For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Quote
KurtQuote
Tate
I need a song or two to really impress me. Does it exist?
Yes.
I will give you an ALBUM or two...
Listen to Folklore and Evermore. Both releases are astounding.
Quote
BowieStoneQuote
georgelicks
Her new album, which comes out on April 19, has already surpassed 600,000 copies in pre-sale, only in the United States, still with 55 days left until the release date and who knows how many new versions with different bonus tracks.
She's touring Australia now playing to packed stadiums night after night, she has 8 albums in the Australian Top 10 albums chart and her entire discography in the Top 20.
A global phenomenon almost never seen before.
Still most people can't name 3 songs.
I'm not dissing her btw, I'm a fan since 'Speak Now'.
But at the height of their careers everybody knew 3 songs of Elvis, The Beatles or Michael Jackson.
I don't think her music reaches the regular music fan.
Thats kinda what I thought but the more I read about it the more I'm impressed by it. As I understand it, it was really just a project for her. Like, she hoped it would catch on, but it was more likely to not than it would. She wanted to re-record them so that she owned those versions so that IF people wanted them, they could get them from her instead of someone else who owns them. I guess she did it at the perfect time, because it took off with her fans and now seemingly if you DON'T use the new version, she doesn't necessarily call you out, but it does seem there's this machine that movie studios and the like don't want to risk that she might. So in essence they've bought into her whole thing and now its become this movement. Which in itself is very cool. Paul McCartney never owned the Beatles stuff, but imagine if he did and he had the personal say of whether these songs could be in this movie? We certainly know with the Stones that the music industry history is FULL of unfair things like this for young artists, so its cool that she's taking it back and owning it. They are hers, she should, the same way the Stones should have owned what Allen Klein ended up getting.Quote
VoodooLounge13
I admit I don't really get the Masters dispute and re-recording all of her albums. I get that she owns those versions, but she still doesn't have the originals, and most radio stations only play the known versions; not Taylor's versions, so I'm not sure what she really accomplished there
Quote
RollingFreakThats kinda what I thought but the more I read about it the more I'm impressed by it. As I understand it, it was really just a project for her. Like, she hoped it would catch on, but it was more likely to not than it would. She wanted to re-record them so that she owned those versions so that IF people wanted them, they could get them from her instead of someone else who owns them. I guess she did it at the perfect time, because it took off with her fans and now seemingly if you DON'T use the new version, she doesn't necessarily call you out, but it does seem there's this machine that movie studios and the like don't want to risk that she might. So in essence they've bought into her whole thing and now its become this movement. Which in itself is very cool. Paul McCartney never owned the Beatles stuff, but imagine if he did and he had the personal say of whether these songs could be in this movie? We certainly know with the Stones that the music industry history is FULL of unfair things like this for young artists, so its cool that she's taking it back and owning it. They are hers, she should, the same way the Stones should have owned what Allen Klein ended up getting.Quote
VoodooLounge13
I admit I don't really get the Masters dispute and re-recording all of her albums. I get that she owns those versions, but she still doesn't have the originals, and most radio stations only play the known versions; not Taylor's versions, so I'm not sure what she really accomplished there
When I thought about listening to her albums I'm like "f this, this'll be like when Ozzy OSbourne rerecorded Blizzard of Ozz. I'm going to the original, not this new update." But over time, I've understood more why she's doing it and while I'm not buying her records, I get why I'd listen to these over the originals. They sound the same and she's doing it on her terms. I thought it was dumb but now I think its really cool that her pet project became this much bigger thing. She wasn't really asking for it to catch on, it just kinda happened, which seems like a nice thing in the industry full of horror stories. And hopefully can change the amount of ownership artists will have of their early career work.
