If you are useful, it doesn't mean you are valued (betterthanrandom.substack.com)

For those that don’t know, Taylor Swift re-released her albums as ‘Taylor’s Version’, same music, just reproduced entirely from scratch due to (afaict) a licensing dispute with the original owner. Her fan base are pretty loyal and knowledgeable so presumably they would prefer the new version over the original. This would cause the originals to dump in value at which point she can pick them up for pennies.

My curiosity is why she even chose to buy them back, aside from maybe a defensive business move (to stop them licensing the tracks to movies at very cheap prices just to spite her, for instance).

bonki · 2d ago

I do believe her when she says that this has great sentimental value for her as well (although I'm equally certain that's not the whole truth), since the business value, as you said, isn't as huge anymore as it used to be before her re-recordings. But she bought back the rights to everything, including artwork, music videos etc., so she got back a lot more than what she possibly could "work around" by just re-recording the music. The re-recordings are really, really good (in a reverse-engineering sense concerning the production), and to a casual listener or untrained ear they might sound identical (apart from the stuff that's intentionally different), but they aren't and to me they sound just off. Swifties probably prefer the new versions for the reason you explained, but I like the originals more since every nuance is engrained in my brain and to me the tiny differences are throwing me off when listening to the new versions.

hsbauauvhabzb · 1d ago

But also she made an estimated 2,000m from her recent tour, so this is equivalent to me buying a childhood video game from the bargain bin at the local game shop because I liked it as a kid.

Her PR game is on point though. Saying she bought it for ‘emotional reasons’ is a fairly standard explanation from her PR spin. It’s not impossible that she genuinely has emotional attachment to it, but I wouldn’t assume that’s anything more than an afterthought to the real reason she bought it.

I have the greatest respect for her. She is probably one of the most underrated business people of all time, while also being the Marilyn Monroe of the 21st century and being an uncompromising exemplary role model to women.

snypher · 1d ago

>She is probably one of the most underrated business people of all time

I'd like to hear more of your thoughts on this because on first look, I mean c'mon man, business people?

hsbauauvhabzb · 1d ago

‘Business women’ sounds condescending or as if she cannot compete with men. She can completely dominate most men’s business capabilities, and has a personal army of fans that many billionaires lack, but is fairly powerful in its own right..

bonki · 1d ago

I concur 100%.

adiffartist · 1d ago

Looks like she sicked her fan club on her manager in 2019.

When is that in relation to "Bad Blood" and "the old Taylor can't come to the phone right now"?

Is it a different person who's now indignantly re-recording what they think are their songs; though many of them were indeed written by other people?

mystified5016 · 1d ago

If that were the case, the songs didn't belong to the label in the first place and there's no need to buy them back since they belong to the original writers.

Unless you consider the fact that by paying someone to do work for you and entering a contractual agreement means that you, in all senses, do own that work. Then the legal rights to such work can be bought and sold

But I'm sure you know far better than the rest of us exactly what's in Swift's contracts with her writers

adiffartist · 21h ago

Is it the new girl buying the original girl's masters from the former manager?