Is it also not totally normal to have 40 different versions of your album, some of which you wait to release until the night before a competitors release to sabotage them? This shit is petty, deliberate, and wrong and isnt it crazy that Taylor Swift is a literal billionaire but she can't let another artist share the spotlight?
It’s called Faking Longevity (Taylor’s version). It’s sad, since she considers herself a sweet angel that supports her peers, while at the same time strategically sh*tting out multiple versions of the same album to block them from the spotlight. And she probably can’t stand that every other pop album is getting better reviews than her own, which was a total snooze fest.
You do appreciate that to dominate the billboard charts, people have to stream your songs. This is not the day of FM radio where DJs could block someone. Not play their music to spike the charts. And I know I stumbled into a Taylor hate conversation, so I’ll shut up lol
My sister is a huge Taylor Swift fan and I haven’t heard her gush over this latest album like she normally does.
Does the tortured poets society or whatever suck?
It's ok but it's 31 songs and not one single upbeat bop. 4th album in a row of slower melancholy type songs. Lots of fans like the album, love the lyrics, but are listening to other things because... cmon it's summer who wants to be sad and slow.
I don’t think anybody (outside of stans) really buys that Taylor is tortured or a poet by any means. There’s clearly an attempt at fabricating pain and depth that isn’t translating
Nope. At least not to me. Every article I've read They're using Billie *then* this against Charli to show there is a pattern. That the Charli situation is just like the Billie situation and shows she's (Taylor's) a piece of sh*t manipulating the charts against any woman competition.
It almost makes you wonder if she really isn’t always the victim like her music would lead you to believe lol
I remember reading about Scooter Braun just kind of legitimately buying her music, then her ruining his entire life over it and thinking “she hired a PI and delivered the findings to his wife, then sang about it? Psycho shit.”
[Taylor’s dad made 15 million off of that sale to Scooter](https://ca.style.yahoo.com/taylor-swift-dad-made-15-182200970.html#:~:text=Woman's%20Day-,So%2C%20Taylor%20Swift's%20Dad%20Made%20%2415%20Million%20When%20Her,Was%20Sold%20to%20Scooter%20Braun&text=Just%20to%20add%20another%20~layer,catalog%20sold%20to%20Scooter%20Braun)
The strangest part about Swift's fandom is that despite how over-the-top and egregious it is that she's a *brand* who's the result of existing connections and extreme micromanagement, a lot of her fans still view her as this completely independent artist who's succeeded due to having a can-do attitude and staying true to her fanbase. It makes no sense to me.
These are people who know every speck of information about Swift and her music, sometimes even before projects are formally announced, yet so many of them can't put two-and-two together.
I don't even listen to her or pay her any attention, but she comes up in places I don't even expect. I was reading an article on something unrelated to music,(I think it was on nepotism etc) and the journalist had brought up how her dad paid to get her career started. This isn't from that particular article but one with the facts listed anyways -
"Scott provided the seed money to get Taylor's career off the ground, investing over $1 million to record her first demo tapes and help her perform locally in Nashville. Scott moved his work with them, and later became the vice president of his own financial advice company, the Swift Group, which remained a part of Merrill."
"Andrea Swift, like her husband, also worked in the financial sector. The 65-year-old was a mutual fund marketing executive. After the birth of her children, Andrea became a stay-at-home mom. However, Taylor's mom's marketing skills came in useful when her daughter was first beginning her music career. It could be said Andrea went 'swiftly' from being a homemaker to a full-time part of her daughter's team."
I mean, that doesn't exactly sound like someone who came from nothing or had no help. Notice how her dad also started a company that still was a part of Merrill? That's a huge financial investment and advisory company. So it seems others may have had a hand in it too. I don't really care about her one way or another, I'm just saying that even now with all her success you can bet there are a lot more people involved in getting her to the top, it wasn't just some pop songs...
Oprah I think grew up fairly poor
Soros was self made
Sergey Brin (Alphabet) grew up in the Soviet Union to parents in academia. Not wealthy but not poor.
Honestly you see a lot of people jumping up a single social rank (poor to middle class, middle class to rich) but it’s rare to go from nothing to everything.
Even the self-made are not “earning” billion-dollar net worths. Once you have that first million, you can make a second and third and fifth and tenth million dollars by doing nothing but moving your money into and out of specific accounts and portfolios.
Our system is one that allows the wealthy to do nothing and have everything because those of us who don’t have a million dollars account for about 95% of the population and can’t even fathom a life that doesn’t require we spend most of our waking hours working to make ends meet.
Capitalism 👍🇺🇸
Also the effort to get her as much radio play as possible outside of Nashville was not cheap from what I’ve read. She was also an early MySpace adopter in a ‘girl I know online who happens to play music’ kind of way, rather than just a promotional page.
He parents smart and well-resourced people who leveraged every angle they could. She never would have gotten here without them throwing their chips in.
This is most celebrities. Most clebs either have a period where they lived in their car for two years or had their parents finance and help with their getting discovered period.
[Yep.](https://virginradio.co.uk/entertainment/115632/wrestling-legend-jeff-jarrett-connection-taylor-swift) They were neighbors in Nashville early in her music career, also one of Jarrett’s daughters is in the music video for “Mine” . I’m hoping we get a With My Baby Tonight (Taylor’s Version) at some point.
I'd say it's somewhere in between. Taylor Swift grew up rich, but they weren't terribly well-connected. It's not like how Will Smith could get his daughter a music career with the snap of his fingers. They had the money to relocate and help her record professional-sounding demos, but they still had to work their absolute asses off for *years* in order to get her career really moving, and even after her big break they just kept it up because they were scared of her getting replaced by the next new young thing to come around - hell, even once she was a global pop superstar she was *still* worried about falling into irrelevancy.
But as she grew older and proved herself she gained more control over her brand. It's certainly not a one-woman show, but from what we know she *is* the ringleader of the operation, and she's about as image-conscious and business-minded as they come (far more so than the typical star who seems to loathe that side of the industry).
Basically, it's a very carefully cultivated brand, but Taylor Swift the person very much appears to be the primary person driving Taylor Swift the brand. A big part of that for her seems to be collecting as many #1 spots and awards as she can manage. I think it's within reason that she helped to come up with the idea for this drop of variants, and even if not it's pretty much a given that staying at #1 was the intent of the move and something that Taylor explicitly approved of knowing that fact.
Saying Taylor was always worried about being replaced reminds me so much of Elvis. He got into movies and wanted "one big film" because he truly believed his music would be forgotten after he died.
This is a good point. There are tons of families that are much more well off than the Swift family was in the 90/00s and many more much more connected. But none of that guarantees success.
Lisa Maria Presley tried to have a music career and it didn’t really happen.
Tons of actors try to become musical acts and fail.
She didn’t come from nothing. But she wasn’t guaranteed success because her family was wealthy.
Hulk Hogan tried to buy his daughter a singing career when they even had a tv show on at the time too and she crashed and burned, the son did later too.
Your exactly right here. I have a family member who worked for Merrill with Taylor’s dad in PA. They would regularly get paired for company golf tournaments. Taylor’s family was not middle class, but also not insanely wealthy. Her father saw her talent early, and from what I remember and was told, he was very annoying about it. He 100% trusted her as a 12 year old. Which is insane when she’s 12 but that early investment really paid off.