Quote
VoodooLounge13Quote
RollingFreakThats kinda what I thought but the more I read about it the more I'm impressed by it. As I understand it, it was really just a project for her. Like, she hoped it would catch on, but it was more likely to not than it would. She wanted to re-record them so that she owned those versions so that IF people wanted them, they could get them from her instead of someone else who owns them. I guess she did it at the perfect time, because it took off with her fans and now seemingly if you DON'T use the new version, she doesn't necessarily call you out, but it does seem there's this machine that movie studios and the like don't want to risk that she might. So in essence they've bought into her whole thing and now its become this movement. Which in itself is very cool. Paul McCartney never owned the Beatles stuff, but imagine if he did and he had the personal say of whether these songs could be in this movie? We certainly know with the Stones that the music industry history is FULL of unfair things like this for young artists, so its cool that she's taking it back and owning it. They are hers, she should, the same way the Stones should have owned what Allen Klein ended up getting.Quote
VoodooLounge13
I admit I don't really get the Masters dispute and re-recording all of her albums. I get that she owns those versions, but she still doesn't have the originals, and most radio stations only play the known versions; not Taylor's versions, so I'm not sure what she really accomplished there
When I thought about listening to her albums I'm like "f this, this'll be like when Ozzy OSbourne rerecorded Blizzard of Ozz. I'm going to the original, not this new update." But over time, I've understood more why she's doing it and while I'm not buying her records, I get why I'd listen to these over the originals. They sound the same and she's doing it on her terms. I thought it was dumb but now I think its really cool that her pet project became this much bigger thing. She wasn't really asking for it to catch on, it just kinda happened, which seems like a nice thing in the industry full of horror stories. And hopefully can change the amount of ownership artists will have of their early career work.
So, this is actually how I came to buy a large chunk of her catalog - because I wanted the original versions before they were gone forever. And if I was going to buy anymore of her albums, I might as well track down the definitive versions!!! It's the original versions of songs I know and was tortured with as a middle school girls' soccer coach years ago, so I wanted those originals, and then from there, I'd move on to the Taylor versions - all of which I was hoping would be more in the vein of Folklore/Evermore, but alas they are not.
Wasn't aware that powers that be are buying into the re-recordings too - so then she has succeeded in basically erasing the past originals. I do hope she can bring light to this horrible standard - The Beatles, The Stones, Billy Joel, Taylor - the industry is full of artists being taken advantage of unfortunately.
Quote
RollingFreakQuote
VoodooLounge13Quote
RollingFreakThats kinda what I thought but the more I read about it the more I'm impressed by it. As I understand it, it was really just a project for her. Like, she hoped it would catch on, but it was more likely to not than it would. She wanted to re-record them so that she owned those versions so that IF people wanted them, they could get them from her instead of someone else who owns them. I guess she did it at the perfect time, because it took off with her fans and now seemingly if you DON'T use the new version, she doesn't necessarily call you out, but it does seem there's this machine that movie studios and the like don't want to risk that she might. So in essence they've bought into her whole thing and now its become this movement. Which in itself is very cool. Paul McCartney never owned the Beatles stuff, but imagine if he did and he had the personal say of whether these songs could be in this movie? We certainly know with the Stones that the music industry history is FULL of unfair things like this for young artists, so its cool that she's taking it back and owning it. They are hers, she should, the same way the Stones should have owned what Allen Klein ended up getting.Quote
VoodooLounge13
I admit I don't really get the Masters dispute and re-recording all of her albums. I get that she owns those versions, but she still doesn't have the originals, and most radio stations only play the known versions; not Taylor's versions, so I'm not sure what she really accomplished there
When I thought about listening to her albums I'm like "f this, this'll be like when Ozzy OSbourne rerecorded Blizzard of Ozz. I'm going to the original, not this new update." But over time, I've understood more why she's doing it and while I'm not buying her records, I get why I'd listen to these over the originals. They sound the same and she's doing it on her terms. I thought it was dumb but now I think its really cool that her pet project became this much bigger thing. She wasn't really asking for it to catch on, it just kinda happened, which seems like a nice thing in the industry full of horror stories. And hopefully can change the amount of ownership artists will have of their early career work.
