The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
Pop Suprema Taylor Swift Calls Out the Soros, Bush, and Bin Laden Clans for Conspiring Against Her
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

From Bloomberg:

Taylor Swift Calls Out Soros Family in Fight With Private Equity

By Kelly Gilblom and Lucas Shaw
December 13, 2019, 1:20 PM PST
Investment firms helped finance the purchase of her old music
Carlyle and Soros didn’t do due diligence on deal, she says

Taylor Swift renewed her criticism of private equity, calling out the Carlyle Group and the Soros family for helping her nemesis Scooter Braun purchase the rights to her old music.

Well, to be precise, I haven’t been following the evolution of the Carlyle Group since 9/11, but it then had embarrassing / interesting connections to the Bin Ladens and Bushes. But she definitely mentioned “the Soros family” by name.

 
Hide 85 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Can only be a matter of time now until she goes full Nazi, embraces her “Aryan goddess” image and bears Andrew Anglin’s children.

  2. Some prophylaxis for her against the likely charge.

  3. Tough. Pleasing. I hardly like her songs (too skinny, too clever, too cold), but at times she seems to be courageous.

  4. They aren’t going to go easy on her, I doubt she has a clue how her money is invested. You can bet every non woke investment she has will now get reported on and publicized. The private equity fund she works with is going to love this scrutiny.

    Her dad made a good money at Merrill Lynch. You have to wonder if he has moments where he thinks it would have been better to discourage her going to Nashville and grow up, get married and give them some grandkids. Why does any parent let his child enter the entertainment industry?

    • Replies: @TheMediumIsTheMassage
    I'm not so sure, I think she's legitimately a genius (probably an IQ over 160). I don't think there's ever been someone as smart as her become a music superstar, which is why she is already the most successful artist EVER in America if you look at market share relative to contemporary competition. She's swimming in dangerous water here but I don't think she should be underestimated. She's a bit like if Elle Woods were an actual person, and then she molds reality to make the movie plotline into her actual life.
  5. Don’t you mean supremx?

    • LOL: M_Young
  6. Remember laughing at Perot? Remember laughing at Vince Foster stories? Remember laughing at the rumor that Democrat party bigwigs could be connected to pedophile human traffickers? Remember laughing at the idea that there was an unkillable elitist obsession with seizing legally owned firearms? Remember the idea that our elections could be hacked being laughable, until the then-president realized he could use that as an excuse to spy on every campaign?
    ———————–
    >If there’s an octopus cartoon, then anti-Semitism is not the textbook illustration of a lunatic straw-grasping nonsense chase.
    Well, that explains 4chan’s animus …
    https://innerdecay.com/products/the-dream-of-the-fishermans-wife-blanket

  7. T Swift redemption arc after shitting on her fanbase to appease Hollywood?

    Crazy she wrote a song about how Hollywood chews up and spits out young girls without remorse and yet here she is.

  8. Does that mean Taylor is “Our Gal” after all?

    • Replies: @Cloudbuster
    Nope. She's blaming "toxic male privilege."
    , @Bella blow
    Kid Rock was right about her, she playing a dem to get into the movies
    I mean come on?! She may as well worn a
    DONT VOTE FOR THE LEFT IN 2020
    Sweater on stage collecting her award....
    Taylor is well and truly helping the right

    .
    , @gate666
    no you idiot.
  9. “Suprema”??

    You’ve been picking up too many Britishisms.

  10. She’s arguing that even though she sold the rights to her old songs, she should still have a say in their future use and sale.

    That concept in the arts is called moral rights. The strongest and oldest such laws are in France. The US has a very weak version that doesn’t go much beyond the ability of an artist to sue someone who physically destroys or defaces their work after legally buying it.

    Another version is that an artist gets a royalty every time the work is resold. So Swift would get 7% of each subsequent sale of her back catalog. California passed such a law in early 1976, but then then Congress passed another law prohibiting this later in 1976, but not retroactively. So there’s the type of protection but only for California works created in part of 1976.

    • Replies: @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
    But then the question is: why exactly did she sell the rights to her old songs? Her old songs are still very profitable. Seems like if she had been shrewder, she’d have held on to her work and not have sold them in the first place.
  11. So that’s what that was all about. I have the news on sound off in the am to get ready for work.

    I just saw the headline toxic White men.

    From the Godzilla movie “Let them fight “

  12. So buy them back. They’re worth, what? Fifty, sixty dollars?

  13. The main instigator is Scooter Braun, he was born in New York City to Conservative Jewish parents, Ervin and Susan (née Schlussel) Braun. Ervin’s parents “had barely escaped” the Holocaust, and lived in Hungary until 1956, when they fled to the United States. Seems she has something in common with many Black musical artists from the 60’s. Not to mention N.W.A.……lol

  14. Did Taylor Swift voluntarily sell the rights to her songs or were they acquired by some form of artistic hostile takeover?

    Also, what grown-ass man still goes by Scooter??

  15. She should have talked to David Bowie before he died. He knew how to sell off back catalog.

  16. I dunno… as A. Schoenberg once said, There’s still a lot of very good music left to be written in the key of C Major. Thank God he wasn’t the one to try it.

    Me, I’m still busy wandering thru Terry Riley, early PJ Harvey, late Coltrane, and Throwing Muses’ “Hunkpapa” — a better record, and a better feminist statement, than Taylor Swift is ever likely to make.

    • Replies: @M_Young
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LACCAF04wSs
  17. Whilst this poor woman’s suffering ever end? Isn’t it bad enough that she had to endure the hardships of childhood, with only the meager provisions that her investment banker father could provide? Isn’t it bad enough that they could not afford to get her that vital early exposure and she had to wait until she was 14 to get a recording contract? And even now, after all of her hard work, she is still only worth a mere $400 million?

    Anne Frank had nothing on Taylor Swift when it comes to suffering.

    • Replies: @Bella blow
    If you have not noticed Taylor doesnt care for the jews
    Especially rich old ones that donate
    $18bn to protect free speech and increasing democratic transparency
    Like George Soros, Late last year Trump said he liked Taylor Swift about 25% less after she made a political post favouring dems, but she has well and truly proven her loyalty
    Its a very smart move for the right to have the women of the decade front their Anti Semitic smear campaign against Soros the mega donor to the democratic party
    Soros was one of the largest donors to Hillary Clinton’s 2016 US presidential campaign his 5support for liberal, pro-democratic initiativeshas long made him a favorite subject for right-wing conspiracy theorists in Europe and the U.S. and Hungary has saturated the internet with anti-soros propaganda Taylor knows her fans are not sophisticated enough to fact check
    , @Sunscreen
    Doesn't change the fact she got shafted... What's RIGHT is RIGHT. PERIOD.
  18. anon[313] • Disclaimer says:

    Taylor Swift asks why she can’t eat her cake and have it too! Huh? Why?
    Plus George Soros conspiracy?

    Earth to Taylor Swift: You need to calm down…you defender of Western civilization, you!
    PS: Honey, we are not as stupid as you think we are.

    • Replies: @Che Blutarsky
    I'd never heard that before, and admit I only made it through 21 seconds before reaching this conclusion, but...damn, that is total crap.
    , @Hail
    That is the anti-Trump song. Obvious from the lyrics. And released on Trump's birthday. I wonder who put her up to it? I wonder if she regrets it now?

    Will T.Swift disavow the anti-Trump song in the 2020 campaign season?

    Lyrics of Taylor Swift's June 2019 anti-Trump song:


    You are somebody that I don't know
    But you're takin' shots at me like it's Patrón
    And I'm just like, Damn, It's 7 AM...

    Say it in the street, that's a knock-out
    But you say it in a Tweet, that's a cop-out
    And I'm just like, "Hey... Are you okay?"

    And I ain't trying to mess with your self-expression
    But I've learned a lesson that stressin' and obsessin' about somebody else is no fun

    And snakes and stones never broke my bones
    So oh-oh, oh-oh, oh-oh, oh-oh, oh-oh

    You need to calm down, you're being too loud
    And I'm just like, Oh-oh, oh-oh, oh-oh, oh-oh, oh-oh (oh)
    You need to just stop
    Like can you just not step on my gown?
    You need to calm down

    You are somebody that we don't know
    But you're comin' at my friends like a missile
    Why are you mad?
    When you could be glad [i.e., GLAAD]? (You could be glad [GLAAD])

    Sunshine on the street at the parade
    But you would rather be in the dark age
    Just makin' that sign must've taken all night

    You just need to take several seats and then try to restore the peace
    And control your urges to scream about all the people you hate
    'Cause shade never made anybody less gay

    So oh-oh, oh-oh, oh-oh, oh-oh, oh-oh
    You need to calm down, you're being too loud
    And I'm just like oh-oh, oh-oh, oh-oh, oh-oh, oh-oh (oh)
    You need to just stop
    Like can you just not step on his gown?
    You need to calm down

    And we see you over there on the internet
    Comparing all the girls who are killing it
    But we figured you out
    We all know now we all got crowns
    You need to calm down

    Oh-oh, oh-oh, oh-oh, oh-oh, oh-oh
    You need to calm down (you need to calm down)
    You're being too loud (you're being too loud)
    And I'm just like oh-oh, oh-oh, oh-oh, oh-oh, oh-oh (oh)
    You need to just stop (can you stop?)
    Like can you just not step on our gowns?
    You need to calm down
     

  19. @anon
    Taylor Swift asks why she can't eat her cake and have it too! Huh? Why?
    Plus George Soros conspiracy?

    Earth to Taylor Swift: You need to calm down...you defender of Western civilization, you!
    PS: Honey, we are not as stupid as you think we are.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dkk9gvTmCXY

    I’d never heard that before, and admit I only made it through 21 seconds before reaching this conclusion, but…damn, that is total crap.

    • Replies: @Hypnotoad666
    She is easy on the eyes but musically she's a talentless autotuned hack. IMHO.

    Also she seems unclear on the concept of private property -- that is, when you sell something it is no longer yours.

