The Long Overdue Taylor Swift Thread.

#77
#77
I have mixed feelings. Having grown up in Nashville, maybe I understand the industry too well. The labels spend a lot of money on artists that never pan out and when a label does catch lighting, the revenue they get from that star is making the label whole for a lot of swings and misses. And then there's the whole matter of the labels putting up the initial money for studio time, touring, promotion, artist advances, etc. etc. I liken it a lot to personal injury attorneys who work on a contingency fee. It seems egregious when a lawyer gets 30-percent of a massive settlement, but that is subsidizing all the cases where the lawyer does the work and fronts all the costs but the case results in little or no judgment/settlement.
blahblahblah-whatever.gif
 
  • Like
Reactions: PEPPERJAX
#80
#80
I have mixed feelings. Having grown up in Nashville, maybe I understand the industry too well. The labels spend a lot of money on artists that never pan out and when a label does catch lighting, the revenue they get from that star is making the label whole for a lot of swings and misses. And then there's the whole matter of the labels putting up the initial money for studio time, touring, promotion, artist advances, etc. etc. I liken it a lot to personal injury attorneys who work on a contingency fee. It seems egregious when a lawyer gets 30-percent of a massive settlement, but that is subsidizing all the cases where the lawyer does the work and fronts all the costs but the case results in little or no judgment/settlement.
But in her case, isn't it that the label was bought out (?) taken over (?) something by non-music investors, purely for speculation? No one in the buyers had anything to do with producing the music; they're just hoping for a profit without any particular regard for what they bought.
 
  • Like
Reactions: VolunteerHillbilly
#82
#82
I have mixed feelings. Having grown up in Nashville, maybe I understand the industry too well. The labels spend a lot of money on artists that never pan out and when a label does catch lighting, the revenue they get from that star is making the label whole for a lot of swings and misses. And then there's the whole matter of the labels putting up the initial money for studio time, touring, promotion, artist advances, etc. etc. I liken it a lot to personal injury attorneys who work on a contingency fee. It seems egregious when a lawyer gets 30-percent of a massive settlement, but that is subsidizing all the cases where the lawyer does the work and fronts all the costs but the case results in little or no judgment/settlement.

Loser pays legal system now! Carry on.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 82_VOL_83
#83
#83
I don't want her as president. Just let her keep doing what she doing. She ain't a perfect role model for young girls, but there's a hell of a lot worse. If they're going to have one other than a solid mother or grandmother, might as well be her.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MWR and Hoosier_Vol
#84
#84
She's a poser and a gold digger. Bitches about not making enough money and knocks heels with NFL athletes.
 
#85
#85
But in her case, isn't it that the label was bought out (?) taken over (?) something by non-music investors, purely for speculation? No one in the buyers had anything to do with producing the music; they're just hoping for a profit without any particular regard for what they bought.
I don't know the whole story there. If you're looking at it retrospectively from the perspective of whoever originally owned the label, it really doesn't matter whether they sell it or hang on collect checks. Either way, they're getting paid back for the misses they funded in the past. Prospectively, I can see how it negates the argument that the earnings continue to fund giving more unknown artists a shot (assuming the original label owners don't use some of their profits from the sale to start a new label or the purchasers don't maintain a&r operations to identify and sign emerging artists).

I'll also add something you hear about a lot of really big time performing artists is that they strong-arm songwriters into giving up some, or even all, of the songwriting credits when the performing artist had nothing to do with the composition. I don't really have a problem with it from a free market perspective because a writer can refuse that sort of a deal, even if it means they lose financially. What I don't appreciate, is when a performing artist accepts accolades from a gushing public about writing so much of his/her own stuff when they didn't. I'm not tying that to TS or anyone else. There's just a lot more songwriters in this town than there are megastars and over time you hear the same story from a lot of people and you start to assume there is something to it even without direct proof.
 
#87
#87
How many other miserable old bastards agree with this?
I'm not miserable, but I am old. I don't care how many agree and I understand she's your heart throb, but much like LeBron and every other athlete or star that complains about how they are treated financially, I have no use for them.
 
#90
#90
I'm not miserable, but I am old. I don't care how many agree and I understand she's your heart throb, but much like LeBron and every other athlete or star that complains about how they are treated financially, I have no use for them.
didn't she give all her tour truck drivers a six figure bonus not too long ago?
 
#91
#91
I'm not miserable, but I am old. I don't care how many agree and I understand she's your heart throb, but much like LeBron and every other athlete or star that complains about how they are treated financially, I have no use for them.
I don't care what you think of her and I wasn't talking to your old miserable ass, I asked who else agreed with you.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NorCalVol67
Advertisement

Back
Top