So, this is actually how I came to buy a large chunk of her catalog - because I wanted the original versions before they were gone forever. And if I was going to buy anymore of her albums, I might as well track down the definitive versions!!! It's the original versions of songs I know and was tortured with as a middle school girls' soccer coach years ago, so I wanted those originals, and then from there, I'd move on to the Taylor versions - all of which I was hoping would be more in the vein of Folklore/Evermore, but alas they are not.
Wasn't aware that powers that be are buying into the re-recordings too - so then she has succeeded in basically erasing the past originals. I do hope she can bring light to this horrible standard - The Beatles, The Stones, Billy Joel, Taylor - the industry is full of artists being taken advantage of unfortunately.
I mean yes and no. The new recordings sound exactly like the originals and were made with that in mind. That was their intention and not to change them much. Also the originals are still pretty much available anywhere. Stores and Spotify and YouTube etc. I don't think she's trying to erase anything, she just wants to own the songs she wrote. I really do understand where you're coming from, but its not like she rerecorded them and they're different. They were faithful recreations of her own songs that she owns. I think if you did an A and B comparison you probably wouldn't know the difference, but I'm seriously not judging you if it can sound like I am. I do get it, I just don't think its as extreme as you're making it sound.
Quote
VoodooLounge13Quote
RollingFreakQuote
VoodooLounge13Quote
RollingFreakThats kinda what I thought but the more I read about it the more I'm impressed by it. As I understand it, it was really just a project for her. Like, she hoped it would catch on, but it was more likely to not than it would. She wanted to re-record them so that she owned those versions so that IF people wanted them, they could get them from her instead of someone else who owns them. I guess she did it at the perfect time, because it took off with her fans and now seemingly if you DON'T use the new version, she doesn't necessarily call you out, but it does seem there's this machine that movie studios and the like don't want to risk that she might. So in essence they've bought into her whole thing and now its become this movement. Which in itself is very cool. Paul McCartney never owned the Beatles stuff, but imagine if he did and he had the personal say of whether these songs could be in this movie? We certainly know with the Stones that the music industry history is FULL of unfair things like this for young artists, so its cool that she's taking it back and owning it. They are hers, she should, the same way the Stones should have owned what Allen Klein ended up getting.Quote
VoodooLounge13
I admit I don't really get the Masters dispute and re-recording all of her albums. I get that she owns those versions, but she still doesn't have the originals, and most radio stations only play the known versions; not Taylor's versions, so I'm not sure what she really accomplished there
When I thought about listening to her albums I'm like "f this, this'll be like when Ozzy OSbourne rerecorded Blizzard of Ozz. I'm going to the original, not this new update." But over time, I've understood more why she's doing it and while I'm not buying her records, I get why I'd listen to these over the originals. They sound the same and she's doing it on her terms. I thought it was dumb but now I think its really cool that her pet project became this much bigger thing. She wasn't really asking for it to catch on, it just kinda happened, which seems like a nice thing in the industry full of horror stories. And hopefully can change the amount of ownership artists will have of their early career work.
So, this is actually how I came to buy a large chunk of her catalog - because I wanted the original versions before they were gone forever. And if I was going to buy anymore of her albums, I might as well track down the definitive versions!!! It's the original versions of songs I know and was tortured with as a middle school girls' soccer coach years ago, so I wanted those originals, and then from there, I'd move on to the Taylor versions - all of which I was hoping would be more in the vein of Folklore/Evermore, but alas they are not.
Wasn't aware that powers that be are buying into the re-recordings too - so then she has succeeded in basically erasing the past originals. I do hope she can bring light to this horrible standard - The Beatles, The Stones, Billy Joel, Taylor - the industry is full of artists being taken advantage of unfortunately.