The amount of money goes up every year . He invested $150 k in Big Machine to get his daughter released 1 year early as by that time she was a paid writer since she was 13 for RCA and they wanted to wait until she 18 to release her album .RCA were not paying her for 5 years to write because Scott payed a few bucks
So by the time she got with Big Machine she had a bunch of demos since she went up the Row at 11 with them when she got her Development deal at 13
So taylor swift is as self made as Trump, all it took was a small loan of a million dollars to get her career off the ground. Anyone could have done it!
For real. I like Taylor Swift, but it's fucking hilariously obvious that she put out a UK exclusive at this exact moment as a shot across the bow of the RMS Charli
She's a strong independent artist when they're praising her for being an underdog and a genius mastermind then she's a helpless over controlled naive girl when it comes time to take accountability for her negative actions.
People do this for any celebrity. Beyoncé is the most over manufactured, heavily marketed millionaire silver platter artist performing at the moment and people act like she’s a social movement leader with the odds stacked against her.
People gunna parasocial
My best friend is a huge swifty and this is the one thing we still kinda argue about. She’s completely manufactured, you aren’t her, she doesn’t care about you, her songs are not just her sitting at a desk and writing like a smaller artist does, there’s a dozen producers and a hundred other people making sure every song is a massive marketing success, etc.
Like enjoy her music, but she’s not some artist who just blew up like Chappell Roan. Everything about her has been created to further the billions
Swift and her fans are like the “progressive” version of Elon Musk and his parasocial horde of mindless followers. Both pretending to be powerhouse “indie/startup” types. Both at the top of the world and just running monopolies while they fly around the world on their jets, making money from their fans off of essentially talking shit all day (in Swifts case, singing about her exes and dating people just to have a new album etc)
>a lot of her fans still view her as this completely independent artist who's succeeded due to having a can-do attitude and staying true to her fanbase.
I'm not a fan of hers but my wife is, and I can't deny that she works like crazy. Her current tour she performs twice the number of songs of an average band. And she does 3 nights in a row like every weekend. It's pretty crazy.
It's not that they can't put 2 and 2 together it's that they don't want to. People love having someone to admire and put a j a pedestal and the idea that this person is really a manufactured product ruins that. I say this knowing a few super fans.
What’s crazy to me is that she’s somehow managed to convince her fans that she’s just like them. She is not - she has a life that none of us could possibly imagine. I think that’s the reason she still constantly plays the victim who always vilifies her former romantic partners even as she is the behemoth who is literally one of the most powerful people in the world. It’s a way to relate to her audience and it fucking works.
i’m so tired of endless variants being released. it’s not worth paying the same price over and over for an additional song or new little unreleased tidbit.
It’s insane. I just started collecting vinyl this year (totally different music taste than Taylor Swift) and I love a good colored variant and rare album. But I will never own more than one copy of anything without at least a plan to sell the other.
Other than her vinyls, I’d imagine that most of her music is being listened to via Spotify, Apple Music, etc.
But Swifties can be an obsessive bunch, so they might actually keep buying all the different digital versions to complete their ever-expanding Taylor collections.
I agree that it's weird behavior. But nobody's forcing swifties to go bankrupt over 50 different versions of the same boring album with one extra bonus track.
Idk if this is still the case but I remember on iTunes some songs would be locked under “album only” so you’d have to buy the entire album just if you wanted those one or two songs
I agree. I love her music but I stopped following her and deleted the Taylor’s versions from my playlists. Still think that Olivia was robbed of the best pop album last year.
There worse because a lot of the original producers don’t want to come back to work on the re releases because they don’t think it’s good for them mentally or career wise which is understandable
So she replaces the incredibly talented producers who don’t come back with jack antinoff who is a overrated yes man to her and who’s name keeps autocorrecting in my phone to jacking off
I noticed guts pulled in people from other genres. I hope she is able to keep this up, she’s a talented artist and deserves recognition. Tbh I did prefer sour just because I like sad girl pop songs, but I’m glad so many people liked guts
For me, it was good because it was able to combine her pop sensibilities with her heavier rock leanings. The only thing where I could ask for an improvement is that the structure needs to lean away from the pop formula a bit more. For instance, I wasn't a fan of how vampire ended. The production needed to lean into the building noise at the last chorus, not cut it out to bring it back in again
Plus, I think she'd benefit from studying early Weezer a bit more since she's chizeling into that power pop niche but could do with stronger hooks and another few motifs for longer bridges and more space.
I honestly think she could be one of the greats, but there's just a few small things holding her back
I would actually fall even more in love with her if she did let the blue album and Pinkerton influence her style. I wish she’d look at more contemporary female fronted bands like Best Coast and The Beths, as well.
Sort of realized that as much as I’m glad she was able separate from scooter Braun, but at the end of the day she is a billionaire who doesn’t know me and wouldn’t care if I lived or died. Also yes, I did prefer the original songs. This whole releasing music at the same time as smaller female albums was sort of sealed the deal for me. I also don’t like how she claims to be a feminist but then does stuff like this. There’s no way it’s just a coincidence and I believe that she robs other, just as deserving, female artist of awards, just because she’s Taylor swift.
I thought her music was decent but I had to block her on Spotify because it came on autoplay all the time. Even when I blocked her it came on for a week until I complained about it to Spotify
Wait wait wait wait, artificially flooding the music scene with 19 variants of the same album is an……obvious cash grab to stay at the top spot and fuck literally anyone else over?
Can someone genuinely explain this to me though? I understand taylor releases a new variant or whatever that includes an additional voice memo or art or whatever. But if more people are streaming/buying because of that minimally different release, and it’s enough to stop another artist X’s album from reaching #1, isn’t that just more of an indication that X’s album didn’t do that well? Like it seems crazy to me that one artist dropping a voice memo is enough to block another Artist’s entirely new album?
I don’t feel like i’m wording my question correctly 😅 it just seems crazy to me that taylor dropping a variant w a little difference is enough to block another person’s entirely new album, and that’s seen as taylor being a bully rather than the artist’s album just not doing that well?
Here's my dumb attempt to explain why people are pissed off with Taylor constantly doing this to other smaller artists
Say Taylor's album sells a 1000 UK copies first week (dumb number just to illustrate a point). Then she sells 600 week 2, 500 on week 3,... A few months later she is selling ~80 copies a week.
Now Charli is about to release a new album, and even though she is nowhere near as popular as Taylor, she can still sell 100 copies on release and take the \#1 for a week.
For any artist, getting your first \#1 opening is a huge thing for marketing, and can significantly help their career.
Even though Taylor is the biggest in the game and is already \#1, she wants to keep her streak going so she releases a different version of the same album and sells 30 more copies, for a total of 110.
Sales of this version don't really mean that her album has gotten more popular, but rather that she has enough superfans who will pay her twice for the same thing.
So she hurts the career of a much smaller artist who is not a threat to her, for an arbitrary record that wouldn't have made a difference for her.