    , @anon
    Some people wonder what pop music will be like when it's being written by AI bots.
    I like to ask those people, "How do you know it isn't already there?"
    Missy Taylor would be one obvious example.
  20. I am no expert on contemporary music but I am under the impression that until recently Ms Swift was either purposefully or naively apolitical. Her recent stance against Soros et al displays naivety of the highest order. That young woman won’t know what hit her once she is branded one of the world’s premier antisemites!

    • Agree: Hail
  21. Anonymous[427] • Disclaimer says:

    About five years ago, Blondie rerecorded all their old hits and a few other back catalog favorites because they were doing very well licensing tracks for movies and commercials and they wanted to cut out (former manager) Peter C Leeds (who really was a douche) and the former hated bandmembers Freaky Frank Infante and Nigel Harrison. Nigel and Frank committed the never-pardonable sin of pissing them off, and while Infante wasn’t especially a key member, Harrison clearly was.

    There was also the legitimate beef that while all of the Chrysalis albums Mike Chapman worked on except the last (and even that one wasn’t horrible) were engineering tours de force and sound really good played on vinyl (if you get a good pressing that hasn’t been ruined and you have a decent table-I had a Sondek thru a homebrew marantz 7 clone pre, a pair of 100 watt VTL monoblocs running 807s and Altec 604s in Onken cabs with Doug Sax mastering Labs crossovers), all the extant CD releases were squashed into toothpaste and sounded like shit.

    The problem was that except for Clem Burke, none of the Blondies are quite what they were in 1980, and they did it all on desktop software instead of real tape machines, and it doesn’t sound any better. So the new versions are not used for licensing -they can either still license mechanicals on the old tracks or they get nothing at all.

    This was hardly a new thing-Chuck Berry recorded his same old twenty songs for numerous labels over forty years and several country artists did likewise-but in the seventies and eighties rock bands didn’t do it as much.

    In Taylor’s case her voice and overall energy level haven’t changed and she should be able to do as good a job as in the first place, but my guess is that the new recordings still won’t be quite what anyone wants. Pop studio recordings tend to be a lightning-strikes-once phenomenon.

    The bottom line is that she did what everyone does in getting their music out there in the first place, then she did what very few do, which is that she succeeded beyond all expectations. It seems to me that she wants to have her cake and eat it too-that is, be in effect an indie artist and control it all while having signed off in the first place, without which she almost certainly wouldn’t have been where she is.

    Say what you want about Joan Jett, she went the indie route and made it work as well as anyone, but it is still doubtful that she has done quite as well as she would have with a serious major label behind her. In her case no major wanted her, probably because Kim Fowley shit in her swimming pool plus the fact they figured that yet another Suzi Quatro clone wasn’t going to be the next really really big thing, and major labels will pass up ten likely steady moneymakers for a shot at one likely Next Really Big Thing, because real net spendable and big swinging dick status amongst record company types both increase disproportionately with big numbers. Twenty-seven artists who collectively sell as much as one Michael Jackson are not worth 1/27th of Michael Jackson, they’re worth 1/127th. Taylor is now a big fish, but she was a small fish when she started and the label is looking for their payback, and they’ll get it.

    • Replies: @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
    Not exactly. Taylor’s first released album went multi platinum, with multiple major hits. So from day one, her first commercially released songs were hits and she was an instant superstar.
  22. @Che Blutarsky
    I'd never heard that before, and admit I only made it through 21 seconds before reaching this conclusion, but...damn, that is total crap.

    She is easy on the eyes but musically she’s a talentless autotuned hack. IMHO.

    Also she seems unclear on the concept of private property — that is, when you sell something it is no longer yours.

  23. @anon
    Taylor Swift asks why she can't eat her cake and have it too! Huh? Why?
    Plus George Soros conspiracy?

    Earth to Taylor Swift: You need to calm down...you defender of Western civilization, you!
    PS: Honey, we are not as stupid as you think we are.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dkk9gvTmCXY

    That is the anti-Trump song. Obvious from the lyrics. And released on Trump’s birthday. I wonder who put her up to it? I wonder if she regrets it now?

    Will T.Swift disavow the anti-Trump song in the 2020 campaign season?

    Lyrics of Taylor Swift’s June 2019 anti-Trump song:

    [MORE]

    You are somebody that I don’t know
    But you’re takin’ shots at me like it’s Patrón
    And I’m just like, Damn, It’s 7 AM…

    Say it in the street, that’s a knock-out
    But you say it in a Tweet, that’s a cop-out
    And I’m just like, “Hey… Are you okay?”

    And I ain’t trying to mess with your self-expression
    But I’ve learned a lesson that stressin’ and obsessin’ about somebody else is no fun

    And snakes and stones never broke my bones
    So oh-oh, oh-oh, oh-oh, oh-oh, oh-oh

    You need to calm down, you’re being too loud
    And I’m just like, Oh-oh, oh-oh, oh-oh, oh-oh, oh-oh (oh)
    You need to just stop
    Like can you just not step on my gown?
    You need to calm down

    You are somebody that we don’t know
    But you’re comin’ at my friends like a missile
    Why are you mad?
    When you could be glad [i.e., GLAAD]? (You could be glad [GLAAD])

    Sunshine on the street at the parade
    But you would rather be in the dark age
    Just makin’ that sign must’ve taken all night

    You just need to take several seats and then try to restore the peace
    And control your urges to scream about all the people you hate
    ‘Cause shade never made anybody less gay

    So oh-oh, oh-oh, oh-oh, oh-oh, oh-oh
    You need to calm down, you’re being too loud
    And I’m just like oh-oh, oh-oh, oh-oh, oh-oh, oh-oh (oh)
    You need to just stop
    Like can you just not step on his gown?
    You need to calm down

    And we see you over there on the internet
    Comparing all the girls who are killing it
    But we figured you out
    We all know now we all got crowns
    You need to calm down

    Oh-oh, oh-oh, oh-oh, oh-oh, oh-oh
    You need to calm down (you need to calm down)
    You’re being too loud (you’re being too loud)
    And I’m just like oh-oh, oh-oh, oh-oh, oh-oh, oh-oh (oh)
    You need to just stop (can you stop?)
    Like can you just not step on our gowns?
    You need to calm down

    • Replies: @anon
    That is the anti-Trump song. Obvious from the lyrics. And released on Trump’s birthday.

    Well, ok. Looks more like an end-zone dance intended to troll Deplorables to me. But, whatever.

    Will T.Swift disavow the anti-Trump song in the 2020 campaign season?

    Lol. You kidding?
    , @Reg Cæsar
    This person is white?

    "Rhyming" cop-out and knock-out? How amateur.

    Like can you just not step on his gown?

    Is she defending Pope Francis?

    Is there some kind of tune to this, to take our minds off how bad the words are? At least the girl-in-the-bleachers song had a semblance of story.
  24. @Che Blutarsky
    I'd never heard that before, and admit I only made it through 21 seconds before reaching this conclusion, but...damn, that is total crap.

    Some people wonder what pop music will be like when it’s being written by AI bots.
    I like to ask those people, “How do you know it isn’t already there?”
    Missy Taylor would be one obvious example.

  25. @Hail
    That is the anti-Trump song. Obvious from the lyrics. And released on Trump's birthday. I wonder who put her up to it? I wonder if she regrets it now?

    Will T.Swift disavow the anti-Trump song in the 2020 campaign season?

    Lyrics of Taylor Swift's June 2019 anti-Trump song:


    You are somebody that I don't know
    But you're takin' shots at me like it's Patrón
    And I'm just like, Damn, It's 7 AM...

    Say it in the street, that's a knock-out
    But you say it in a Tweet, that's a cop-out
    And I'm just like, "Hey... Are you okay?"

    And I ain't trying to mess with your self-expression
    But I've learned a lesson that stressin' and obsessin' about somebody else is no fun

    And snakes and stones never broke my bones
    So oh-oh, oh-oh, oh-oh, oh-oh, oh-oh

    You need to calm down, you're being too loud
    And I'm just like, Oh-oh, oh-oh, oh-oh, oh-oh, oh-oh (oh)
    You need to just stop
    Like can you just not step on my gown?
    You need to calm down

    You are somebody that we don't know
    But you're comin' at my friends like a missile
    Why are you mad?
    When you could be glad [i.e., GLAAD]? (You could be glad [GLAAD])

    Sunshine on the street at the parade
    But you would rather be in the dark age
    Just makin' that sign must've taken all night

    You just need to take several seats and then try to restore the peace
    And control your urges to scream about all the people you hate
    'Cause shade never made anybody less gay

    So oh-oh, oh-oh, oh-oh, oh-oh, oh-oh
    You need to calm down, you're being too loud
    And I'm just like oh-oh, oh-oh, oh-oh, oh-oh, oh-oh (oh)
    You need to just stop
    Like can you just not step on his gown?
    You need to calm down

    And we see you over there on the internet
    Comparing all the girls who are killing it
    But we figured you out
    We all know now we all got crowns
    You need to calm down

    Oh-oh, oh-oh, oh-oh, oh-oh, oh-oh
    You need to calm down (you need to calm down)
    You're being too loud (you're being too loud)
    And I'm just like oh-oh, oh-oh, oh-oh, oh-oh, oh-oh (oh)
    You need to just stop (can you stop?)
    Like can you just not step on our gowns?
    You need to calm down
     

    That is the anti-Trump song. Obvious from the lyrics. And released on Trump’s birthday.

    Well, ok. Looks more like an end-zone dance intended to troll Deplorables to me. But, whatever.

    Will T.Swift disavow the anti-Trump song in the 2020 campaign season?

    Lol. You kidding?

  26. @Lot
    She’s arguing that even though she sold the rights to her old songs, she should still have a say in their future use and sale.

    That concept in the arts is called moral rights. The strongest and oldest such laws are in France. The US has a very weak version that doesn’t go much beyond the ability of an artist to sue someone who physically destroys or defaces their work after legally buying it.

    Another version is that an artist gets a royalty every time the work is resold. So Swift would get 7% of each subsequent sale of her back catalog. California passed such a law in early 1976, but then then Congress passed another law prohibiting this later in 1976, but not retroactively. So there’s the type of protection but only for California works created in part of 1976.

