TEANUS 11,299 Posted November 16, 2014 Share Posted November 16, 2014 I always knew she was a greedy c*nt. Here's my theory as to why she is so pressed: She barely missed Britney's record. She feels cheated out of it because instead of buying her album, people streamed it, which caused her to not get as many sales and thus miss the record. She's well aware that the only way people will remember her album 10 years from now is if she were to surpass the record. She is really trying too hard. This could kinda be true, she really didn't give a f*ck as much until after the first week, then it escalated to not just keeping the album off, but she took her WHOLE catalog off British social ladies with upturned pinkies, glasses clinking // xoxoTEANUS Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redstreak 6,652 Posted November 16, 2014 Share Posted November 16, 2014 I always knew she was a greedy c*nt. Here's my theory as to why she is so pressed: She barely missed Britney's record. She feels cheated out of it because instead of buying her album, people streamed it, which caused her to not get as many sales and thus miss the record. She's well aware that the only way people will remember her album 10 years from now is if she were to surpass the record. She is really trying too hard. She wrote a news piece on her being against Spotify for the New York Times all the way back in July? This could kinda be true, she really didn't give a f*ck as much until after the first week, then it escalated to not just keeping the album off, but she took her WHOLE catalog off That was her label head that came up with that idea. He said "if we're gonna make statement with 1989, why don't we make a statement with all your music about their inherent value?" and she agreed. Take a moment to think of just flexibility, love, and trust~ Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TEANUS 11,299 Posted November 16, 2014 Share Posted November 16, 2014 She wrote a news piece on her being against Spotify for the New York Times all the way back in July? That was her label head that came up with that idea. He said "if we're gonna make statement with 1989, why don't we make a statement with all your music about their inherent value?" and she agreed. Oh ok :) Sorry my bad :hug: British social ladies with upturned pinkies, glasses clinking // xoxoTEANUS Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcoop 628 Posted November 16, 2014 Share Posted November 16, 2014 Taylor is on the wrong side of history with this one. I like her, but streaming is the future.  She has millions anyways, so I doubt she's bothered by all of this. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Retep 0 Posted November 16, 2014 Share Posted November 16, 2014 I still see Taylor being the martyr for the bigger issue at hand: streaming doesn't pay out anywhere close to what it generates. I don't think the issue remains solely on Taylor wanting more money, I see it rather that with her celebrity and name she's taking a stance on what these services should be giving to ALL artists for use of their product.   $333,333,333.33 per year to an incredibly wide community of artists isn't in reality that much when you take things into consideration. Among these includes the fact that it's only a small percentage of artists who garner a large amount of that money. The man who made the comment also doesn't take into consideration that all the money generated would or wouldn't have been album sales or even pirated copies. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChasingTables 0 Posted November 16, 2014 Share Posted November 16, 2014 :popcorn:Â :popcorn:Â :popcorn: Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Featured Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.