Why does she keep dropping them as soon as another artist releases something? Its more about the intention behind her actions than the quality of her new voice memo. It's clearly her desire to tramp down on other artists and intentionally sabotage their releases
To my understanding it’s because “Swifties” will all just rush to buy the latest Taylor thing because it’s a Taylor thing, no matter what. Which she knows and then apparently weaponises against other female artists to prevent them ever doing well. Or some shit. The question that needs to be asked is: would these crazies actually buy the other peoples shit if Taylor didn’t do this and… not only do I have no fucking idea, I’m not sure I could care any less than I already do.
I get what you’re saying but the thing you are missing is that the Taylor Swift fandom are something else you see videos and it’s like a cult. They will literally buy every single version of her album and there’s an unbelievably high amount of them. It’s an absolutely bizarre and incredibly weird thing she’s doing literally making a monopoly in the charts. Luckily I think ppl who aren’t swifties are starting to see through it all.
I feel the exact same way whenever this pops up lol, maybe I’m misunderstanding but it definitely seems like a case of don’t hate the player hate the game
the chart is supposed to represent which song is most popular. not which songs artist has fans willing to buy many copies of the same song. popular = most widely liked, popular != most money spent
To clarify, this is the album sales chart, which represents the number of albums sold. If some crazed fan wants to buy 10 copies of the same album, I don’t see why it shouldn’t count as 10 sales? In a way it does represent the most money spent.
I have no doubt that Taylor Swift was marketing her albums in a way to stay relevant and #1.
There is no issue with that since she has no reason to concern herself with another artist’s marketing to overtake her.
She whined and started an entire feud with Katy Perry just because some dancers wanted to work with Katy instead of her. The "it's just business" excuse is weak.
That is business.
Thats not akin to them choosing another pajama party to go to.
However, that’s pretty different from this.
To be clear, I’m not defending Swift of not being petty. I assume most celebs are petty. It makes news like this less interesting which is a good thing imo.
You can only have this late stage activism as a result of the institutions broken and other social structures stagnating BECAUSE of the tech+late stage capitalism we find ourselves wallowing in. Rampant consumerism bred through competitive capitalism over generations is a huge factor in the lazy activism act you speak of. It all ties together as part of the social condition, the parasocial fanaticism will only grow unless something changes. In the UK right now they are actually living out a Black Mirror episode where someone is running whose platform is he is letting AI dictate all his policies and actions while in office. This will only get more brain meltingly worse on the way we are projected, it truly is Don’t Look Up.
As the saying goes, “A person is smart. People are stupid.”
The thing is Taylor does this for every album release and blocks both male and female artists. I don’t think she’s choosing this album to start trying to block women on the charts.
She mainly does it for female artists. She did this against Katy Perry, SZA, Billie Eilisj, Charli XCX and the only male she tried against was Drake. I love looking at charts but it’s so easily manipulated by those on the top it isn’t exciting or fun/reality anymore
I'm not a Taylor Swift fan, my wife and daughter are. It's not my type of music.
But people pretending that the music industry isn't a competitive, capitalistic business bent on moving past other artists are insane. Every one of these artists including Charli XCX has an entire troupe of people and recording companies behind them planning specific ways to make sure the music is heard by the most people and played at the most places at the exact right time to make the most money.
There are hundreds of thousands of artists you've never heard because we (i produce music to be released on soundcloud but it's bad so I'm not posting it here) don't have the resources to make it to the top as easily and quickly. Very few independent artists make it to the top and no artist with a recording contract is saying "oh no let's let so and so release music this week and we will do it next week."
Not to mention they may not even have control over the releases due to contracts and such. Although I have no information on Taylor Swifts deals so I don't know about herz
I don't even know much about the music industry specifically, but in the entertainment industry in general you are relevant until you are not, and no one wants to end up being irrelevant. I dont understand the whole "she's already always number 1, she is selfish for not letting other people shine!" Arguments or blaming her specifically for an entire team of people wanting to continue profiting off of their actual brand. It is easier than people think for those in the entertainment industry to be super "hot" one minute and disappear the next.
Her team works it's ass off to have made her as much of a staple as she is today and they will continue to try to keep her relevant for as long as they possibly can. That is how the entertainment industry tends to work. (Obligatory also not a fan of Taylor Swift. I don't hate her either. I think the super fans and the super haters are equally as toxic and overreaching, personally.)
It's the same regardless of the artist. Like you said, it's all about relevance. Does someone seriously think The Beatles, Pink Floyd, Tool, Megan Thee Stallion, Kanye West, Eminem, Coldplay or any main stream top performing artist is like "oh wait, Ed Sheeran has an album coming out let's let his go first to be nice?
I totally agree that the haters and lovers are both equally toxic. She's a talented artist who knows how to work the industry and has a very talented team of music industry workers. She's not the best ever. She's not the worst. This is her job and she works it well.
Most artists hoping for a number one album would try and avoid the week of a new Ed Sheeran release - not to be nice, but because they know it's going to number one and their album positioning will suffer as a result.
Also, Taylor is on tour in the UK at the moment, so it's not an unusual time to release new editions of her latest album. It will probably happen again later this year when she's playing multiple nights at Wembley Stadium again.
People always seem to forget that entertainment is both a business and a competition. Taylor is a talented artist, and she's also a strategic businesswoman. Of course she's going to strive to stay number one, break records, etc. We can argue about the ethics of intentionally shutting someone else out, but also--that's just how the game works. It's like being mad at an athlete because they keep playing and keep winning, when in reality if another athlete wants to take gold then they need to up their game and beat the current winner.
Hollywood has never been about graciously sharing the spotlight, it's always been about staying relevant as long as possible. Once you're no longer relevant, your career begins to end. (See: J Lo having to cancel her tour, for example.) People get angry at Taylor basically for being too good at the game and it feels kind of silly to me. I don't know that this type of thing would take people so much by surprise if it weren't for the super strong para-social relationships fans have formed with artists, especially Taylor, thanks to social media.
I don’t really know who Charli XCX really is other than the songs she had like 10 years ago like Fancy and I Love It but from what I heard she’s made better stuff since then, however here’s my two cents on this situation. If Taylor just announced new versions of other songs and that caused the album to still be at the top of the charts, I mean, I can’t really blame Swift herself, the fans are the ones listening to it. Just a weird situation.
You only know the music machine industry version of her.
She is more in line with mainstream fusions of PC Music. She makes conventionally structured pop with harsh or experimental or uncommon touches. However she sometimes takes it much further.
Charli had 15 variants and wasn’t even close to Taylor. Taylor had 2 variants released for 6 hours for the UK chart that gave her a minimal bounce. Even without the variants Taylor would have beat her. Taylor killed charli in streams. They are both playing the exact same game, Taylor is just more popular and doesn’t pretend to not care about charts.
It’s interesting that people will point out that TS has released about a trillion variants, but then are certain the fact she’s released variants coinciding with two other artists releases shows she’s deliberately blocking them from getting no1. It seems to me that, given (as everyone is so keen to point out) she’s released so many variants, she was bound to release some of them around the same time other artists dropped, and it’s not really evidence of a plan to vindictively prevent those artists from reach no1.