    But then the question is: why exactly did she sell the rights to her old songs? Her old songs are still very profitable. Seems like if she had been shrewder, she’d have held on to her work and not have sold them in the first place.

    • Replies: @TheMediumIsTheMassage
    Putting it like that is misunderstanding the way the modern music industry works. When anyone signs to a record label, they essentially give up future ownership of their recordings in exchange for those recordings being funded by the record label. The artist still collects royalties from sales, radio plays, TV/film licensing, live performances, etc., but the record label owns the original recording indefinitely unless specified in the contract, which is extremely rare. Taylor's new record deal with Republic Records has such a clause, where ownership of the master recordings will revert to her after I believe five years, but that's only because she is a massive superstar now who has the clout to ask for something like that.

    Taylor was 16 years old when she signed her original record deal for six albums, and that record deal meant that all six of those albums would be owned the label and not her; she never sold her songs per se, when she delivered the finished version of "Shake It Off" for example that song was automatically owned by the label. Mind you, this was with an independent label, but the terms were still the same regarding ownership of the recordings. It's a standard industry thing, in an industry where many standard industry things are extremely pernicious.

  27. @YetAnotherAnon
    Does that mean Taylor is "Our Gal" after all?


    https://i.redd.it/3i25nzdo6hjz.jpg

    Nope. She’s blaming “toxic male privilege.”

  28. @Anonymous
    About five years ago, Blondie rerecorded all their old hits and a few other back catalog favorites because they were doing very well licensing tracks for movies and commercials and they wanted to cut out (former manager) Peter C Leeds (who really was a douche) and the former hated bandmembers Freaky Frank Infante and Nigel Harrison. Nigel and Frank committed the never-pardonable sin of pissing them off, and while Infante wasn't especially a key member, Harrison clearly was.

    There was also the legitimate beef that while all of the Chrysalis albums Mike Chapman worked on except the last (and even that one wasn't horrible) were engineering tours de force and sound really good played on vinyl (if you get a good pressing that hasn't been ruined and you have a decent table-I had a Sondek thru a homebrew marantz 7 clone pre, a pair of 100 watt VTL monoblocs running 807s and Altec 604s in Onken cabs with Doug Sax mastering Labs crossovers), all the extant CD releases were squashed into toothpaste and sounded like shit.

    The problem was that except for Clem Burke, none of the Blondies are quite what they were in 1980, and they did it all on desktop software instead of real tape machines, and it doesn't sound any better. So the new versions are not used for licensing -they can either still license mechanicals on the old tracks or they get nothing at all.

    This was hardly a new thing-Chuck Berry recorded his same old twenty songs for numerous labels over forty years and several country artists did likewise-but in the seventies and eighties rock bands didn't do it as much.

    In Taylor's case her voice and overall energy level haven't changed and she should be able to do as good a job as in the first place, but my guess is that the new recordings still won't be quite what anyone wants. Pop studio recordings tend to be a lightning-strikes-once phenomenon.

    The bottom line is that she did what everyone does in getting their music out there in the first place, then she did what very few do, which is that she succeeded beyond all expectations. It seems to me that she wants to have her cake and eat it too-that is, be in effect an indie artist and control it all while having signed off in the first place, without which she almost certainly wouldn't have been where she is.

    Say what you want about Joan Jett, she went the indie route and made it work as well as anyone, but it is still doubtful that she has done quite as well as she would have with a serious major label behind her. In her case no major wanted her, probably because Kim Fowley shit in her swimming pool plus the fact they figured that yet another Suzi Quatro clone wasn't going to be the next really really big thing, and major labels will pass up ten likely steady moneymakers for a shot at one likely Next Really Big Thing, because real net spendable and big swinging dick status amongst record company types both increase disproportionately with big numbers. Twenty-seven artists who collectively sell as much as one Michael Jackson are not worth 1/27th of Michael Jackson, they're worth 1/127th. Taylor is now a big fish, but she was a small fish when she started and the label is looking for their payback, and they'll get it.

    Not exactly. Taylor’s first released album went multi platinum, with multiple major hits. So from day one, her first commercially released songs were hits and she was an instant superstar.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    And they knew this was going to happen how? Ninety-nine percent of first releases of new artists make no net spendable. One Taylor Swift keeps 99 new debuts plus the Mose Allisons and the Samantha Fishes and the Junior Browns and the Susannah McCorkles in the business going.

    Without the whales, there’s no maintaining the infrastructure for the rest of the ocean.
  29. over time i’ve come to realize she’s a bad person.what stunning woman goes over 10 years without being in a stable long term relationship eventually at some point, by random chance? she’s 30, and does nothing but go thru boyfriends like clothes, then trashes them publicly after she’s dumped them. she’s done this like a dozen times in a row. that’s ok once for song material, maybe twice. doing it over and over is unbecoming. it’s a main theme of every album for her. not even third rate musicians do that.

    she’s the problem, not the guys. she must be a supremely annoying person in real life. her public personality is certainly an act at this point.

    i don’t think it has anything to do with her starting out with modest success and then becoming super famous and interacting with all the big players in her industry, changing her personality for the worse. i think she would have always been this way. if she wasn’t famous she would just some country bumpkin woman doing this to random blue collar guys over and over.

    • Replies: @black sea

    if she wasn’t famous she would just some country bumpkin woman doing this to random blue collar guys over and over.
     
    If she were just some country bumpkin woman she would have married the son of the banker or the Ford dealership owner or someone similarly situated, though she might be comfortably divorced by now.
    , @Anonymous
    After the first one or two, getting pumped , dumped and having a song written about you by Taylor Swift became a rite of passage in the industry, for erstwhile studs.

    There's also some question as to whether Tay-Tay is actually, you know, giving it up. John Mayer for his part is said to have told a couple of people I know at NAMM (Don probably knows one of them very well, though such talk would burn his virgin ears, I'm sure) that the problem in the relationship was that Tay just wasn't interested in actually doing it, and Mayer is famously a high libido kind of guy. There was always a rumor that she was a very closeted lesbian.

    It would make sense that if she were, being very closeted would in fact be the career move, because as an out lesbian parental support for being a Swiftie in Middle America would be strongly attenuated, and hipsters are never going to be a market for her. She knows her audience and they know her, or rather, they know her persona, carefully crafted.

    If in fact she has transgressed the Powers That Be and if she is in fact a closeted mussypuncher, expect her to be spectacularly outed. That would put the kibosh on her career as she's known it up until now, in all likelihood. But I'm not so sure she has transgressed. She's more likely to be controlled opposition.
  30. @Hail
    That is the anti-Trump song. Obvious from the lyrics. And released on Trump's birthday. I wonder who put her up to it? I wonder if she regrets it now?

    Will T.Swift disavow the anti-Trump song in the 2020 campaign season?

    Lyrics of Taylor Swift's June 2019 anti-Trump song:


    You are somebody that I don't know
    But you're takin' shots at me like it's Patrón
    And I'm just like, Damn, It's 7 AM...

    Say it in the street, that's a knock-out
    But you say it in a Tweet, that's a cop-out
    And I'm just like, "Hey... Are you okay?"

    And I ain't trying to mess with your self-expression
    But I've learned a lesson that stressin' and obsessin' about somebody else is no fun

    And snakes and stones never broke my bones
    So oh-oh, oh-oh, oh-oh, oh-oh, oh-oh

    You need to calm down, you're being too loud
    And I'm just like, Oh-oh, oh-oh, oh-oh, oh-oh, oh-oh (oh)
    You need to just stop
    Like can you just not step on my gown?
    You need to calm down

    You are somebody that we don't know
    But you're comin' at my friends like a missile
    Why are you mad?
    When you could be glad [i.e., GLAAD]? (You could be glad [GLAAD])

    Sunshine on the street at the parade
    But you would rather be in the dark age
    Just makin' that sign must've taken all night

    You just need to take several seats and then try to restore the peace
    And control your urges to scream about all the people you hate
    'Cause shade never made anybody less gay

    So oh-oh, oh-oh, oh-oh, oh-oh, oh-oh
    You need to calm down, you're being too loud
    And I'm just like oh-oh, oh-oh, oh-oh, oh-oh, oh-oh (oh)
    You need to just stop
    Like can you just not step on his gown?
    You need to calm down

    And we see you over there on the internet
    Comparing all the girls who are killing it
    But we figured you out
    We all know now we all got crowns
    You need to calm down

    Oh-oh, oh-oh, oh-oh, oh-oh, oh-oh
    You need to calm down (you need to calm down)
    You're being too loud (you're being too loud)
    And I'm just like oh-oh, oh-oh, oh-oh, oh-oh, oh-oh (oh)
    You need to just stop (can you stop?)
    Like can you just not step on our gowns?
    You need to calm down
     

    This person is white?

    “Rhyming” cop-out and knock-out? How amateur.

    Like can you just not step on his gown?

    Is she defending Pope Francis?

    Is there some kind of tune to this, to take our minds off how bad the words are? At least the girl-in-the-bleachers song had a semblance of story.

    • Replies: @Hail

    Like can you just not step on his gown?

    Is she defending Pope Francis?
     

    This line must refer to a Gay wedding.

    The anti-Trump satire is embedded within a surface-level attack on someone who is against Gays or etc. people. Releasing this in 2019 is pretty bland, but would have been shocking in 2009, maybe enough to derail her early career.

    But I wonder. Isn't it insulting to say a man who is getting gay-married would wear a gown--? Do they actually do this? I mean, they (most of them) do have dignity.

    Maybe there is another plausible interpretation I am missing. And it could also be lazy writing, the fish-in-a-barrel rhyming of 'gown' with the 'down' in line they wanted to deliver "You need to calm down" (a likely swipe at Trump).

  31. now for the musical commentary.

    this stuff wouldn’t be an issue if old rock bands like KISS and Def Leppard hadn’t figured out that by re-recording stuff, you could:

    1) cut out old band members who have writing credits to material from 30 or 40 years ago, but haven’t been in the band for 20 or 30 years. re-record the tracks without them, then pull all the original tracks, and bam, you don’t have to pay those guys you fired decades ago any royalties anymore.

