Jump to content
celeb

Photographer's open letter to Taylor Swift: How are you any different?


Laceface

Featured Posts

blacklistedd

I think hes completely right. The majority disagreeing either don't understand the situation or are too far up Taylors ass to handle someone calling her out.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 88
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Redstreak

i really don't understand taylor swift, i know that a lot of the money hungry actions are on behalf of her team/record company and it stems from rights and things but how can she sit there rolling in cash when her fans/GP get ripped off on her behalf, she talks a lot of **** about how indie artist's deserve more, what about your fans that can't afford to buy your **** cause someone in your team decided that they deserved more, she is a pop star that thinks she's an indie artist, and i swear to god if she doesn't stop complaining about her money lets just rob her and give it all to Africa :fail:

That's with everything ever. Fans of Jennifer Lawrence still have to pay to go to the theater. J.K. Rowling's fans still have to buy her books to read them.

Take a moment to think of just flexibility, love, and trust~
Link to post
Share on other sites

Redstreak

I think hes completely right. The majority disagreeing either don't understand the situation or are too far up Taylors ass to handle someone calling her out.

or that Taylor's representatives have already responded and said that he grossly misinterpreted their contract to get his name out to the public?

Take a moment to think of just flexibility, love, and trust~
Link to post
Share on other sites

StrawberryBlond

Or maybe they just generally like them? Critics are supposed to review the work for what it is. And Metacritic has a list of every accepted review site, and then the site themselves have to send in those reviews to Metacritic. Maybe the negative unpublished reviews are just from sites that don't count. A lot of her review points come from her songwriting, the story she weaves, and the evident emotion in her voice. That's something that connects regardless of gender. I think critics are smart enough to fairly review material regardless of "ewwww men can't like feminine songs!!!"

They're supposed to. But do they actually do it? I have seen The Washington Post reviews featured on Metacritic before, so why not for Taylor? Ever considered that maybe they do send them in but the site ultimately decides what gets published? There's a lot of behind the scenes stuff in the media and everything is rarely what it seems. I get that emotion can connect through songs regardless of gender but I don't think Taylor's work is that strong, deep or serious enough to break through any gender bias. I notice, incidentially, that 1989 reminds me a lot of Carly Rae Jepsen's (far superior) Kiss album. I can't help but think she was heavily inspired to write a pure pop album after this. I notice that reviewers were so-so about Carly's album yet seemed to praise Taylor's despite them both being super girlie. Reviews were also extremely mixed for Meghan Trainor's girlie album. Pretty much look up any sugary sweet pop album in history and you'll get a mixed-negative critical response. Out of all of them, it just had to be Taylor that broke the mould, didn't it? The one the media has always praised? Because she's just so super talented and versatile that any new territory she goes into will be automatically awesome, right? Despite Max Martin and Shellback overseeing a lot of her pop tunes, and they're not exactly looked at favourably by critics?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Redstreak

They're supposed to. But do they actually do it? I have seen The Washington Post reviews featured on Metacritic before, so why not for Taylor? Ever considered that maybe they do send them in but the site ultimately decides what gets published? There's a lot of behind the scenes stuff in the media and everything is rarely what it seems. I get that emotion can connect through songs regardless of gender but I don't think Taylor's work is that strong, deep or serious enough to break through any gender bias. I notice, incidentially, that 1989 reminds me a lot of Carly Rae Jepsen's (far superior) Kiss album. I can't help but think she was heavily inspired to write a pure pop album after this. I notice that reviewers were so-so about Carly's album yet seemed to praise Taylor's despite them both being super girlie. Reviews were also extremely mixed for Meghan Trainor's girlie album. Pretty much look up any sugary sweet pop album in history and you'll get a mixed-negative critical response. Out of all of them, it just had to be Taylor that broke the mould, didn't it? The one the media has always praised? Because she's just so super talented and versatile that any new territory she goes into will be automatically awesome, right? Despite Max Martin and Shellback overseeing a lot of her pop tunes, and they're not exactly looked at favourably by critics?

I don't know what to tell you. Metacritic has a list of all the accepted publications and Washington Post isn't one of them for music. Have you read the individual reviews themselves? Maybe that'll explain why one is looked over more favorably than the other :shrug: 

Take a moment to think of just flexibility, love, and trust~
Link to post
Share on other sites

StrawberryBlond

I don't know what to tell you. Metacritic has a list of all the accepted publications and Washington Post isn't one of them for music. Have you read the individual reviews themselves? Maybe that'll explain why one is looked over more favorably than the other :shrug: 

Oddly, I looked it up and they review movies, tv and games but not music which is weird since they do reviews in their paper. I could have sworn I'd seen reviews on the site but well, maybe I got it mixed up with a citation on Wikipedia or something. Well, it's just her luck that it's not included, right? I told you, she's got too much luck. But I did find that Wikipedia included a positive review from the Washington Post for Fearless. 7 years later, they write a negative one for 1989 and Wikipedia doesn't print it. See what I'm talking about now about preferential treatment? Slant's the only one who has the balls to give her boderline favourable reviews and they are nearly always the mixed review that makes things a little versatile. But it seems like the other review outlets who are more critical of her just don't have the credible weight of the leading newspapers and iconic critics to get printed. I strongly believe that negative reviews could help her get better. She doesn't improve because critics fawn over everything she does.

Link to post
Share on other sites

manicholic

Comparing taking a photo at a concert at which every visual element has been created for/by Taylor vs creating a song is like comparing writing a 100-volume novel series and sneezing out a single word and it is such a shame that people are so clueless about music making and how things work 

There's nothing harder for people to do than admit they were fooled.
Link to post
Share on other sites

uo111

Photographers taking concert pictures want to sell them for profit while the actual artist gets nothing, and they think they have a right to complain about that. 

 

The Taylor haters are coming out full swing, but they think they are holding a baseball bat when in reality they have a pool noodle in their hands.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think they are cases of the same nature.

Taylor and her producers and writers make their own work and their own music but photographers take pictures of other celebrities, hence they do not have the right to keep the photos since they weren't completely their own works.

That's exactly the problem photographers have had for decades though. It IS their own original artwork. They have the right to it. It becomes tricky when people in it start claiming otherwise.

Link to post
Share on other sites

JusKeepBreathin

I think the photographer has a legitimate point here.

Not really. The Photographer knows the conditions of his payment going in. This is the way its always been. The photographer who shoots a Time cover knows he will only be get paid once for his work. He knows this going into the job. Also this photographer is using her likeness at her private event to sell his work. This doesn't apply to a photographer on the street or shooting her at a restaurant or on vacation or a public event. Again this is a private event she is playing. Apple is a retailer reselling an album or track as a stream. When you go to Macy's and you buy a Guess shirt 50% off Guess is not taking the hit of the 50%, Macy's is taking the hit. If Apple wants to give away music for 3 months there is no reason Taylor or any musician should be getting penalized for it. The is a lot more inconsistencies in his letter. It reads more like a disgruntled employee than a person defending his art.

"Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." -Martin Luther King Jr.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Bradley

That's exactly the problem photographers have had for decades though. It IS their own original artwork. They have the right to it. It becomes tricky when people in it start claiming otherwise.

Didn't they sign some contract with the celebrities themselves before taking their pictures?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...