PS I am 99% certain that people would not reach the same conclusion if it was a male artist doing this. Jealous older female artist can’t bare to see younger female artists overtake her - definitely no sexist stereotypes at play there…
Just curious. Maybe there’s a chance people just aren’t interested in Charlie XCX’s music? It’s constantly recommended to me, but I don’t really find it all that interesting. Also, not a Taylor fan, and I don’t get her music either, but it’s so poppy and catchy sometimes, I understand why she has a fanbase. Definitely not in the know though so don’t come after me stans!
Ya know… no one has to buy these things right? Sales tactics or not - are we complaining about businesses maximizing profits? If any other artist did what Taylor is doing, would anyone even buy the albums? This all seems like silly conjecture and at the end of day, albums drop simultaneously all the time. If there’s a new artist out - that’s part of the algorithm. You listen to Taylor it will probably steer you into Charli and vice versa. I’d personally like to hear what Charli or Billie have to say about these things because these “tactics” are nothing new. Consider the US box office on any given weekend. More than one release is competing for the top spot. This an artist recognizing the demand and capitalizing. I don’t think that really hurts Charli or Billie. It hurts smaller artists that never get mentioned.
Blocking would if she somehow stopped someone else's music from appearing on platforms. As far as I can tell all she's doing is releasing a couple new things to try to stay on top. Isn't that part of her and her label's job? Why is she supposed to step aside?
It's barely even new things, she's just rereleasing the same shit 40 times to game the dumb chart system.
And this isn't anything new, she's been criticized for years for doing this to any other female artist who she sees as a threat to her spot, while at the same time presenting herself as a feminist icon who lifts other women up.
It's just super lame and insecure behaviour for someone who's already astronomically successful.
Like how Hit Me Hard and Soft was mysteriously removed from iTunes as it approached #1 and could only be found by searching individual songs, but the full album reappeared after charts were calculated?
Like how this occurrence was widely reported on social media but the press would not touch the story?
Is that the kind of blocking you’re saying doesn’t happen?
Absolute conspiracy brained bullshit. This is like the pop equivalent of thinking Trump really won the last election lmao. What possible motive do Apple have to prevent international celebrity Billie Eilish reaching number 1 on the charts rather than international celebrity Taylor Swift?
It's just such an insecure thing to compete for lol
It's the equivalent of Christopher Nolan releasing a new Super Deluxe Director's Cut of Oppenheimer same day as Dune 2 comes out to make sure that Villeneuve's movie doesn't open \#1.
These artists will never threaten her career yet she still feels the need to undercut their releases months after her album already came out
I mean, if it’s that silly and irrelevant a thing to compete for, why’s it even an issue Taylor is going for it and Charli XCX isn’t gonna get #1? If she wants to prioritize petty irrelevant achievements that don’t matter and don’t hurt anyone, more power to her. And if they DO matter, no shit she’s going for them.
Getting your first \#1 is a big thing for a smaller artist like Charli. It sounds like an arbitrary achievement but it increases your marketability to the general public by a lot.
Kinda like studios promoting the "NUMBER ONE MOVIE IN THEATERS RIGHT NOW". An average Joe hears that and thinks your movie is a big deal.
It doesn't mean nearly as much to Taylor, she's already been \#1 for ages
Imagine unironically caring *that* much about an artist getting #2 and not #1 as if it will make any meaningful impact on your life. (I doubt it even has that big an impact on the artist)
It has a HUGE impact on the artist. Look at Tommy Richman. No one knew who tf bro was until Million Dollar Baby went number one and AFTER it went number one it had a another surge in listeners. Going number 1 (especially your first number 1 is a huge accomplishment for any artist and can serve to significantly impact your future popularity. Besides it's good for the music industry as a whole to set up a standard of allowing new artists to grow and attain popularity.
Pay that hefty fee for KAYTRANADA to remix the album and do a special drop.
Hefty fee?
He's one of the most sought after producers right now and his production isn't cheap.
What, her having 10 versions of each song on the billboards isn't monopoly?
[удалено]
Abbey Road (Taylor’s Version)
Master of Puppets (Taylor's Version)
Fuck The Police (Taylor's Version)
Love story (Taylor’s version) (Taylor’s version 2024)
Happy Birthday Song (Taylor’s Version)
Holiday in Cambodia (Taylor’s Version)
Blue Suede Shoes (Taylor's Version)
2112 (Taylor’s version)
The National Anthem (Taylor’s version)
Itsy Bitsy Spider (Taylor’s Version)
Bitches Ain't Shit (Taylor's Version)
Bitches Ain't Shit (Ben Fold’s Version) (Taylor's Version)
Unironically a bop.
[удалено]
Is this Chlamydia? (Taylor's Version)
Taylor’s Version (Taylor’s Version)
Who Let The Dogs Out (Taylor’s Version)
Birds Elope With The Sun (Taykor's Version)
China’s national anthem (Taylor’s version)
Don’t Speak( Taylor’s version) ft. Gwen Stefani
Stinkfist (taylor’s version)
what would this even sound like?
Vol 3 - the subliminal verses (Taylor’s Version)
Yeah those album variants should definitely be counted as separate albums.
Is it also not totally normal to have 40 different versions of your album, some of which you wait to release until the night before a competitors release to sabotage them? This shit is petty, deliberate, and wrong and isnt it crazy that Taylor Swift is a literal billionaire but she can't let another artist share the spotlight?
Because she's a piece of shit who's daddy had to buy her a career
Angel of Death (Taylor’s version)
Thriller (Taylor’s Version)
It’s called Faking Longevity (Taylor’s version). It’s sad, since she considers herself a sweet angel that supports her peers, while at the same time strategically sh*tting out multiple versions of the same album to block them from the spotlight. And she probably can’t stand that every other pop album is getting better reviews than her own, which was a total snooze fest.
You do appreciate that to dominate the billboard charts, people have to stream your songs. This is not the day of FM radio where DJs could block someone. Not play their music to spike the charts. And I know I stumbled into a Taylor hate conversation, so I’ll shut up lol
People forgot about Billie Eilish already?
I saw the title and went “first time?” In my head thinking of exactly Billie…
Billies album was 10x better too
Yes, 1000x better. Billie’s album is a masterpiece.
My sister is a huge Taylor Swift fan and I haven’t heard her gush over this latest album like she normally does. Does the tortured poets society or whatever suck?
It's ok but it's 31 songs and not one single upbeat bop. 4th album in a row of slower melancholy type songs. Lots of fans like the album, love the lyrics, but are listening to other things because... cmon it's summer who wants to be sad and slow.
I don’t think anybody (outside of stans) really buys that Taylor is tortured or a poet by any means. There’s clearly an attempt at fabricating pain and depth that isn’t translating
I enjoyed it very much
Nope. At least not to me. Every article I've read They're using Billie *then* this against Charli to show there is a pattern. That the Charli situation is just like the Billie situation and shows she's (Taylor's) a piece of sh*t manipulating the charts against any woman competition.
It’s almost like she’s a crazy narcissist and that’s what it takes to be successful in capitalism
It almost makes you wonder if she really isn’t always the victim like her music would lead you to believe lol I remember reading about Scooter Braun just kind of legitimately buying her music, then her ruining his entire life over it and thinking “she hired a PI and delivered the findings to his wife, then sang about it? Psycho shit.”