I mean yes and no. The new recordings sound exactly like the originals and were made with that in mind. That was their intention and not to change them much. Also the originals are still pretty much available anywhere. Stores and Spotify and YouTube etc. I don't think she's trying to erase anything, she just wants to own the songs she wrote. I really do understand where you're coming from, but its not like she rerecorded them and they're different. They were faithful recreations of her own songs that she owns. I think if you did an A and B comparison you probably wouldn't know the difference, but I'm seriously not judging you if it can sound like I am. I do get it, I just don't think its as extreme as you're making it sound.
Yes, you are correct!!! Sorry if I was coming off like these are completely different interpretations of her own songs. While I haven't done a side by side as yet, the few songs I have heard I do notice some subtleties - mostly in instrumentation - like there might be something new used in a Taylor version vs. the original, but yes they are pretty true by and by. And no, you don't sound like you're judging me!
Quote
Tate
Yeah this has been a hot topic of late-- All I've heard is "She puts on a spectacular show for her fans," but nobody has told me, "He music is AMAZING!" or "Her songwriting is AMAZING!" or "Her musicianship is AMAZING!" All I hear is "Her songs aren't bad," or, "Her latest is actually pretty good." Nobody has said, "You have GOT to hear her latest, you'll be blown away!!" or any such thing. So if. it's all about her big stadium show, and NOT the songs, than why is she so absurdly famous?
This all said, I am glad she puts forth a positive message and seems to be a very positive influence on her fanbase. There have been megastars that I have been less impressed by... but I've never seen anyone so famous at any one time as she is now in my lifetime. Not Michael Jackson, or Beiber, or Madonna... Nobody has been in the headlines daily like she is.
I need a song or two to really impress me. Does it exist?
Quote
VoodooLounge13Quote
KurtQuote
Tate
I need a song or two to really impress me. Does it exist?
Yes.
I will give you an ALBUM or two...
Listen to Folklore and Evermore. Both releases are astounding.
Needing to go back to Folklore, as I was initially disappointed with it and couldn't get all the accolades heaped at it. Evermore though IS friggin' brilliant. Easily one of my Top 50 by ANYONE. Maybe even Top 40 or 30. Phenomenal.
Quote
Tate
Thanks for all the recs, friends. I will explore these!
Quote
IrixQuote
Tate
Thanks for all the recs, friends. I will explore these!
You could also watch her 2023 concert movie 'The Eras Tour' (3 hrs) on AppleTV+ , Amazon Prime Video or YouTube Movies & TV - [TV.Apple.com] , [www.Amazon.com] , [www.YouTube.com] .
Quote
MadMetaphoricalMax
Now that she is the supreme embodiment of pop star-ness in the 2020s, bringing joy, identity, cohesion and good songs to billions around the planet, it's time for the backlash, at least from the progressive side of life, the venerable left-wing mag New Statesman over here in the UK has run some gloriously censorious, finger-wagging judgements in recent features like 'Taylor Swift's hollow empowerment narrative' and 'Taylor Swift's triumphant incoherence' - Also, Boyzone heartthrob, or just throb, Shane Lynch, thinks she's a satanist. Paint it black you devil!!
Quote
RollingFreak
The new tour film will also be available on Disney+ in like 3 weeks as well, which is what convinced me.
Quote
GazzaQuote
RollingFreak
The new tour film will also be available on Disney+ in like 3 weeks as well, which is what convinced me.
Its beyond stunning. I rented it on amazon for two days to see what the fuss was all about.
Ended up watching all 3 hours of it from start to finish three times
Its ridiculously, jaw droppingly great. One of the best concert movies I've ever seen by anyone.
Quote
VoodooLounge13
And for those stating who knows if she'll be around in 50 years, she's already been around for 18.
Quote
IrixQuote
VoodooLounge13
And for those stating who knows if she'll be around in 50 years, she's already been around for 18.
In the 1980s/90s, Madonna and Michael Jackson were hyped as the Queen & King of Pop .... but how much of this hype will be left after 50 years?