    2) getting back at record companies and old recording contracts via the same mechanism.

    it’s less clear whether 1 or 2 was the main impetus for serious bands to start doing this stuff. the KISS guys in particular were exceptionally vindictive, and really wanted all the old KISS members cut out of the royalties forever.

    this stuff goes back into the 00s, so Taylor Swift is like 12 years behind here, but i assume the idea has spread to most musicians with a big, valuable back catalog.

    i’m under the impression that musical rights come up for sale periodically, which is famously how Michael Jackson purchased all the Beatles material out from under Paul McCartney. i don’t know what the various rules and laws are today however. times changes, laws change. you used to be able to sample anything with impunity, which is how the Beastie Boys were able to raid 20 years of hard rock record to make License To Ill. the laws were changed after that so that they couldn’t just steal every AC/DC song and rap over it and sell 4 million units, and Beastie Boys sales predictably dropped like 70% when they had to write their own music.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    How do bands fire members? If a 4 man band is split 2 and 2, who fires whom?
    , @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
    "1) cut out old band members who have writing credits to material from 30 or 40 years ago, but haven’t been in the band for 20 or 30 years. re-record the tracks without them, then pull all the original tracks, and bam, you don’t have to pay those guys you fired decades ago any royalties anymore."


    Yes you do. If they have writing credits to the songs, and they are re-recorded, it doesn't matter. They will receive royalties since they helped write the song. Be the same if the track was covered. If someone covered Neil Young's After the Goldrush in 2019, Neil still gets his royalty since he wrote the song. Songwriters get their share, unless they sell their songs. Which doesn't explain why Swift would sell her back catalog when her older songs are still selling well.
    , @Ray Huffman
    now for the musical commentary.

    this stuff wouldn’t be an issue if old rock bands like KISS and Def Leppard hadn’t figured out that by re-recording stuff, you could:

    1) cut out old band members who have writing credits to material from 30 or 40 years ago, but haven’t been in the band for 20 or 30 years. re-record the tracks without them, then pull all the original tracks, and bam, you don’t have to pay those guys you fired decades ago any royalties anymore.

    2) getting back at record companies and old recording contracts via the same mechanism.

    I always thought it was just because they were has beens who were trying to squeeze a bit more money out of their laurels.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FHhZPp08s74

    , @blake121666
    According to this article from last month, Taylor Swift intends to re-record her older stuff as soon as she can legally do so - which is next year.

    https://www.etonline.com/taylor-swift-calls-out-scooter-braun-and-scott-borchetta-over-rights-to-perform-her-older-music

    quote:

    Swift went on the claim that Borchetta told her reps that Big Machine Records will give the approval "only if I do these things: If I agree to not re-record copycat versions of my songs next year (which is something I'm both legally allowed to do and looking forward to) and also told my team that I need to stop talking about him and Scooter Braun."
  32. By the way, today is Swift’s birthday. She’s 30.

  33. Taylor Swift Calls Out Soros Family in Fight With Private Equity

    Taylor Swift is 30 years old. It’s high time the nice Southern lady started a family.

  34. If the unlikely day arrives when Taylor Swift embraces Islam, I trust that Steve will refer to her as the Pop Suprema Muslima. At least once.

  35. @Barnard
    They aren't going to go easy on her, I doubt she has a clue how her money is invested. You can bet every non woke investment she has will now get reported on and publicized. The private equity fund she works with is going to love this scrutiny.

    Her dad made a good money at Merrill Lynch. You have to wonder if he has moments where he thinks it would have been better to discourage her going to Nashville and grow up, get married and give them some grandkids. Why does any parent let his child enter the entertainment industry?

    I’m not so sure, I think she’s legitimately a genius (probably an IQ over 160). I don’t think there’s ever been someone as smart as her become a music superstar, which is why she is already the most successful artist EVER in America if you look at market share relative to contemporary competition. She’s swimming in dangerous water here but I don’t think she should be underestimated. She’s a bit like if Elle Woods were an actual person, and then she molds reality to make the movie plotline into her actual life.

    • Agree: Cowboy shaw
    • Replies: @Bitfu
    Taylor Swift and her 160+ IQ. What gives you that impression--her lyrics? [I'm embarrassed to even be associated with such a question--but I gotta know where this guy is coming from.]

    Is it her success? So, Beyonce is right there with theoretical physicists then...
  36. @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
    But then the question is: why exactly did she sell the rights to her old songs? Her old songs are still very profitable. Seems like if she had been shrewder, she’d have held on to her work and not have sold them in the first place.

    Putting it like that is misunderstanding the way the modern music industry works. When anyone signs to a record label, they essentially give up future ownership of their recordings in exchange for those recordings being funded by the record label. The artist still collects royalties from sales, radio plays, TV/film licensing, live performances, etc., but the record label owns the original recording indefinitely unless specified in the contract, which is extremely rare. Taylor’s new record deal with Republic Records has such a clause, where ownership of the master recordings will revert to her after I believe five years, but that’s only because she is a massive superstar now who has the clout to ask for something like that.

    Taylor was 16 years old when she signed her original record deal for six albums, and that record deal meant that all six of those albums would be owned the label and not her; she never sold her songs per se, when she delivered the finished version of “Shake It Off” for example that song was automatically owned by the label. Mind you, this was with an independent label, but the terms were still the same regarding ownership of the recordings. It’s a standard industry thing, in an industry where many standard industry things are extremely pernicious.

    • Replies: @MarkinLA
    The Beatles and the Beach Boys songbooks were for sale at one time. She should have tried to buy her's back.
    , @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
    To be fair, she has been a massive superstar since ca.2008, when her first (debut) album under a major label was released. It went multi-platinum with multiple hits that are still profitable and still receive massive airplay today. She's been a superstar for over a decade now. If she had had some sense of what was going on, perhaps she should've attempted to purchase some of the catalog to her earlier songs. Or perhaps one day she will.

    Seems like the only alternative is for the artist, once a superstar, is to purchase the record label. That way, they would gain control over their own catalog.
  37. It was bad enough that Soros funded Bolshevik street organizations and candidates at all levels, in an ongoing effort to undermine our system of government. But he went WAY TOO FAR when he messed with Taylor Swift’s recording rights. That s***’s just not gonna fly.

    • Replies: @El Dato
    He doesn't look like "The Emperor" after the face meltdown for nothing.
  38. @Reg Cæsar
    This person is white?

    "Rhyming" cop-out and knock-out? How amateur.

    Like can you just not step on his gown?

    Is she defending Pope Francis?

    Is there some kind of tune to this, to take our minds off how bad the words are? At least the girl-in-the-bleachers song had a semblance of story.

    Like can you just not step on his gown?

    Is she defending Pope Francis?

    This line must refer to a Gay wedding.

    The anti-Trump satire is embedded within a surface-level attack on someone who is against Gays or etc. people. Releasing this in 2019 is pretty bland, but would have been shocking in 2009, maybe enough to derail her early career.

    But I wonder. Isn’t it insulting to say a man who is getting gay-married would wear a gown–? Do they actually do this? I mean, they (most of them) do have dignity.

    Maybe there is another plausible interpretation I am missing. And it could also be lazy writing, the fish-in-a-barrel rhyming of ‘gown’ with the ‘down’ in line they wanted to deliver “You need to calm down” (a likely swipe at Trump).

  39. @prime noticer
    over time i've come to realize she's a bad person.what stunning woman goes over 10 years without being in a stable long term relationship eventually at some point, by random chance? she's 30, and does nothing but go thru boyfriends like clothes, then trashes them publicly after she's dumped them. she's done this like a dozen times in a row. that's ok once for song material, maybe twice. doing it over and over is unbecoming. it's a main theme of every album for her. not even third rate musicians do that.

    she's the problem, not the guys. she must be a supremely annoying person in real life. her public personality is certainly an act at this point.

    i don't think it has anything to do with her starting out with modest success and then becoming super famous and interacting with all the big players in her industry, changing her personality for the worse. i think she would have always been this way. if she wasn't famous she would just some country bumpkin woman doing this to random blue collar guys over and over.

    if she wasn’t famous she would just some country bumpkin woman doing this to random blue collar guys over and over.

    If she were just some country bumpkin woman she would have married the son of the banker or the Ford dealership owner or someone similarly situated, though she might be comfortably divorced by now.

  40. @prime noticer
    now for the musical commentary.

    this stuff wouldn't be an issue if old rock bands like KISS and Def Leppard hadn't figured out that by re-recording stuff, you could:

    1) cut out old band members who have writing credits to material from 30 or 40 years ago, but haven't been in the band for 20 or 30 years. re-record the tracks without them, then pull all the original tracks, and bam, you don't have to pay those guys you fired decades ago any royalties anymore.

    2) getting back at record companies and old recording contracts via the same mechanism.

    it's less clear whether 1 or 2 was the main impetus for serious bands to start doing this stuff. the KISS guys in particular were exceptionally vindictive, and really wanted all the old KISS members cut out of the royalties forever.

    this stuff goes back into the 00s, so Taylor Swift is like 12 years behind here, but i assume the idea has spread to most musicians with a big, valuable back catalog.

    i'm under the impression that musical rights come up for sale periodically, which is famously how Michael Jackson purchased all the Beatles material out from under Paul McCartney. i don't know what the various rules and laws are today however. times changes, laws change. you used to be able to sample anything with impunity, which is how the Beastie Boys were able to raid 20 years of hard rock record to make License To Ill. the laws were changed after that so that they couldn't just steal every AC/DC song and rap over it and sell 4 million units, and Beastie Boys sales predictably dropped like 70% when they had to write their own music.

    How do bands fire members? If a 4 man band is split 2 and 2, who fires whom?

    • Replies: @Gary in Gramercy
    A lot of times, it depends on which band members the record label acknowledges as "key men" (although that term may not be used explicitly), and thus requires as signatories to the band's recording contract.

