although the keyboard synths & workstations of the current 2020's are "better" and can reproduce the same [preset?!?] sound patches from previous decades, the original synths of those eras, especially those that are now consider primitive, has a certain characteristic that even the better software retro synths cannot match at 100%.

.

And those old-school mixing consoles? That is like trying to re-record all of the grestest hits from goldern age Motown. You cannot recreate the magic unless you have the same shitty analog mixing consoles that were used from that era.

I'm still waiting to hear how the music industry black balled Taylor Swift.

You wanna see who got black balled? Look at Janet Jackson. Former head of CBS, and resident racist who married an Asian woman, Les Moonves derailed her whole career. He banned all her music on every CBS owned radio and TV station. He was even pissed off when she published her book because it was on a CBS owned imprint. And it slipped by him.

Those albums - Damita Jo, Discipline - got practically zero radio play on CBS affiliates. She was using places like Tyra and Ryan Seacrest's American Bandstand-wannabe show to try and promote her records. All that - over a titty!

So if you wanna talk about black balling, be honest about it.

Don't make shit up.

PJMcGee said:

Ha! I just pictured Prince pulling his assless pants routine at the Super Bowl. He'd have been lucky to make it out of there alive.

Yep, and the twist was they weren't even assless.

Also, remember the hype about the flying fabric and he was in silhouette, and his guitar allegedly looked like a dick? I remember the same hype around a poster for the 2000 Hit n' Run tour, I believe.

I don't understand why middle America is so scared of the dick, or a titty.

TrivialPursuit said:

MotownSubdivision said:

Calm down. The OP didn't say Taylor got black balled, (s)he asked if she will get black-balled.

I'm calm bro, honestly. But the question is obtuse.

Its hard to equate "black balling" in different times. Even with Janet Jackson which may not seem long ago, it is another lifetime in todays fast moving times, that whole thing was almost 18 years ago, Social Media was a mere child then, the Ipod was the thing, the iPhone was a dream still, MUSIC still sold, streaming non existent, even the itunes store was not a big thing yet. And while all the black balling of Janet is true, what is not mentioned very often was she was becoming old news, she was 38 and now having to compete in a Destinys Child Beyonce world and other female artists who now were using her as "who they grew up" with, she was at that stage. I thnk we often forget the "age" thing and how it became more and more of a thing in decades after the 90's. And also look at the country then, it was still in its 9/11 phase, it was not even close to the division its at now in every possible way. But again today is something all together different. Who is going to black ball Taylor Swift? Labels now are none existent, she is putting the stuff out pretty much on her own, she has backing in the industry too from other artists, who helped out Janet? no one did. And airplay that is funny because Taylor really is not a widely played artist, she puts out a song and its number one or top ten or whatever just on its downloading and streaming, ans then she is one of the few of this generartion that still sells physical product much more than streaming, so there is really no one that could even try to black ball her.

lastdecember said:

Its hard to equate "black balling" in different times. Even with Janet Jackson which may not seem long ago, it is another lifetime in todays fast moving times, that whole thing was almost 18 years ago, Social Media was a mere child then, the Ipod was the thing, the iPhone was a dream still, MUSIC still sold, streaming non existent, even the itunes store was not a big thing yet. And while all the black balling of Janet is true, what is not mentioned very often was she was becoming old news, she was 38 and now having to compete in a Destinys Child Beyonce world and other female artists who now were using her as "who they grew up" with, she was at that stage. I thnk we often forget the "age" thing and how it became more and more of a thing in decades after the 90's. And also look at the country then, it was still in its 9/11 phase, it was not even close to the division its at now in every possible way. But again today is something all together different. Who is going to black ball Taylor Swift? Labels now are none existent, she is putting the stuff out pretty much on her own, she has backing in the industry too from other artists, who helped out Janet? no one did. And airplay that is funny because Taylor really is not a widely played artist, she puts out a song and its number one or top ten or whatever just on its downloading and streaming, ans then she is one of the few of this generartion that still sells physical product much more than streaming, so there is really no one that could even try to black ball her.

People seem to overlook this aspect of Nipplegate.

Janet was definitely in the over-the-hump phase of her career at that point, hence one of the reasons she teamed up with up-and-coming Timberlake in the first place.

Her album at the time was considerd a disappointment by many (Damita Jo) so that was a factor.

And while the whole Leslie Moonves thing was wierd and exposed some deeper issues (to me at least) it just goes to show just how prevalent outside factors impact success on the charts.

Currently there's a Cardi B vs. Nicki Minaj debate amongst their fans and you often hear Minaj fans throw out that payola is the reason Cardi B is making hits.

These people obviously don't realize that payola has another name; promotion. And when I research the herculean efforts it took to get songs like Childish Gambino's "Redbone", or Billie Eilishe's debut rollout, or even back in the day when L.A. Reid said he spent so much money promoting "The Way You Move" and "Hey Ya" at the same time that he'd never do it again, it would've been a major disappointment if those records DIDN'T becomes smashes.

TrivialPursuit said:

No. He bought publishing. That's totally different.

Hooray, at least one other person around here (besides me) understands the difference!

woogiebear said:

Prince & Michael were MARTYRS of this Business called Music!!! Anything else is Smoke, Mirrors & BULLSHIT!!!!

When Prince got his new contract in 1992, his people were crowing about how great and lucrative it was for Prince and PP. Within a year or so, it was "slavery."

By 1992, he had been in the industry for over a decade, and was already a superstar. I've never believed he didn't understand the terms of that contract, which were pretty much the same as every recording contract in those days.

If he had wanted to do something different, such as a distribution-only deal, he could have negotiated such a contract. Then he would have retained ownership of the recordings, and licensed them to Warner. AFAIK he never attempted to do that. Instead, he agreed to a traditional deal which was then spun into an alleged value of $100 million.

https://musicfans.stackexchange.com/questions/88/what-were-the-specifics-of-princes-100-million-contract-with-warner-bros-re

Original articles about the contract: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1LW1ZWzmih1T2Ah9z25rLn3pM3VIKySH4?usp=sharing

Astasheiks said:

In yoiu all Opinions, Will the Music Industry Black Ball Taylor Swift now that she is getting her Masters back liked they did Prince?

The only person that black balled Prince was