Reply to Lively/Baldoni Lawsuit Part 2

Forum Index » Entertainment and Pop Culture

Reply to "Lively/Baldoni Lawsuit Part 2"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Swift is a brand. And the brand needed to separate itself and create distance from the whole lawsuit. I don't think the brand will be impacted by this at all.

Taylor as a person has made lots of questionable decisions in her life but most aren't invested in her as a person, they are invested in the brand. What she does in her private life is pretty disconnected from the brand and the public life. [/quote]

This is out of touch. Swift is getting dragged for this like nothing I’ve ever seen. Millions of women are not just [b]re-visiting the Scooter, masters, and “Taylor’s version” narrative,[/b] they now believe all of it was a con. Not to mention it dovetails on the worst album of her career. Can’t take dings like this at her age. Middle aged female pop stars don’t have come backs.[/quote]

I'm familiar with that history but can you explain why it's implicated here?[/quote]

Scooter is not a good guy either but legally he owned Taylor's songs. Her team had signed the contracts and they were legally his. When she wanted them back and he wouldn't sell them to her, she made him out to be evil and herself a victim - a horrible man not giving a woman what was rightfully her own creative work - and her fan base turned on him. He stood firm and she eventually re-recorded those songs but she definitely tried to manipulate her fan base to see her as a victim in a situation where she was just in a contract she didn't want to be in.[/quote]

DP and I'm not even a big Swift fan but I think this is a weird stretch. Swift is far from the first artist to be upset when someone else owns some aspect of their musical catalog and outright refuses to sell them to the artist. Famously, Michael Jackson outbid Paul McCartney for the publishing rights to the Beatles catalog, and later taunted McCartney about it (there's an interview where Paul imitates Michael Jackson doing this, it's pretty funny, but you can tell Paul was incensed). McCartney later regained the rights but it was a big deal at the time and you know what? It was 100% a dick move on Jackson's part.

The Scooter thing is no different. Sure, he owned the masters legally. That doesn't make it right, and he could have sold them to Taylor. By re-recording them, she totally undermined their value to Scooter anyway. A lot of people (myself included) think it's a shame when the weird structure of the music industry results in artists who created their work not owning it or having the right to decide how it is used. That goes for Taylor or any other artist. I don't see how the texts between Taylor and Blake would change anyone's mind on that. [/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics