Taylor Swift has chance to buy her master recordings

[lastpopicon 25,151]

She's really gotta get everything at the end I wouldn't want to be on her bad side, imma just say that.

[ActualPatient 1,528]

Buy them back once all TV's are released then you can release Legacy version with more vault tracks and new vinyls!!

Edited May 22 by ActualPatient

[Ziggy 11,524]

3 hours ago, Sneaky Oliver said:

She should buy them back under a strong NDA and never talk about it again because she kinda profited and achieved new highs through the re-recordings, buying her masters back kinda mean the re-recordings were pointless 

let’s be honest, she had enough money to buy them since day one

Not hating on Taylor tho, she made a genius move with the re-recordings 

i mean it's not pointless in the sense that her doing the rerecordings 100% would be part of the reason that they're available at the price they are again. It's more that now the statement would be null and void if she bought them but the pursuit wouldn't be pointless if she managed to basically screw over execs into losing value on the originals

[Putang Ina Mo 2,137]

3 hours ago, IllusionLover said:

She had the money but she didn't want them to earn any money from those versions.

I guess me streaming Better Than Revenge (OG) and Rep gave them pennies lol

[RAMROD 107,959]

Not sure if she is interested. Since she is doing TV re-recording to spite on Scooter Braun by cutting the streaming royalty from his way 

[LadyxGaGa 1,693]

also i rly hope after she is done with her recordings she does buy them back she deserves to own her music hell all artists do it’s their art and talent 

[Siena 6,210]

I'm so confused how people are still falling for this fake victim narrative that her masters were stolen and she's this poor victim. Isn't it at this point universally known she was offered to buy them but refused??? Also her dad was literally a shareholder and received a crazy amount of money from the sale. 

[TheMiddleGround 3,203]

Not when she’s about to re-release her best album 

[Versace 7,958]

I think she made it clear the only way she’s buying them back is if it means Scooter doesn’t benefit at all. Also we’ve come too far not to see the TV of reputation and debut. I’d very much like to see them release this year. Then she can put out a new album Late 2026/early 2027. I hope she doesn’t release a new album this year, her new projects are more enjoyable when they have some room to breathe and are even better received that way. 

[LadyxGaGa 1,693]

i honestly hope scooter is so far from the picture when she does get to own her music again she deserves to own them all 

[Railing 2,771]

1 hour ago, Siena said:

I'm so confused how people are still falling for this fake victim narrative that her masters were stolen and she's this poor victim. Isn't it at this point universally known she was offered to buy them but refused??? Also her dad was literally a shareholder and received a crazy amount of money from the sale. 

The point is that they were sold to someone who bullied & plotted to sabotage her career. Bear in mind, she was still seen as a "snake" when the sale happened; her music was underperforming both critically & commercially, and the unedited phone call still hadn't leaked. She was prepared to bow out of pop music after Lover.

Yes, she was offered a deal to buy them after the fact, but with Scooter continuing to gain royalties, and with Taylor legally silenced from talking about him. I think it's valid that she said no.

[LadyxGaGa 1,693]

2 hours ago, Railing said:

The point is that they were sold to someone who bullied & plotted to sabotage her career. Bear in mind, she was still seen as a "snake" when the sale happened; her music was underperforming both critically & commercially, and the unedited phone call still hadn't leaked. She was prepared to bow out of pop music after Lover.

Yes, she was offered a deal to buy them after the fact, but with Scooter continuing to gain royalties, and with Taylor legally silenced from talking about him. I think it's valid that she said no.

wait fr like idk what narrative people wanna say but an artist has the right to own their own music do many?? no not at all but that doesn’t mean none of them should when they should all 

 

idk if the term victim is holding the amount of weight the OP is saying but she is a victim nonetheless of being exploited by an infamous industry for doing that. i’m glad taylor gets to have the last say when it comes to her art 

[Ladle Ghoulash 20,970]

She should specifically for 1989 because WHEW does the production on TV suck ass 

[Lava 3,354]

I still don’t understand how artists don’t have access to them. Like why did she have to make TV’s for everything? It’s her own voice and humanity on a record. 

[Bronco 9,467]

1 hour ago, Lava said:

I still don’t understand how artists don’t have access to them. Like why did she have to make TV’s for everything? It’s her own voice and humanity on a record. 

Because it is rare for artists to be able to self fund at that stage. So the label steps in, funds the production and as a result "owns" the end product as a way of taking repayment. 

Its why acts who do well often end up creating their own subsidiary label or becoming the stronger partner in a label contract