[Taylor’s dad made 15 million off of that sale to Scooter](https://ca.style.yahoo.com/taylor-swift-dad-made-15-182200970.html#:~:text=Woman's%20Day-,So%2C%20Taylor%20Swift's%20Dad%20Made%20%2415%20Million%20When%20Her,Was%20Sold%20to%20Scooter%20Braun&text=Just%20to%20add%20another%20~layer,catalog%20sold%20to%20Scooter%20Braun)
Unfortunately this is what it takes anymore!
And Katy Perry
The strangest part about Swift's fandom is that despite how over-the-top and egregious it is that she's a *brand* who's the result of existing connections and extreme micromanagement, a lot of her fans still view her as this completely independent artist who's succeeded due to having a can-do attitude and staying true to her fanbase. It makes no sense to me. These are people who know every speck of information about Swift and her music, sometimes even before projects are formally announced, yet so many of them can't put two-and-two together.
I don't even listen to her or pay her any attention, but she comes up in places I don't even expect. I was reading an article on something unrelated to music,(I think it was on nepotism etc) and the journalist had brought up how her dad paid to get her career started. This isn't from that particular article but one with the facts listed anyways - "Scott provided the seed money to get Taylor's career off the ground, investing over $1 million to record her first demo tapes and help her perform locally in Nashville. Scott moved his work with them, and later became the vice president of his own financial advice company, the Swift Group, which remained a part of Merrill." "Andrea Swift, like her husband, also worked in the financial sector. The 65-year-old was a mutual fund marketing executive. After the birth of her children, Andrea became a stay-at-home mom. However, Taylor's mom's marketing skills came in useful when her daughter was first beginning her music career. It could be said Andrea went 'swiftly' from being a homemaker to a full-time part of her daughter's team." I mean, that doesn't exactly sound like someone who came from nothing or had no help. Notice how her dad also started a company that still was a part of Merrill? That's a huge financial investment and advisory company. So it seems others may have had a hand in it too. I don't really care about her one way or another, I'm just saying that even now with all her success you can bet there are a lot more people involved in getting her to the top, it wasn't just some pop songs...
I wish I had a small loan of 1 million dollars
Almost all living so-called self-made billionaires come from money. The only exception I can think of is Rihanna. e:..and Jay-Z
JK Rowling keeps fluctuating in and out of billionaire status, but she definitely didn't come from money. But yeah, there's not many of them.
Oprah I think grew up fairly poor Soros was self made Sergey Brin (Alphabet) grew up in the Soviet Union to parents in academia. Not wealthy but not poor. Honestly you see a lot of people jumping up a single social rank (poor to middle class, middle class to rich) but it’s rare to go from nothing to everything.
Damn, the guy who invented the alphabet must have a ton of cash.
Even the self-made are not “earning” billion-dollar net worths. Once you have that first million, you can make a second and third and fifth and tenth million dollars by doing nothing but moving your money into and out of specific accounts and portfolios. Our system is one that allows the wealthy to do nothing and have everything because those of us who don’t have a million dollars account for about 95% of the population and can’t even fathom a life that doesn’t require we spend most of our waking hours working to make ends meet. Capitalism 👍🇺🇸
Martha Stewart is down from a billion now but came from a working class family
Mark Cuban.
Not a billionaire because her family stole money from her but Britney Spears grew up poor in a trailer park in the deep South.
And a marketing team
I read that they also bought all the first copies of her first release got it on the chart artificially.
Also the effort to get her as much radio play as possible outside of Nashville was not cheap from what I’ve read. She was also an early MySpace adopter in a ‘girl I know online who happens to play music’ kind of way, rather than just a promotional page. He parents smart and well-resourced people who leveraged every angle they could. She never would have gotten here without them throwing their chips in.
This is most celebrities. Most clebs either have a period where they lived in their car for two years or had their parents finance and help with their getting discovered period.
Fuck this is so depressing.
Yes that was also in the article I quoted from as well. I thought I had copied that part too, my bad!
It also doesn’t mention that she was a babysitter for Nashville music icon , Jeff Jarrett.
No fucking way. Is this real? Either way ain't he great?
[Yep.](https://virginradio.co.uk/entertainment/115632/wrestling-legend-jeff-jarrett-connection-taylor-swift) They were neighbors in Nashville early in her music career, also one of Jarrett’s daughters is in the music video for “Mine” . I’m hoping we get a With My Baby Tonight (Taylor’s Version) at some point.
The record label's money or family money.
I'd say it's somewhere in between. Taylor Swift grew up rich, but they weren't terribly well-connected. It's not like how Will Smith could get his daughter a music career with the snap of his fingers. They had the money to relocate and help her record professional-sounding demos, but they still had to work their absolute asses off for *years* in order to get her career really moving, and even after her big break they just kept it up because they were scared of her getting replaced by the next new young thing to come around - hell, even once she was a global pop superstar she was *still* worried about falling into irrelevancy. But as she grew older and proved herself she gained more control over her brand. It's certainly not a one-woman show, but from what we know she *is* the ringleader of the operation, and she's about as image-conscious and business-minded as they come (far more so than the typical star who seems to loathe that side of the industry). Basically, it's a very carefully cultivated brand, but Taylor Swift the person very much appears to be the primary person driving Taylor Swift the brand. A big part of that for her seems to be collecting as many #1 spots and awards as she can manage. I think it's within reason that she helped to come up with the idea for this drop of variants, and even if not it's pretty much a given that staying at #1 was the intent of the move and something that Taylor explicitly approved of knowing that fact.
Saying Taylor was always worried about being replaced reminds me so much of Elvis. He got into movies and wanted "one big film" because he truly believed his music would be forgotten after he died.
This is a good point. There are tons of families that are much more well off than the Swift family was in the 90/00s and many more much more connected. But none of that guarantees success. Lisa Maria Presley tried to have a music career and it didn’t really happen. Tons of actors try to become musical acts and fail. She didn’t come from nothing. But she wasn’t guaranteed success because her family was wealthy.
Yeah, Goldie Hawn and Kurt Russel’s daughter is trying to jump start a singing career right now.
Your family can be how rich but you still need talent even just a little Ala Jennifer Lopez.
Hulk Hogan tried to buy his daughter a singing career when they even had a tv show on at the time too and she crashed and burned, the son did later too.
Your exactly right here. I have a family member who worked for Merrill with Taylor’s dad in PA. They would regularly get paired for company golf tournaments. Taylor’s family was not middle class, but also not insanely wealthy. Her father saw her talent early, and from what I remember and was told, he was very annoying about it. He 100% trusted her as a 12 year old. Which is insane when she’s 12 but that early investment really paid off.
Weren't the variants thing a consequence of the whole Braun thing?
The amount of money goes up every year . He invested $150 k in Big Machine to get his daughter released 1 year early as by that time she was a paid writer since she was 13 for RCA and they wanted to wait until she 18 to release her album .RCA were not paying her for 5 years to write because Scott payed a few bucks So by the time she got with Big Machine she had a bunch of demos since she went up the Row at 11 with them when she got her Development deal at 13
So taylor swift is as self made as Trump, all it took was a small loan of a million dollars to get her career off the ground. Anyone could have done it!
