A few do it. Ozzy Sharon had "Blizzard of Ozz" and "Diary of a Madman" re-recorded with new bass and drum tracks to spite the original musicians and screw them out of royalties. Though those were soundly rejected by his fans.

Suicidal Tendencies also re-recorded their debut album with the current line-up (Rocky George, Robert Trujillo, R.J. Herrera, Mike Clark) because of a dispute with the record label the album was released on. (Ironically, Trujillo also played on the two re-recorded Ozzy albums.)

And Twisted Sister re-recorded their breakthrough album "Stay Hungry" as "Still Hungry" because they weren't satisfied with Tom Werman's production.

And I sort of remember Def Leppard re-recording some of their songs/albums to get better digital distribution royalties.

I remember some Rock Band tracks were re-records of classics. Nobody wanted that.

BTW : This whole concept was originally Kelly Clarkson's idea. I read that every time a TV albums dropped, Taylor sent her a massive amount of flowers.

Some recording contracts expressly forbid this. "Live" recordings are also considered re-recordings. There have been instances where an artist releases a live album after they have switched labels and the album has no songs from the previous label. They played the songs in the concert, just had to leave them off the album. One example is the Jimmy Page and The Black Crowes live cd. They played Black Crowes songs in the concert but had to leave them off the cd because the live cd was released by a different label than Black Crowes label. That why the cd is 90% Zeppelin songs.
Happens often with movie soundtracks. Songs are in the movie but not on soundtrack cd. The soudtrack cd is a different label than the artist's. That's why Chris Cornell's "You Know My Name" is missing from Casino Royale soundtrack cd. Same with Adele's "Skyfall"

Not sure how her fans are gullible and taken advantage of. Nobody has to buy anything she's selling. Is she somehow deceiving people about what they are getting with these Taylor Versions?

Mining FOMO, limited time drops (24 hours), multiple album variants with one track differences, four vinyl albums required to make a clock, releasing an album and then releasing the second "secret" half days later requiring two purchases, etc.... Billy Elisha was like I'm only doing one release. Peace. One's an artist and one is an industry (artist, marketer, actress, etc). There is nothing wrong. It's peek capitalism.

Of course she isn't forcing anyone to buy all this but there is an unhealthy peer pressure within her fan community to be completists. Like Taylor is going to love them more or you have proof that you are the biggest fan. Like unhinged levels of crazy and it's being taken advantage of. Do you blame the drug dealer or the drug user?

Of course no one is being forced. It’s more of a hive mentality that some of her fans have of gotta get it all. To me that seems a bit gullible, and Taylor takes full advantage of that gullibility by milking anything she can. It is capitalism but for a performer who claims to love her fans.. it’s more like she loves their money. Power to her for being able to do that, but it is a bit shameless.

The drug user, obviously.

If there is an unhealthy peer pressure within her fans community, then that is obviously about that community and the individuals within it.

She's a capitalist in the Ayn Randian sense of that word. She is a creator, and she has to leave it up to the public to buy what she creates or reject it. Her value is in her superior creative ability. Good for her.

see above

All her fans are sentient human beings with free will. That's the end of that discussion for me.

Not Taylor related but that approach doesn't work. It's backed up by ~40 years of data.

I recommend the "emergency" episode of Every Single Album podcast about the masters being acquired. They explain a lot of the behind the scenes and the business of this deal. I found it very enlightening.
They mentioned that if Taylor ever really did want to milk her fans for money, she'd put a line of makeup products out and would make a billion dollars overnight. I still think it's cool that she became the first billionaire musician solely off her music.

The B-School and marketing class would say that’s harder said than done. People only have so much money and you can only introduce so many lines until sales cannibalize themselves meaning less merch or music sales. People like Gomez and Rhinna do their makeup business as their primary jobs. People aren’t spending on their music. Taylor is big enough that something like that might be additional income (her pot gets bigger) but that’s far from a guarantee. It’s possible that people switch brands and that’s where new money comes in but they can be fickle. We see all these “valuations” of these companies but it’s all just Monopoly money until they sell the company. Rhinna’s underwear company has been trying to IPO for years with no success.

That approach to what?

I'll say it again. People are sentient human beings with free will. Each individual is responsible for the choices they make. If there is such a thing as blame that comes with an action, then the person that chose to take the action is to blame for it.

If Bob sells heroin, then Bob is a criminal because selling heroin is illegal, and Bob should be punished for committing a crime. However, Bob is not to blame for any of his customers' drug use.

Stopping addition.

But what about the multiplication epidemic sweeping the country?

Addiction.
(Kids (6 and 9) are home from school but trying to get the summer work down before they leave town.)

Taylor Swift fandom is a mental illness.

That's a hot take for this thread, but okay.

If that’s your take sure.

According to you, Taylor Swift fandom is being an addict. Addiction is a mental illness.

They only did this for 2-3 songs and once the band came to a digital rights agreement, the real catalog became available and the re-records were never seen again.

Speaking of....

I have this on DVD but would love a bluray or 4k digital upgrade

That’s not what I said but if that’s your take sure.
I’m pretty sure you are the only one drawing that so you be you.

The only possible interpretation of what you posted is that being a hardcore TS fan is like being a drug addict and Taylor is a pusher who takes advantage of her fans' addiction.

If there is another possible interpretation, please explain what it is instead of pulling out the douchey "you be you" dismissal of what I am saying, which is clearly correct.

I wonder if you have family/ friends with kids in her target demographic. The stories they will tell. To give you an idea ( and it’s not an outlier):

https://www.dazeddigital.com/music/a...t-toxic-fandom

So she is not a drug-pusher taking advantage of helpless addicts, she's a cult leader whose only interest is profiting off the gullibility of her brain-washed fans. Got it.

Maybe a little bit of both?

I'm not a Taylor Swift fan at all, and only really get my information about her through osmosis, but what I do gather is that her fandom tends to be really intense at the extreme end of the spectrum. Cultish? Addictive? Yeah, I kind of get that. I'm sure that a lot of her fans are just normal fans, but there seems like there's a not unsizable segment that's gone over the deep end.

Is it something she actively cultivated, or did it just happen naturally? I don't really know.

I'm a metalhead, and metal's fandom also tends to be really intense and hardcore, too. I'd say there's probably an addictive aspect to it. Cultish, not really -- fans will absolutely turn on bands they love if they put out a bad album or perform a shitty set.

So just to be clear, if I said that you compared Metal fans to addicts, you would protest that I twisted what you said, or you would admit that I understood you correctly?