    For example, I don't have Johnny Marr's book in front of me for ready reference, but I think Marr wrote that Rough Trade (the Smiths' original UK label) only wanted Morrissey and Marr to sign the Smiths' contract. After all, they wrote the songs together, and were the singer and guitarist. Andy Rourke and Mike Joyce were seen as more or less fungible -- both by Rough Trade and by Morrissey/Marr, an attitude that proved ruinous when it came up against traditional UK partnership law. (As in the U.S., unless otherwise clearly spelled out in a written partnership agreement, general partners in a partnership -- e.g., members of a pop group -- share profits and losses equally.) Yet even today, if the impossible happened, and Morrissey and Marr buried the hatchet, agreeing to reform the Smiths' for a lucrative one-time tour, they could hire any rhythm section in the world -- and all but the hardest of hardcore fans would agree that it was a Smiths reunion. Or, as the late Mark E. Smith said, "if it's me and your granny on bongos, it's the Fall."

    In general, the member or members who write the songs hold the real power, and that's not necessarily the lead singer, or even the member who started the group in the first place (Jagger and Richards over Brian Jones; Townshend over Daltrey; Page over Plant; Eddie Van Halen over David Lee Roth). The Police started out as Stewart Copeland's band, but once Sting started writing and singing the band's most popular songs, it wasn't Copeland's band anymore. With Pixies, Black Francis/Frank Black has fired Kim Deal almost as many times as George Steinbrenner fired Billy Martin, but he's been careful to replace her with another female bassist who can sing.
    , @Hemid
    Typically sometime in a band's career the band becomes a single legal entity, and often that entity isn't all of the members. Sometimes it's none. In "the manager stole all the money" stories the interesting part that's usually left out is how a band's representatives become, in conspiracy with the record company (and its battalions of drug whores), the only legally recognized members.

    Kiss has always been Gene Simmons and Paul Stanley (and their lawyers). The rest of the band are temps at whatever Kiss Inc. is called. The only former member who didn't leave the band broke (by famous-people standards) was Vinnie Vincent. His job was to write music, and his songs were Kiss's rock credibility comeback after they fell off into celebrity/disco/etc. in the early '80s. "Work for hire" doesn't cover everything; there are still obligatory royalties.

    But the whores can help retrieve those to the company, too.
  41. @TheMediumIsTheMassage
    Putting it like that is misunderstanding the way the modern music industry works. When anyone signs to a record label, they essentially give up future ownership of their recordings in exchange for those recordings being funded by the record label. The artist still collects royalties from sales, radio plays, TV/film licensing, live performances, etc., but the record label owns the original recording indefinitely unless specified in the contract, which is extremely rare. Taylor's new record deal with Republic Records has such a clause, where ownership of the master recordings will revert to her after I believe five years, but that's only because she is a massive superstar now who has the clout to ask for something like that.

    Taylor was 16 years old when she signed her original record deal for six albums, and that record deal meant that all six of those albums would be owned the label and not her; she never sold her songs per se, when she delivered the finished version of "Shake It Off" for example that song was automatically owned by the label. Mind you, this was with an independent label, but the terms were still the same regarding ownership of the recordings. It's a standard industry thing, in an industry where many standard industry things are extremely pernicious.

    The Beatles and the Beach Boys songbooks were for sale at one time. She should have tried to buy her’s back.

  42. @YetAnotherAnon
    Does that mean Taylor is "Our Gal" after all?


    https://i.redd.it/3i25nzdo6hjz.jpg

    Kid Rock was right about her, she playing a dem to get into the movies
    I mean come on?! She may as well worn a
    DONT VOTE FOR THE LEFT IN 2020
    Sweater on stage collecting her award….
    Taylor is well and truly helping the right

    .

  43. So will we see “Taylor Swift in Well-Maintained Previous German Great Uniform” memes again on 4chan?

    Win!

  44. @Anon
    It was bad enough that Soros funded Bolshevik street organizations and candidates at all levels, in an ongoing effort to undermine our system of government. But he went WAY TOO FAR when he messed with Taylor Swift's recording rights. That s***'s just not gonna fly.

    He doesn’t look like “The Emperor” after the face meltdown for nothing.

  45. @Che Blutarsky
    Whilst this poor woman's suffering ever end? Isn't it bad enough that she had to endure the hardships of childhood, with only the meager provisions that her investment banker father could provide? Isn't it bad enough that they could not afford to get her that vital early exposure and she had to wait until she was 14 to get a recording contract? And even now, after all of her hard work, she is still only worth a mere $400 million?

    Anne Frank had nothing on Taylor Swift when it comes to suffering.

    If you have not noticed Taylor doesnt care for the jews
    Especially rich old ones that donate
    $18bn to protect free speech and increasing democratic transparency
    Like George Soros, Late last year Trump said he liked Taylor Swift about 25% less after she made a political post favouring dems, but she has well and truly proven her loyalty
    Its a very smart move for the right to have the women of the decade front their Anti Semitic smear campaign against Soros the mega donor to the democratic party
    Soros was one of the largest donors to Hillary Clinton’s 2016 US presidential campaign his 5support for liberal, pro-democratic initiativeshas long made him a favorite subject for right-wing conspiracy theorists in Europe and the U.S. and Hungary has saturated the internet with anti-soros propaganda Taylor knows her fans are not sophisticated enough to fact check

    • Replies: @Sean
    https://variety.com/2019/music/news/scooter-braun-breaks-silence-taylor-swift-bad-guy-1203412278/

    A few weeks ago he committed lèse-majesté. No sympathy for anyone affecting the nickname Scooter, remember Lewis "Scooter" Libby "Jr".
  46. @Bella blow
    If you have not noticed Taylor doesnt care for the jews
    Especially rich old ones that donate
    $18bn to protect free speech and increasing democratic transparency
    Like George Soros, Late last year Trump said he liked Taylor Swift about 25% less after she made a political post favouring dems, but she has well and truly proven her loyalty
    Its a very smart move for the right to have the women of the decade front their Anti Semitic smear campaign against Soros the mega donor to the democratic party
    Soros was one of the largest donors to Hillary Clinton’s 2016 US presidential campaign his 5support for liberal, pro-democratic initiativeshas long made him a favorite subject for right-wing conspiracy theorists in Europe and the U.S. and Hungary has saturated the internet with anti-soros propaganda Taylor knows her fans are not sophisticated enough to fact check

    https://variety.com/2019/music/news/scooter-braun-breaks-silence-taylor-swift-bad-guy-1203412278/

    A few weeks ago he committed lèse-majesté. No sympathy for anyone affecting the nickname Scooter, remember Lewis “Scooter” Libby “Jr”.

  47. @TheMediumIsTheMassage
    I'm not so sure, I think she's legitimately a genius (probably an IQ over 160). I don't think there's ever been someone as smart as her become a music superstar, which is why she is already the most successful artist EVER in America if you look at market share relative to contemporary competition. She's swimming in dangerous water here but I don't think she should be underestimated. She's a bit like if Elle Woods were an actual person, and then she molds reality to make the movie plotline into her actual life.

    Taylor Swift and her 160+ IQ. What gives you that impression–her lyrics? [I’m embarrassed to even be associated with such a question–but I gotta know where this guy is coming from.]

    Is it her success? So, Beyonce is right there with theoretical physicists then…

    • Replies: @TheMediumIsTheMassage
    She's a great lyricist:

    https://genius.com/Taylor-swift-treacherous-lyrics

    https://genius.com/Taylor-swift-clean-lyrics

    And she's eons more successful than Beyonce, don't let the media propaganda tell you otherwise. Besides, unlike Beyonce, she doesn't have a smart husband pulling the strings.
  48. @Steve Sailer
    How do bands fire members? If a 4 man band is split 2 and 2, who fires whom?

    A lot of times, it depends on which band members the record label acknowledges as “key men” (although that term may not be used explicitly), and thus requires as signatories to the band’s recording contract.

    For example, I don’t have Johnny Marr’s book in front of me for ready reference, but I think Marr wrote that Rough Trade (the Smiths’ original UK label) only wanted Morrissey and Marr to sign the Smiths’ contract. After all, they wrote the songs together, and were the singer and guitarist. Andy Rourke and Mike Joyce were seen as more or less fungible — both by Rough Trade and by Morrissey/Marr, an attitude that proved ruinous when it came up against traditional UK partnership law. (As in the U.S., unless otherwise clearly spelled out in a written partnership agreement, general partners in a partnership — e.g., members of a pop group — share profits and losses equally.) Yet even today, if the impossible happened, and Morrissey and Marr buried the hatchet, agreeing to reform the Smiths’ for a lucrative one-time tour, they could hire any rhythm section in the world — and all but the hardest of hardcore fans would agree that it was a Smiths reunion. Or, as the late Mark E. Smith said, “if it’s me and your granny on bongos, it’s the Fall.”

    In general, the member or members who write the songs hold the real power, and that’s not necessarily the lead singer, or even the member who started the group in the first place (Jagger and Richards over Brian Jones; Townshend over Daltrey; Page over Plant; Eddie Van Halen over David Lee Roth). The Police started out as Stewart Copeland’s band, but once Sting started writing and singing the band’s most popular songs, it wasn’t Copeland’s band anymore. With Pixies, Black Francis/Frank Black has fired Kim Deal almost as many times as George Steinbrenner fired Billy Martin, but he’s been careful to replace her with another female bassist who can sing.

  49. @Steve Sailer
    How do bands fire members? If a 4 man band is split 2 and 2, who fires whom?

    Typically sometime in a band’s career the band becomes a single legal entity, and often that entity isn’t all of the members. Sometimes it’s none. In “the manager stole all the money” stories the interesting part that’s usually left out is how a band’s representatives become, in conspiracy with the record company (and its battalions of drug whores), the only legally recognized members.

    Kiss has always been Gene Simmons and Paul Stanley (and their lawyers). The rest of the band are temps at whatever Kiss Inc. is called. The only former member who didn’t leave the band broke (by famous-people standards) was Vinnie Vincent. His job was to write music, and his songs were Kiss’s rock credibility comeback after they fell off into celebrity/disco/etc. in the early ’80s. “Work for hire” doesn’t cover everything; there are still obligatory royalties.