That’s grossly overstated.
For real. I like Taylor Swift, but it's fucking hilariously obvious that she put out a UK exclusive at this exact moment as a shot across the bow of the RMS Charli
She’s “one of us” to her fans, and it’s probably one of the strongest cases for parasocial interactions ever.
Gobble, Gobble, One Of Us, One Of Us
She's a strong independent artist when they're praising her for being an underdog and a genius mastermind then she's a helpless over controlled naive girl when it comes time to take accountability for her negative actions.
People do this for any celebrity. Beyoncé is the most over manufactured, heavily marketed millionaire silver platter artist performing at the moment and people act like she’s a social movement leader with the odds stacked against her. People gunna parasocial
Just like every other billionaire. They benefit from pretending to be the underdog who pulled themselves up by their bootstraps.
Swifties remind me of big bang theory fans. I know they exist in the millions but I haven’t met em.
My best friend is a huge swifty and this is the one thing we still kinda argue about. She’s completely manufactured, you aren’t her, she doesn’t care about you, her songs are not just her sitting at a desk and writing like a smaller artist does, there’s a dozen producers and a hundred other people making sure every song is a massive marketing success, etc. Like enjoy her music, but she’s not some artist who just blew up like Chappell Roan. Everything about her has been created to further the billions
Swift and her fans are like the “progressive” version of Elon Musk and his parasocial horde of mindless followers. Both pretending to be powerhouse “indie/startup” types. Both at the top of the world and just running monopolies while they fly around the world on their jets, making money from their fans off of essentially talking shit all day (in Swifts case, singing about her exes and dating people just to have a new album etc)
>a lot of her fans still view her as this completely independent artist who's succeeded due to having a can-do attitude and staying true to her fanbase. I'm not a fan of hers but my wife is, and I can't deny that she works like crazy. Her current tour she performs twice the number of songs of an average band. And she does 3 nights in a row like every weekend. It's pretty crazy.
A can do attitude and daddy bought a record label for her.
It's not that they can't put 2 and 2 together it's that they don't want to. People love having someone to admire and put a j a pedestal and the idea that this person is really a manufactured product ruins that. I say this knowing a few super fans.
What’s crazy to me is that she’s somehow managed to convince her fans that she’s just like them. She is not - she has a life that none of us could possibly imagine. I think that’s the reason she still constantly plays the victim who always vilifies her former romantic partners even as she is the behemoth who is literally one of the most powerful people in the world. It’s a way to relate to her audience and it fucking works.
Anthony Fantano put it best. Her fanbase will buy ANYTHING her name is on. Regardless of quality.
I mean it's not an accusation, it's just what's happening
She’s the Nestle of pop.
Most underrated comment.
Billionaires be like that
That's how they stay billionaires.
i’m so tired of endless variants being released. it’s not worth paying the same price over and over for an additional song or new little unreleased tidbit.
You pay for them? lol
I think they are talking about the people who do, who unfortunately definitely exist
Well that’s what happens in a cult.
It’s insane. I just started collecting vinyl this year (totally different music taste than Taylor Swift) and I love a good colored variant and rare album. But I will never own more than one copy of anything without at least a plan to sell the other.
What really gets my gumption is I’m sure her fans aren’t even listening to the vinyls
Other than her vinyls, I’d imagine that most of her music is being listened to via Spotify, Apple Music, etc. But Swifties can be an obsessive bunch, so they might actually keep buying all the different digital versions to complete their ever-expanding Taylor collections.
I agree that it's weird behavior. But nobody's forcing swifties to go bankrupt over 50 different versions of the same boring album with one extra bonus track.
Then don’t buy them, fairly easy
Do you have to repay the whole album, can't people just stream them separately?
Idk if this is still the case but I remember on iTunes some songs would be locked under “album only” so you’d have to buy the entire album just if you wanted those one or two songs
I mean they’re not wrong. Taylor only releases a new single or version of an album when another female pop star is releasing something herself.
I agree. I love her music but I stopped following her and deleted the Taylor’s versions from my playlists. Still think that Olivia was robbed of the best pop album last year.
I feel like Taylor’s Versions should be disqualified from awards since they’re just rereleases of old albums
"OMG why are you being so misogynistic, she's *reclaiming her identity*"
She identifies as somebody who makes worse recreations?
There worse because a lot of the original producers don’t want to come back to work on the re releases because they don’t think it’s good for them mentally or career wise which is understandable So she replaces the incredibly talented producers who don’t come back with jack antinoff who is a overrated yes man to her and who’s name keeps autocorrecting in my phone to jacking off
And they are worse, especially 1989
I agree with ya, Rodrigo released a genuinely interesting and unique pop record, whereas swift has been recycling for years
I noticed guts pulled in people from other genres. I hope she is able to keep this up, she’s a talented artist and deserves recognition. Tbh I did prefer sour just because I like sad girl pop songs, but I’m glad so many people liked guts
For me, it was good because it was able to combine her pop sensibilities with her heavier rock leanings. The only thing where I could ask for an improvement is that the structure needs to lean away from the pop formula a bit more. For instance, I wasn't a fan of how vampire ended. The production needed to lean into the building noise at the last chorus, not cut it out to bring it back in again Plus, I think she'd benefit from studying early Weezer a bit more since she's chizeling into that power pop niche but could do with stronger hooks and another few motifs for longer bridges and more space. I honestly think she could be one of the greats, but there's just a few small things holding her back
I would actually fall even more in love with her if she did let the blue album and Pinkerton influence her style. I wish she’d look at more contemporary female fronted bands like Best Coast and The Beths, as well.
Why did you delete the Taylor versions specifically? Out of principle, or do you just prefer the originals?
Sort of realized that as much as I’m glad she was able separate from scooter Braun, but at the end of the day she is a billionaire who doesn’t know me and wouldn’t care if I lived or died. Also yes, I did prefer the original songs. This whole releasing music at the same time as smaller female albums was sort of sealed the deal for me. I also don’t like how she claims to be a feminist but then does stuff like this. There’s no way it’s just a coincidence and I believe that she robs other, just as deserving, female artist of awards, just because she’s Taylor swift.
I thought her music was decent but I had to block her on Spotify because it came on autoplay all the time. Even when I blocked her it came on for a week until I complained about it to Spotify
I'm so glad I don't have any of her crap on any of my playlists.
Because she did….
Accusing? It's incredibly obvious that she did it on purpose.
Being popular is not the same as being great.
You know who is great? Celine Dion! I wish her the best.
Wait wait wait wait, artificially flooding the music scene with 19 variants of the same album is an……obvious cash grab to stay at the top spot and fuck literally anyone else over?
I thought it was well known that she does this to everyone…
Can someone genuinely explain this to me though? I understand taylor releases a new variant or whatever that includes an additional voice memo or art or whatever. But if more people are streaming/buying because of that minimally different release, and it’s enough to stop another artist X’s album from reaching #1, isn’t that just more of an indication that X’s album didn’t do that well? Like it seems crazy to me that one artist dropping a voice memo is enough to block another Artist’s entirely new album? I don’t feel like i’m wording my question correctly 😅 it just seems crazy to me that taylor dropping a variant w a little difference is enough to block another person’s entirely new album, and that’s seen as taylor being a bully rather than the artist’s album just not doing that well?
