I know Travis Kelce has been with the Chiefs as a TE for a decade now and he has to start thinking about life after football. I hope its a legit relationship for him and Taylor Swift but don't want to see him become the type of player that acts like he's too big of a star now to be on the Chiefs.

I decided to give the new Rolling Stones album a break for a bit so I am streaming Midnights 3AM and it is finally growing on me.

Check out a copy of the Til Dawn version just for the formerly-Target-exclusive track "Hits Different" which I'd put third overall after "Anti-Hero" and "Would've Could've Should've".

The chorus of Hits Different is solid, but the verses (their melody and lyrics) are really clunky.

Anyone heard the new 1989 yet?
I guess it's out in the wild.

I haven't heard it yet (or anything about it), but my guess is that out of all the Taylor's Version albums, 1989 is going to be the most similar to the original.

I will wait until official release tomorrow night.
Can't wait to hear SLUT!

The Yellow Sunrise Vinyl is back in stock at her official store so probably no reason to pay $80 from some Ebay scumbag.

Also Target has the same album cover as part of their exclusive CDs

Target vinyl has a bonus track exclusive to that pressing, so I'm assuming most will want that over the other versions.

What is it with Oct 27, 2023?

1989 and the new reissues of Nirvana In Utero and Prince Diamonds and Pearls all come out tomorrow and probably the most I will spend on music all year.

For Taylor it's the anniversary of the original release date. For the other two, it's the last release date before the Christmas shopping season starts.

Insert it’s happening gif here.

Just now listening to it. I can’t imagine choosing this version of Blank Space. It’s much less charming, feels pretty by-the-numbers and kinda robotic by comparison. That is such an amazing single on the original.

I just got back from Tokyo today and went to an actual Tower Records. It was so great. 7 floors of music and entertainment.

Managed to get the Japanese version of Taylor’s latest. This was $23. Japanese still like physical music.

According to legal requirements, Swift couldn't do a perfect replication of the original song for the Taylor's Version. Still a nice sounding song, though.

My god, Suburban Legends is just Mastermind with different lyrics.
That's not a complaint, these Vault songs are often similar to "later" releases, but this one is a carbon copy.

I was excited to listen to 1989 : TV in my car yesterday. My son (who HATES Taylor Swift -- both for his personal teste and as a response to my Swiftie fandom) commented that me being excited for this release is like if my kids went into my sock drawer, picked out a pain of my socks, wrapped them up in a new box and gave them to me for Christmas. It's not just a bad gift, it's a bad gift I already had.
On one hand, haters gonna hate, hate, hate, hate. On the other, what's the term the kids use now? "The worst person you know just made a good point"?

Labels Want to Prevent ‘Taylor’s Version’-Like Re-Recordings From Ever Happening Again

Record companies are trying to keep artists from re-recording their songs for longer periods — and in some cases ever again.

https://www.billboard.com/pro/taylor...nge-contracts/

Greedy fuckers.
Maybe make it so artists won't need to re-record their albums.

If your originals are sold off, I don't see why you get to re-record them and sell them in place of the original ones. You made the decision to sell off your original recordings and got paid for it. You don't get to be paid again for the ideas entrenched in each of those pieces of work when they no longer belong to you. The greed goes all around. If you want to keep most of the revenue from your music then own your masters and don't sell them off.

You're right - artists have never been taken advantage of by record publishers!

Because in this case Swift’s contract gave her label ownership of the RECORDINGS which not the music/songs. That’s pretty standard for the industry. In this case they wouldn’t sell her back the masters. They would give one back at a time for every new one she released and have force her to sign a new contract. She would be perpetually indentured to the label. Most labels were willing to work with successful artists even if they leave. Her label said sign or fuck off we are going to sell the company anyway. She said fuck you I’ll just re-recorded everything.

In the past releasing masters for albums 10-15 years ago had less financial consequences. Most of the sales had already happened. Today, because of streaming, music lives on forever meaning royalties are paid in perpetuity. That’s one of the reasons you see big name artist sell their catalogs. They get a lump sum now and the company makes money for as long as people listen to that music. It’s a win win. An older artist can live off that for the rest of there lives or can better estate plan for the future. By releasing “Taylor” version she’s trying to redirect that streaming revenue directly to herself instead of the old label. She trying to displace those old recordings in favor of the new one and it’s working. If they had just sold her the masters it would have been fine. Now they have a deprecating asset. It’s not going to zero but it’s worth less than what they paid. I’m sure someone has done the math to see how long it will take for the the purchase to break even. My an accelerating the release of “Taylor” version she pushes that further and further out. Vengeance.

Sometimes live versions are included in the no re-recording clause. If an artist changes labels and wants to release a live album they can't include songs from the previous label on the live album. They can play them live, just can't put them on the album.
This happened with the Black Crows/Jimmy Page live CD. Black Crowes hits were played during the show but when it came to releasing the CD they had to be left off because the live CD was on a different label than the Black Crowes studio versions.

I understand that but she chose to sign that contract and accept all of the binding agreements that come with it. I'm not sure I agree with the legality or not of, sure you might own current versions of my songs but I'll just re-record them and take back the money for songs that I agreed to sell to you. I personally know some artists that have either chosen to own their own masters by not signing to a label, which means they in turn will not be as big of an artist to the general public. As well as other artists that have negotiated a deal with their record label to get a 50/50 split of revenues from streaming, video plays, etc. In turn they get to become a bigger artist to the general public which leads to more money made but giving up some flexibility with their own art.

When she was probably like 14 or 15. The music industry takes advantage of naivety. And she did not sell her songs. She sold RECORDINGS of those songs. She did fulfill the contract. They then tried to screw her over and she just flip the scenario while also bring attention to it for other up and coming artists.

Also, I'm asking in a friendly manner: You are anti-Ticketmaster but pro-Big Music?

I'm anti-ticketmaster's fluctuating fees, which are absolute bullshit. Their scaling fees make no sense and are unfair to the consumer. I did a roundabout number for the available seats for Bad Bunny at the BOK in Tulsa. I used a lesser charged service fee per ticket of 45 dollars and at that amount they would make a million plus selling the tickets for that one concert. Almost everything is done by a computer, so it's not like there is a ton of manpower to sell tickets for a concert.

I'm also not pro-big music, as I remember how TLC was handled with their multi-platinum album, among other artists. I do think that when she signed that contract she had no idea how big her music and the record label behind it would become. Also, I don't think she went in there alone at 14-15 to sign her recording contract. I guess my biggest issue is the re-recording of already created work. I don't think a director could remake their same movie from one studio beat by beat at another studio and get away with it legally. Would we hear Michael Jackson's Beat It 2024 if he were still alive? Or Rush's Tom Sawyer 21st century?