    But the whores can help retrieve those to the company, too.

    • Replies: @Autochthon

    Kiss has always been Gene Simmons and Paul Stanley (and their lawyers). The rest of the band are temps at whatever Kiss Inc. is called. The only former member who didn’t leave the band broke (by famous-people standards) was Vinnie Vincent. His job was to write music, and his songs were Kiss’s rock credibility comeback after they fell off into celebrity/disco/etc. in the early ’80s. “Work for hire” doesn’t cover everything; there are still obligatory royalties.
     
    Nearly this entire paragraph is nonsense.



    1. Kiss' profits and decision-making were divided equally four ways among Frehley, Criss, Stanley, and Simmons from their founding. However, the first two were idiots who mostly did drugs while the latter two improved their songwriting skills and abilities to perform, and made, eventually, all the decisions about leadership and business, because the first two could not be bothered. Eventually, things worsened to the point that Criss was not even able to (and thus not permitted) to play on the albums at all (people like Anton Fig did it, uncredited), and Frehley was not playing on all the songs. Finally, Chriss was fired. Frehley was fired or resigned, depending upon which aources one believes....

    2. The replacements for Chriss and Frehley were indeed hired as contractors. And all those who have come and gone have worked for hire, with no equity (including Chriss and Frehely during the reunion of the original line-up). However, when Kuhlick, Vincent, Singer, and Taylor left the band (as they all did, though the last two later returned) not one of them was "broke" – not even by "famous people standards." Kuhlick, Singer, and Taylor left voluntarily and amicably (hell, they encouraged the reunion with Chriss and Frehley!). Taylor was a guitar technician for the band before joining them, and he remained in that rôle when he stepped down (one of his jobs was to teach Frehley the songs!). Everyone except Vincent was paid well, and benefitted. In fact, at some points they did better than Simmons and Stanley, because during lean times when albums were not selling well and tours were poorly attended and lost money, Simmons and Stanley were on the hook to pay the engineers, promoters, trucker-drivers, venue, roadies, etc. – but the hired guns all still got paid their $500,000.00 (or $1,000,000.00; or whatever) for the tour.

    3. Carr died. He's a special case. There is dispute whether Simmons and Stanley did the decent thing and paid his medical bills and such, but if they did not, this makes them jerks – not crooks.

    4. Vincent is also a little different. Apparently he was such an insufferable douchebag he had to be fired despite his technical prowess and magnificent songwriting (ask the guys in Slaughter – the successor to Vinnie Vincent's Invasion, which basically was the same band with a new guitarist because they'd had it with Vincent...). His songs were so good they literally saved the band from a slump that may have ended it (compare The Elder to Lick it Up). Vincent claims he was mistreated, screwed out of his publishing, and paid $500.00 a week. I find his credibility strained by the lack of such complaints from Kuhlick, Taylor, and Singer, and by the fact the guys in his own band also claim he was an asshat. A musical genius, sure...but still an asshat.

    5. There is actually no such thing as an "obligatory royalty" independent of what the parties may contract regarding a work for hire. Your expertise of copyright and employment law is as reprehensible as your knowledge of the band's history. If indeed Vincent was not paid any publishing, that, again, makes Simmons and Stanley jerks, but not crooks (and if Vincent signed a contract permitting this arrangement, he was a musical genius, an asshat, and a complete moron vis-à-vis business acumen!).
  50. Meh, she made $185 million last year and has a net worth of $360 million. She should find better things to cry about.

  51. @prime noticer
    now for the musical commentary.

    this stuff wouldn't be an issue if old rock bands like KISS and Def Leppard hadn't figured out that by re-recording stuff, you could:

    1) cut out old band members who have writing credits to material from 30 or 40 years ago, but haven't been in the band for 20 or 30 years. re-record the tracks without them, then pull all the original tracks, and bam, you don't have to pay those guys you fired decades ago any royalties anymore.

    2) getting back at record companies and old recording contracts via the same mechanism.

    it's less clear whether 1 or 2 was the main impetus for serious bands to start doing this stuff. the KISS guys in particular were exceptionally vindictive, and really wanted all the old KISS members cut out of the royalties forever.

    this stuff goes back into the 00s, so Taylor Swift is like 12 years behind here, but i assume the idea has spread to most musicians with a big, valuable back catalog.

    i'm under the impression that musical rights come up for sale periodically, which is famously how Michael Jackson purchased all the Beatles material out from under Paul McCartney. i don't know what the various rules and laws are today however. times changes, laws change. you used to be able to sample anything with impunity, which is how the Beastie Boys were able to raid 20 years of hard rock record to make License To Ill. the laws were changed after that so that they couldn't just steal every AC/DC song and rap over it and sell 4 million units, and Beastie Boys sales predictably dropped like 70% when they had to write their own music.

    “1) cut out old band members who have writing credits to material from 30 or 40 years ago, but haven’t been in the band for 20 or 30 years. re-record the tracks without them, then pull all the original tracks, and bam, you don’t have to pay those guys you fired decades ago any royalties anymore.”

    Yes you do. If they have writing credits to the songs, and they are re-recorded, it doesn’t matter. They will receive royalties since they helped write the song. Be the same if the track was covered. If someone covered Neil Young’s After the Goldrush in 2019, Neil still gets his royalty since he wrote the song. Songwriters get their share, unless they sell their songs. Which doesn’t explain why Swift would sell her back catalog when her older songs are still selling well.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    There are songwriting royalties and then there are performance and mechanicals royalties, and they are different. In Taylor Swift's case, she is famous for only doing her own material, so there is no other artist to cut out, but there is the old record company she wants out. In most rock bands, one or two members wrote the lion's share of material and as long as they stay with the program, the spice flows as far as the songwriting royalties but the performance from record sales and for some entities, more importantly the synchronization royalties can be redirected.

    Very few pop artists can successfully really recreate what they did decades ago, though, for many reasons. The new version "Doesn't sound quite right".
  52. @TheMediumIsTheMassage
    Putting it like that is misunderstanding the way the modern music industry works. When anyone signs to a record label, they essentially give up future ownership of their recordings in exchange for those recordings being funded by the record label. The artist still collects royalties from sales, radio plays, TV/film licensing, live performances, etc., but the record label owns the original recording indefinitely unless specified in the contract, which is extremely rare. Taylor's new record deal with Republic Records has such a clause, where ownership of the master recordings will revert to her after I believe five years, but that's only because she is a massive superstar now who has the clout to ask for something like that.

    Taylor was 16 years old when she signed her original record deal for six albums, and that record deal meant that all six of those albums would be owned the label and not her; she never sold her songs per se, when she delivered the finished version of "Shake It Off" for example that song was automatically owned by the label. Mind you, this was with an independent label, but the terms were still the same regarding ownership of the recordings. It's a standard industry thing, in an industry where many standard industry things are extremely pernicious.

    To be fair, she has been a massive superstar since ca.2008, when her first (debut) album under a major label was released. It went multi-platinum with multiple hits that are still profitable and still receive massive airplay today. She’s been a superstar for over a decade now. If she had had some sense of what was going on, perhaps she should’ve attempted to purchase some of the catalog to her earlier songs. Or perhaps one day she will.

    Seems like the only alternative is for the artist, once a superstar, is to purchase the record label. That way, they would gain control over their own catalog.

    • Replies: @J.Ross
    The last time an artist seriously threatened a label, every single controlled mass media outlet screamed at the top of its lungs that he was a serial pedophile, despite a laughable lack of evidence and pointedly dishonest "victims" who had been militantly defending him earlier; this, from the same media that will not discuss certain far more likely bad guys.
  53. @YetAnotherAnon
    Does that mean Taylor is "Our Gal" after all?


    https://i.redd.it/3i25nzdo6hjz.jpg

    no you idiot.

  54. I guess the Soros family was so thrilled with her interracial sex video that they figured she wouldn’t mind if her “art” was confiscated by gods of the left.

  55. @The Germ Theory of Disease
    I dunno... as A. Schoenberg once said, There's still a lot of very good music left to be written in the key of C Major. Thank God he wasn't the one to try it.

    Me, I'm still busy wandering thru Terry Riley, early PJ Harvey, late Coltrane, and Throwing Muses' "Hunkpapa" -- a better record, and a better feminist statement, than Taylor Swift is ever likely to make.

  56. @prime noticer
    now for the musical commentary.

    this stuff wouldn't be an issue if old rock bands like KISS and Def Leppard hadn't figured out that by re-recording stuff, you could:

    1) cut out old band members who have writing credits to material from 30 or 40 years ago, but haven't been in the band for 20 or 30 years. re-record the tracks without them, then pull all the original tracks, and bam, you don't have to pay those guys you fired decades ago any royalties anymore.

    2) getting back at record companies and old recording contracts via the same mechanism.

    it's less clear whether 1 or 2 was the main impetus for serious bands to start doing this stuff. the KISS guys in particular were exceptionally vindictive, and really wanted all the old KISS members cut out of the royalties forever.

    this stuff goes back into the 00s, so Taylor Swift is like 12 years behind here, but i assume the idea has spread to most musicians with a big, valuable back catalog.

    i'm under the impression that musical rights come up for sale periodically, which is famously how Michael Jackson purchased all the Beatles material out from under Paul McCartney. i don't know what the various rules and laws are today however. times changes, laws change. you used to be able to sample anything with impunity, which is how the Beastie Boys were able to raid 20 years of hard rock record to make License To Ill. the laws were changed after that so that they couldn't just steal every AC/DC song and rap over it and sell 4 million units, and Beastie Boys sales predictably dropped like 70% when they had to write their own music.

    now for the musical commentary.

    this stuff wouldn’t be an issue if old rock bands like KISS and Def Leppard hadn’t figured out that by re-recording stuff, you could:

    1) cut out old band members who have writing credits to material from 30 or 40 years ago, but haven’t been in the band for 20 or 30 years. re-record the tracks without them, then pull all the original tracks, and bam, you don’t have to pay those guys you fired decades ago any royalties anymore.

    2) getting back at record companies and old recording contracts via the same mechanism.