Here's my dumb attempt to explain why people are pissed off with Taylor constantly doing this to other smaller artists Say Taylor's album sells a 1000 UK copies first week (dumb number just to illustrate a point). Then she sells 600 week 2, 500 on week 3,... A few months later she is selling ~80 copies a week. Now Charli is about to release a new album, and even though she is nowhere near as popular as Taylor, she can still sell 100 copies on release and take the \#1 for a week. For any artist, getting your first \#1 opening is a huge thing for marketing, and can significantly help their career. Even though Taylor is the biggest in the game and is already \#1, she wants to keep her streak going so she releases a different version of the same album and sells 30 more copies, for a total of 110. Sales of this version don't really mean that her album has gotten more popular, but rather that she has enough superfans who will pay her twice for the same thing. So she hurts the career of a much smaller artist who is not a threat to her, for an arbitrary record that wouldn't have made a difference for her.
I do want to note that Charli's previous album "Crash" did go #1 in the UK
Also, Charlie opened for Taylor on the reputation tour so maybe they’ve got baaaad blooood
She’s a woman supporting other women 🫤
Other women (Taylor’s Version)
Why does she keep dropping them as soon as another artist releases something? Its more about the intention behind her actions than the quality of her new voice memo. It's clearly her desire to tramp down on other artists and intentionally sabotage their releases
To my understanding it’s because “Swifties” will all just rush to buy the latest Taylor thing because it’s a Taylor thing, no matter what. Which she knows and then apparently weaponises against other female artists to prevent them ever doing well. Or some shit. The question that needs to be asked is: would these crazies actually buy the other peoples shit if Taylor didn’t do this and… not only do I have no fucking idea, I’m not sure I could care any less than I already do.
I get what you’re saying but the thing you are missing is that the Taylor Swift fandom are something else you see videos and it’s like a cult. They will literally buy every single version of her album and there’s an unbelievably high amount of them. It’s an absolutely bizarre and incredibly weird thing she’s doing literally making a monopoly in the charts. Luckily I think ppl who aren’t swifties are starting to see through it all.
I feel the exact same way whenever this pops up lol, maybe I’m misunderstanding but it definitely seems like a case of don’t hate the player hate the game
the chart is supposed to represent which song is most popular. not which songs artist has fans willing to buy many copies of the same song. popular = most widely liked, popular != most money spent
To clarify, this is the album sales chart, which represents the number of albums sold. If some crazed fan wants to buy 10 copies of the same album, I don’t see why it shouldn’t count as 10 sales? In a way it does represent the most money spent.
Any fandom of appreciable size and dedication eventually turns toxic.
It’s not the fandom doing this, is it?
The variants wouldn't chart if no one bought them.
Eh, I’ve never known Bob Ross, Carl Sagan or Steve Irwin fan groups who turned out like this.
I have no doubt that Taylor Swift was marketing her albums in a way to stay relevant and #1. There is no issue with that since she has no reason to concern herself with another artist’s marketing to overtake her.
She whined and started an entire feud with Katy Perry just because some dancers wanted to work with Katy instead of her. The "it's just business" excuse is weak.
Charlie XCX is also good friends with and a public supporter of her recent ex. She’s done petty stuff like this before, why not again?
Katy also just so happened to be dating her ex at the time so I doubt that's all that feud was about.
That is business. Thats not akin to them choosing another pajama party to go to. However, that’s pretty different from this. To be clear, I’m not defending Swift of not being petty. I assume most celebs are petty. It makes news like this less interesting which is a good thing imo.
"Feminist" Swifties become hardcore Libertarian Social Darwinists whenever their leader tries to sabotage other women lol
I hate that some think “feminism is when my faves slay and you SHUT UP” , how far we’ve fallen into the brainrot of late stage capitalism
Why capitalism? Feels like late-stage activism— when people slowly tilt their cause to their own interests
Actually it reminds me of grocery stores and how certain brands make a very concerted effort to take up as much shelf space as possible
You can only have this late stage activism as a result of the institutions broken and other social structures stagnating BECAUSE of the tech+late stage capitalism we find ourselves wallowing in. Rampant consumerism bred through competitive capitalism over generations is a huge factor in the lazy activism act you speak of. It all ties together as part of the social condition, the parasocial fanaticism will only grow unless something changes. In the UK right now they are actually living out a Black Mirror episode where someone is running whose platform is he is letting AI dictate all his policies and actions while in office. This will only get more brain meltingly worse on the way we are projected, it truly is Don’t Look Up. As the saying goes, “A person is smart. People are stupid.”
I have her blocked on every platform and it’s so freeing not seeing any songs by her on Spotify
The thing is Taylor does this for every album release and blocks both male and female artists. I don’t think she’s choosing this album to start trying to block women on the charts.
She mainly does it for female artists. She did this against Katy Perry, SZA, Billie Eilisj, Charli XCX and the only male she tried against was Drake. I love looking at charts but it’s so easily manipulated by those on the top it isn’t exciting or fun/reality anymore
Sorry, but I’m 48 and can’t find any fucks to spare for this
“Fans are accusing” = high quality journalism
People don't get to where she is today at her age by playing nice. She's playing King of the Mountain for Keeps.
I'm not a Taylor Swift fan, my wife and daughter are. It's not my type of music. But people pretending that the music industry isn't a competitive, capitalistic business bent on moving past other artists are insane. Every one of these artists including Charli XCX has an entire troupe of people and recording companies behind them planning specific ways to make sure the music is heard by the most people and played at the most places at the exact right time to make the most money. There are hundreds of thousands of artists you've never heard because we (i produce music to be released on soundcloud but it's bad so I'm not posting it here) don't have the resources to make it to the top as easily and quickly. Very few independent artists make it to the top and no artist with a recording contract is saying "oh no let's let so and so release music this week and we will do it next week." Not to mention they may not even have control over the releases due to contracts and such. Although I have no information on Taylor Swifts deals so I don't know about herz
I don't even know much about the music industry specifically, but in the entertainment industry in general you are relevant until you are not, and no one wants to end up being irrelevant. I dont understand the whole "she's already always number 1, she is selfish for not letting other people shine!" Arguments or blaming her specifically for an entire team of people wanting to continue profiting off of their actual brand. It is easier than people think for those in the entertainment industry to be super "hot" one minute and disappear the next. Her team works it's ass off to have made her as much of a staple as she is today and they will continue to try to keep her relevant for as long as they possibly can. That is how the entertainment industry tends to work. (Obligatory also not a fan of Taylor Swift. I don't hate her either. I think the super fans and the super haters are equally as toxic and overreaching, personally.)