    I always thought it was just because they were has beens who were trying to squeeze a bit more money out of their laurels.

  57. @prime noticer
    now for the musical commentary.

    this stuff wouldn't be an issue if old rock bands like KISS and Def Leppard hadn't figured out that by re-recording stuff, you could:

    1) cut out old band members who have writing credits to material from 30 or 40 years ago, but haven't been in the band for 20 or 30 years. re-record the tracks without them, then pull all the original tracks, and bam, you don't have to pay those guys you fired decades ago any royalties anymore.

    2) getting back at record companies and old recording contracts via the same mechanism.

    it's less clear whether 1 or 2 was the main impetus for serious bands to start doing this stuff. the KISS guys in particular were exceptionally vindictive, and really wanted all the old KISS members cut out of the royalties forever.

    this stuff goes back into the 00s, so Taylor Swift is like 12 years behind here, but i assume the idea has spread to most musicians with a big, valuable back catalog.

    i'm under the impression that musical rights come up for sale periodically, which is famously how Michael Jackson purchased all the Beatles material out from under Paul McCartney. i don't know what the various rules and laws are today however. times changes, laws change. you used to be able to sample anything with impunity, which is how the Beastie Boys were able to raid 20 years of hard rock record to make License To Ill. the laws were changed after that so that they couldn't just steal every AC/DC song and rap over it and sell 4 million units, and Beastie Boys sales predictably dropped like 70% when they had to write their own music.

    According to this article from last month, Taylor Swift intends to re-record her older stuff as soon as she can legally do so – which is next year.

    https://www.etonline.com/taylor-swift-calls-out-scooter-braun-and-scott-borchetta-over-rights-to-perform-her-older-music

    quote:

    Swift went on the claim that Borchetta told her reps that Big Machine Records will give the approval “only if I do these things: If I agree to not re-record copycat versions of my songs next year (which is something I’m both legally allowed to do and looking forward to) and also told my team that I need to stop talking about him and Scooter Braun.”

  58. @Che Blutarsky
    Whilst this poor woman's suffering ever end? Isn't it bad enough that she had to endure the hardships of childhood, with only the meager provisions that her investment banker father could provide? Isn't it bad enough that they could not afford to get her that vital early exposure and she had to wait until she was 14 to get a recording contract? And even now, after all of her hard work, she is still only worth a mere $400 million?

    Anne Frank had nothing on Taylor Swift when it comes to suffering.

    Doesn’t change the fact she got shafted… What’s RIGHT is RIGHT. PERIOD.

  59. Anonymous[427] • Disclaimer says:
    @prime noticer
    over time i've come to realize she's a bad person.what stunning woman goes over 10 years without being in a stable long term relationship eventually at some point, by random chance? she's 30, and does nothing but go thru boyfriends like clothes, then trashes them publicly after she's dumped them. she's done this like a dozen times in a row. that's ok once for song material, maybe twice. doing it over and over is unbecoming. it's a main theme of every album for her. not even third rate musicians do that.

    she's the problem, not the guys. she must be a supremely annoying person in real life. her public personality is certainly an act at this point.

    i don't think it has anything to do with her starting out with modest success and then becoming super famous and interacting with all the big players in her industry, changing her personality for the worse. i think she would have always been this way. if she wasn't famous she would just some country bumpkin woman doing this to random blue collar guys over and over.

    After the first one or two, getting pumped , dumped and having a song written about you by Taylor Swift became a rite of passage in the industry, for erstwhile studs.

    There’s also some question as to whether Tay-Tay is actually, you know, giving it up. John Mayer for his part is said to have told a couple of people I know at NAMM (Don probably knows one of them very well, though such talk would burn his virgin ears, I’m sure) that the problem in the relationship was that Tay just wasn’t interested in actually doing it, and Mayer is famously a high libido kind of guy. There was always a rumor that she was a very closeted lesbian.

    It would make sense that if she were, being very closeted would in fact be the career move, because as an out lesbian parental support for being a Swiftie in Middle America would be strongly attenuated, and hipsters are never going to be a market for her. She knows her audience and they know her, or rather, they know her persona, carefully crafted.

    If in fact she has transgressed the Powers That Be and if she is in fact a closeted mussypuncher, expect her to be spectacularly outed. That would put the kibosh on her career as she’s known it up until now, in all likelihood. But I’m not so sure she has transgressed. She’s more likely to be controlled opposition.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    Or maybe she's a super alpha-female who needs a super alpha-male, and good looking guys who have made as much money as her are rare?
    , @donvonburg
    Or maybe: she's just a moral person who does not casually engage in illicit sex?

    There are still a few people like that, and contrary to popular opinion, most are not publicly religiose, but rather quiet about their beliefs outside their household and churches.

    That seems more likely to me than her being a lesbian. Lesbians, closeted or out, almost invariably have been severely abused by a male in their life, sometimes their fathers, sometimes a father figure at a formative stage. Occasionally you'll have one that is enticed into it by situations like incarceration, the military, being around butch female figures such as in sports, but usually they straighten out once the influence is removed. It seems like Taylor Swift came from a genuinely decent home and never ran into a malevolent male figure that could have distorted her in that way.

    But yes, it seems like the targets of her songwriting probably wind up crying all the way to the bank. It probably does add to their street cred, so to speak.
    , @Autochthon

    [H]ipsters are never going to be a market for her.
     
    I am surrounded by nothing but douchebag hipsters because of my location and my work, and I can assure you the above statement could not be more incorrect. Hipsters are an enormous market for her pablum; they gobble it up and pack stadiums to fawn over her. Hipster doofuses would do more for this blonde dyke than Lena Dunham would do for a Klondike. (Hat tip to Yeezy....)
  60. Anonymous[427] • Disclaimer says:
    @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
    "1) cut out old band members who have writing credits to material from 30 or 40 years ago, but haven’t been in the band for 20 or 30 years. re-record the tracks without them, then pull all the original tracks, and bam, you don’t have to pay those guys you fired decades ago any royalties anymore."


    Yes you do. If they have writing credits to the songs, and they are re-recorded, it doesn't matter. They will receive royalties since they helped write the song. Be the same if the track was covered. If someone covered Neil Young's After the Goldrush in 2019, Neil still gets his royalty since he wrote the song. Songwriters get their share, unless they sell their songs. Which doesn't explain why Swift would sell her back catalog when her older songs are still selling well.

    There are songwriting royalties and then there are performance and mechanicals royalties, and they are different. In Taylor Swift’s case, she is famous for only doing her own material, so there is no other artist to cut out, but there is the old record company she wants out. In most rock bands, one or two members wrote the lion’s share of material and as long as they stay with the program, the spice flows as far as the songwriting royalties but the performance from record sales and for some entities, more importantly the synchronization royalties can be redirected.

    Very few pop artists can successfully really recreate what they did decades ago, though, for many reasons. The new version “Doesn’t sound quite right”.

    • Replies: @Autochthon
    This guy right here understands intellectual property. Heed him.
  61. @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
    To be fair, she has been a massive superstar since ca.2008, when her first (debut) album under a major label was released. It went multi-platinum with multiple hits that are still profitable and still receive massive airplay today. She's been a superstar for over a decade now. If she had had some sense of what was going on, perhaps she should've attempted to purchase some of the catalog to her earlier songs. Or perhaps one day she will.

    Seems like the only alternative is for the artist, once a superstar, is to purchase the record label. That way, they would gain control over their own catalog.

    The last time an artist seriously threatened a label, every single controlled mass media outlet screamed at the top of its lungs that he was a serial pedophile, despite a laughable lack of evidence and pointedly dishonest “victims” who had been militantly defending him earlier; this, from the same media that will not discuss certain far more likely bad guys.

    • Replies: @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
    And...who exactly is a far more likely bad guy? And do not respond with "Donald Trump".
  62. Buying up the rights to Taylor Swift music is next level thinking. Since America is a jew-ish country now I don’t think it’s fair to criticize anyone for shrewd, next level financial decisions.
    I’d have more sympathy for tay-tay if she didn’t keep pumping out horrible white girl pop music and I didn’t have to keep hearing about it. We must all remember that time when she won the Grammy because of white privilege when it should have rightfully gone to beyonce.

    • Replies: @Anonymous

    We must all remember that time when she won the Grammy because of white privilege when it should have rightfully gone to beyonce.
     
    I thought Solange was the real Terry Hynde / Chris Jagger / Simon Townshend.

    Or wait, maybe she is.
  63. Through is spelled through not thru. This is the iSteve comment section not black twitter.

  64. @Kyle
    Buying up the rights to Taylor Swift music is next level thinking. Since America is a jew-ish country now I don’t think it’s fair to criticize anyone for shrewd, next level financial decisions.
    I’d have more sympathy for tay-tay if she didn’t keep pumping out horrible white girl pop music and I didn’t have to keep hearing about it. We must all remember that time when she won the Grammy because of white privilege when it should have rightfully gone to beyonce.

    We must all remember that time when she won the Grammy because of white privilege when it should have rightfully gone to beyonce.

    I thought Solange was the real Terry Hynde / Chris Jagger / Simon Townshend.

    Or wait, maybe she is.

  65. @Anonymous
    After the first one or two, getting pumped , dumped and having a song written about you by Taylor Swift became a rite of passage in the industry, for erstwhile studs.

    There's also some question as to whether Tay-Tay is actually, you know, giving it up. John Mayer for his part is said to have told a couple of people I know at NAMM (Don probably knows one of them very well, though such talk would burn his virgin ears, I'm sure) that the problem in the relationship was that Tay just wasn't interested in actually doing it, and Mayer is famously a high libido kind of guy. There was always a rumor that she was a very closeted lesbian.

    It would make sense that if she were, being very closeted would in fact be the career move, because as an out lesbian parental support for being a Swiftie in Middle America would be strongly attenuated, and hipsters are never going to be a market for her. She knows her audience and they know her, or rather, they know her persona, carefully crafted.