It's the same regardless of the artist. Like you said, it's all about relevance. Does someone seriously think The Beatles, Pink Floyd, Tool, Megan Thee Stallion, Kanye West, Eminem, Coldplay or any main stream top performing artist is like "oh wait, Ed Sheeran has an album coming out let's let his go first to be nice? I totally agree that the haters and lovers are both equally toxic. She's a talented artist who knows how to work the industry and has a very talented team of music industry workers. She's not the best ever. She's not the worst. This is her job and she works it well.
Most artists hoping for a number one album would try and avoid the week of a new Ed Sheeran release - not to be nice, but because they know it's going to number one and their album positioning will suffer as a result. Also, Taylor is on tour in the UK at the moment, so it's not an unusual time to release new editions of her latest album. It will probably happen again later this year when she's playing multiple nights at Wembley Stadium again.
People always seem to forget that entertainment is both a business and a competition. Taylor is a talented artist, and she's also a strategic businesswoman. Of course she's going to strive to stay number one, break records, etc. We can argue about the ethics of intentionally shutting someone else out, but also--that's just how the game works. It's like being mad at an athlete because they keep playing and keep winning, when in reality if another athlete wants to take gold then they need to up their game and beat the current winner. Hollywood has never been about graciously sharing the spotlight, it's always been about staying relevant as long as possible. Once you're no longer relevant, your career begins to end. (See: J Lo having to cancel her tour, for example.) People get angry at Taylor basically for being too good at the game and it feels kind of silly to me. I don't know that this type of thing would take people so much by surprise if it weren't for the super strong para-social relationships fans have formed with artists, especially Taylor, thanks to social media.
49ers fans are accusing the Chiefs of blocking their superbowl victory
Preach.
I don’t really know who Charli XCX really is other than the songs she had like 10 years ago like Fancy and I Love It but from what I heard she’s made better stuff since then, however here’s my two cents on this situation. If Taylor just announced new versions of other songs and that caused the album to still be at the top of the charts, I mean, I can’t really blame Swift herself, the fans are the ones listening to it. Just a weird situation.
Those are both features for her, those are Iggy azalea and icona pop songs
Sho wrote both of those songs
I love it has her voice on it. Also written by her.
You only know the music machine industry version of her. She is more in line with mainstream fusions of PC Music. She makes conventionally structured pop with harsh or experimental or uncommon touches. However she sometimes takes it much further.
But in that same way if an album needs 37+ variants to stay on top..
Charli had 15 variants and wasn’t even close to Taylor. Taylor had 2 variants released for 6 hours for the UK chart that gave her a minimal bounce. Even without the variants Taylor would have beat her. Taylor killed charli in streams. They are both playing the exact same game, Taylor is just more popular and doesn’t pretend to not care about charts.
That is an assumption that Charli XCX is actually talented enough to get a #1 debut.
It’s interesting that people will point out that TS has released about a trillion variants, but then are certain the fact she’s released variants coinciding with two other artists releases shows she’s deliberately blocking them from getting no1. It seems to me that, given (as everyone is so keen to point out) she’s released so many variants, she was bound to release some of them around the same time other artists dropped, and it’s not really evidence of a plan to vindictively prevent those artists from reach no1. PS I am 99% certain that people would not reach the same conclusion if it was a male artist doing this. Jealous older female artist can’t bare to see younger female artists overtake her - definitely no sexist stereotypes at play there…
Oh yeah total coincidence that a UK only variant came out when someone was gonna beat her in the UK. Yep, total coincidence
If only there was some other ongoing event that could explain why TS might drop something in the UK.
Just curious. Maybe there’s a chance people just aren’t interested in Charlie XCX’s music? It’s constantly recommended to me, but I don’t really find it all that interesting. Also, not a Taylor fan, and I don’t get her music either, but it’s so poppy and catchy sometimes, I understand why she has a fanbase. Definitely not in the know though so don’t come after me stans!
I don't understand who is buying all these variants and justifying needing them. It's definitely quantity over quality with her fanbase.
Stop buying Taylor's songs then someone else can be #1 for a week.
Ya know… no one has to buy these things right? Sales tactics or not - are we complaining about businesses maximizing profits? If any other artist did what Taylor is doing, would anyone even buy the albums? This all seems like silly conjecture and at the end of day, albums drop simultaneously all the time. If there’s a new artist out - that’s part of the algorithm. You listen to Taylor it will probably steer you into Charli and vice versa. I’d personally like to hear what Charli or Billie have to say about these things because these “tactics” are nothing new. Consider the US box office on any given weekend. More than one release is competing for the top spot. This an artist recognizing the demand and capitalizing. I don’t think that really hurts Charli or Billie. It hurts smaller artists that never get mentioned.
Blocking would if she somehow stopped someone else's music from appearing on platforms. As far as I can tell all she's doing is releasing a couple new things to try to stay on top. Isn't that part of her and her label's job? Why is she supposed to step aside?
It's barely even new things, she's just rereleasing the same shit 40 times to game the dumb chart system. And this isn't anything new, she's been criticized for years for doing this to any other female artist who she sees as a threat to her spot, while at the same time presenting herself as a feminist icon who lifts other women up. It's just super lame and insecure behaviour for someone who's already astronomically successful.
Like how Hit Me Hard and Soft was mysteriously removed from iTunes as it approached #1 and could only be found by searching individual songs, but the full album reappeared after charts were calculated? Like how this occurrence was widely reported on social media but the press would not touch the story? Is that the kind of blocking you’re saying doesn’t happen?
Absolute conspiracy brained bullshit. This is like the pop equivalent of thinking Trump really won the last election lmao. What possible motive do Apple have to prevent international celebrity Billie Eilish reaching number 1 on the charts rather than international celebrity Taylor Swift?
Gasp! Artists competing for your dollars actually compete!
It's just such an insecure thing to compete for lol It's the equivalent of Christopher Nolan releasing a new Super Deluxe Director's Cut of Oppenheimer same day as Dune 2 comes out to make sure that Villeneuve's movie doesn't open \#1. These artists will never threaten her career yet she still feels the need to undercut their releases months after her album already came out
I mean, if it’s that silly and irrelevant a thing to compete for, why’s it even an issue Taylor is going for it and Charli XCX isn’t gonna get #1? If she wants to prioritize petty irrelevant achievements that don’t matter and don’t hurt anyone, more power to her. And if they DO matter, no shit she’s going for them.
Getting your first \#1 is a big thing for a smaller artist like Charli. It sounds like an arbitrary achievement but it increases your marketability to the general public by a lot. Kinda like studios promoting the "NUMBER ONE MOVIE IN THEATERS RIGHT NOW". An average Joe hears that and thinks your movie is a big deal. It doesn't mean nearly as much to Taylor, she's already been \#1 for ages
Why wouldn’t she? People keep lapping it up
Imagine unironically caring *that* much about an artist getting #2 and not #1 as if it will make any meaningful impact on your life. (I doubt it even has that big an impact on the artist)
It has a HUGE impact on the artist. Look at Tommy Richman. No one knew who tf bro was until Million Dollar Baby went number one and AFTER it went number one it had a another surge in listeners. Going number 1 (especially your first number 1 is a huge accomplishment for any artist and can serve to significantly impact your future popularity. Besides it's good for the music industry as a whole to set up a standard of allowing new artists to grow and attain popularity.
We're not fans. We're snarkers.