    If in fact she has transgressed the Powers That Be and if she is in fact a closeted mussypuncher, expect her to be spectacularly outed. That would put the kibosh on her career as she's known it up until now, in all likelihood. But I'm not so sure she has transgressed. She's more likely to be controlled opposition.

    Or maybe she’s a super alpha-female who needs a super alpha-male, and good looking guys who have made as much money as her are rare?

    • Replies: @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
    Question: On the whole, do alpha males generally want an alpha female? Would think that the evidence is that they do not. Donald Trump, about as alpha as a man can get, for the most part, has avoided going for high alpha females in his personal life (e.g. perhaps the one time he went for one was Ivana, who was clearly an alpha female, and the relationship ultimately didn't work out).

    In relationships between two alphas, one must always submit. Both kings cannot have the mountain all to themselves.
  66. Anonymous[427] • Disclaimer says:

    Or maybe she’s a super alpha-female who needs a super alpha-male, and good looking guys who have made as much money as her are rare?

    John Mayer hasn’t made as much money, but he’s a super-alpha male, buff, bejingled, famously considered sexually adept and active, and technically a first rate guitar player , which is a high macho thing. She hasn’t shown much interest in Silicon Valley or hedge fund types, who are the big pockets, if that’s her measuring stick.

    Chrissie Hynde was a super-alpha female and she never had a problem getting serviced, even though she set the additional requirement that her suitors be vegetarians, which tends to severely limit alphaness in males. Most young male vegans are soyboys. Neither of the fathers of her children were widely considered notoriously studly. That would be true to a lesser extent of Madonna’s kids’ sires. Carlos Leon was physically impressive but a gym trainer, and of no wealth or achievement. Guy Ritchie was somewhat successful as a film director.

    No, Taylor Swift is either a lesbian, or very disciplined and playing the long game, or she really is flaky….time will tell. She may well be planning to semi-retire, marry and start a family for all we know, and may be at the stage where she just doesn’t care about future earnings all that much and figuring she might as well say what she wants now. She’s smart enough to realize that if she wants kids she had better start pretty soon, especially with her thin build-she likely has a less than optimal pelvis for birthing. So in the next five years, it should be very apparent wht is what, for those interested.

  67. @Anonymous
    After the first one or two, getting pumped , dumped and having a song written about you by Taylor Swift became a rite of passage in the industry, for erstwhile studs.

    There's also some question as to whether Tay-Tay is actually, you know, giving it up. John Mayer for his part is said to have told a couple of people I know at NAMM (Don probably knows one of them very well, though such talk would burn his virgin ears, I'm sure) that the problem in the relationship was that Tay just wasn't interested in actually doing it, and Mayer is famously a high libido kind of guy. There was always a rumor that she was a very closeted lesbian.

    It would make sense that if she were, being very closeted would in fact be the career move, because as an out lesbian parental support for being a Swiftie in Middle America would be strongly attenuated, and hipsters are never going to be a market for her. She knows her audience and they know her, or rather, they know her persona, carefully crafted.

    If in fact she has transgressed the Powers That Be and if she is in fact a closeted mussypuncher, expect her to be spectacularly outed. That would put the kibosh on her career as she's known it up until now, in all likelihood. But I'm not so sure she has transgressed. She's more likely to be controlled opposition.

    Or maybe: she’s just a moral person who does not casually engage in illicit sex?

    There are still a few people like that, and contrary to popular opinion, most are not publicly religiose, but rather quiet about their beliefs outside their household and churches.

    That seems more likely to me than her being a lesbian. Lesbians, closeted or out, almost invariably have been severely abused by a male in their life, sometimes their fathers, sometimes a father figure at a formative stage. Occasionally you’ll have one that is enticed into it by situations like incarceration, the military, being around butch female figures such as in sports, but usually they straighten out once the influence is removed. It seems like Taylor Swift came from a genuinely decent home and never ran into a malevolent male figure that could have distorted her in that way.

    But yes, it seems like the targets of her songwriting probably wind up crying all the way to the bank. It probably does add to their street cred, so to speak.

    • Replies: @anon
    Or maybe: she’s just a moral person who does not casually engage in illicit sex

    lol. Dude, how to say this? You need to calm down.
    , @Anonymous

    Or maybe: she’s just a moral person who does not casually engage in illicit sex?
     
    Yeah, that's the ticket.

    And maybe, on account as to how I've been exceptionally well behaved in that department this year, Santa Claus will bring me that 365 Berlinetta Boxer (non-federalumped, left hand drive, Shell yellow and red or yellow/gray please...) this Christmas.
  68. @Steve Sailer
    Or maybe she's a super alpha-female who needs a super alpha-male, and good looking guys who have made as much money as her are rare?

    Question: On the whole, do alpha males generally want an alpha female? Would think that the evidence is that they do not. Donald Trump, about as alpha as a man can get, for the most part, has avoided going for high alpha females in his personal life (e.g. perhaps the one time he went for one was Ivana, who was clearly an alpha female, and the relationship ultimately didn’t work out).

    In relationships between two alphas, one must always submit. Both kings cannot have the mountain all to themselves.

  69. @J.Ross
    The last time an artist seriously threatened a label, every single controlled mass media outlet screamed at the top of its lungs that he was a serial pedophile, despite a laughable lack of evidence and pointedly dishonest "victims" who had been militantly defending him earlier; this, from the same media that will not discuss certain far more likely bad guys.

    And…who exactly is a far more likely bad guy? And do not respond with “Donald Trump”.

  70. @donvonburg
    Or maybe: she's just a moral person who does not casually engage in illicit sex?

    There are still a few people like that, and contrary to popular opinion, most are not publicly religiose, but rather quiet about their beliefs outside their household and churches.

    That seems more likely to me than her being a lesbian. Lesbians, closeted or out, almost invariably have been severely abused by a male in their life, sometimes their fathers, sometimes a father figure at a formative stage. Occasionally you'll have one that is enticed into it by situations like incarceration, the military, being around butch female figures such as in sports, but usually they straighten out once the influence is removed. It seems like Taylor Swift came from a genuinely decent home and never ran into a malevolent male figure that could have distorted her in that way.

    But yes, it seems like the targets of her songwriting probably wind up crying all the way to the bank. It probably does add to their street cred, so to speak.

    Or maybe: she’s just a moral person who does not casually engage in illicit sex

    lol. Dude, how to say this? You need to calm down.

    • Replies: @Joe Stalin
    "illicit sex" is a social construct.
  71. Alpha female is a term of art that requires justified father worship and objective competitive qualification (John McCain’s second wife and Sharlto Copley’s wife are probables). What did Taylor Swift do besides be a successful pop singer and what did her dad do besides be rich to be called this?

  72. @anon
    Or maybe: she’s just a moral person who does not casually engage in illicit sex

    lol. Dude, how to say this? You need to calm down.

    “illicit sex” is a social construct.

  73. Anonymous[427] • Disclaimer says:
    @donvonburg
    Or maybe: she's just a moral person who does not casually engage in illicit sex?

    There are still a few people like that, and contrary to popular opinion, most are not publicly religiose, but rather quiet about their beliefs outside their household and churches.

    That seems more likely to me than her being a lesbian. Lesbians, closeted or out, almost invariably have been severely abused by a male in their life, sometimes their fathers, sometimes a father figure at a formative stage. Occasionally you'll have one that is enticed into it by situations like incarceration, the military, being around butch female figures such as in sports, but usually they straighten out once the influence is removed. It seems like Taylor Swift came from a genuinely decent home and never ran into a malevolent male figure that could have distorted her in that way.

    But yes, it seems like the targets of her songwriting probably wind up crying all the way to the bank. It probably does add to their street cred, so to speak.

    Or maybe: she’s just a moral person who does not casually engage in illicit sex?

    Yeah, that’s the ticket.

    And maybe, on account as to how I’ve been exceptionally well behaved in that department this year, Santa Claus will bring me that 365 Berlinetta Boxer (non-federalumped, left hand drive, Shell yellow and red or yellow/gray please…) this Christmas.

  74. Anonymous[253] • Disclaimer says:
    @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
    Not exactly. Taylor’s first released album went multi platinum, with multiple major hits. So from day one, her first commercially released songs were hits and she was an instant superstar.

    And they knew this was going to happen how? Ninety-nine percent of first releases of new artists make no net spendable. One Taylor Swift keeps 99 new debuts plus the Mose Allisons and the Samantha Fishes and the Junior Browns and the Susannah McCorkles in the business going.

    Without the whales, there’s no maintaining the infrastructure for the rest of the ocean.

  75. @Hemid
    Typically sometime in a band's career the band becomes a single legal entity, and often that entity isn't all of the members. Sometimes it's none. In "the manager stole all the money" stories the interesting part that's usually left out is how a band's representatives become, in conspiracy with the record company (and its battalions of drug whores), the only legally recognized members.

    Kiss has always been Gene Simmons and Paul Stanley (and their lawyers). The rest of the band are temps at whatever Kiss Inc. is called. The only former member who didn't leave the band broke (by famous-people standards) was Vinnie Vincent. His job was to write music, and his songs were Kiss's rock credibility comeback after they fell off into celebrity/disco/etc. in the early '80s. "Work for hire" doesn't cover everything; there are still obligatory royalties.

    But the whores can help retrieve those to the company, too.

    Kiss has always been Gene Simmons and Paul Stanley (and their lawyers). The rest of the band are temps at whatever Kiss Inc. is called. The only former member who didn’t leave the band broke (by famous-people standards) was Vinnie Vincent. His job was to write music, and his songs were Kiss’s rock credibility comeback after they fell off into celebrity/disco/etc. in the early ’80s. “Work for hire” doesn’t cover everything; there are still obligatory royalties.

    Nearly this entire paragraph is nonsense.

    [MORE]

    1. Kiss’ profits and decision-making were divided equally four ways among Frehley, Criss, Stanley, and Simmons from their founding. However, the first two were idiots who mostly did drugs while the latter two improved their songwriting skills and abilities to perform, and made, eventually, all the decisions about leadership and business, because the first two could not be bothered. Eventually, things worsened to the point that Criss was not even able to (and thus not permitted) to play on the albums at all (people like Anton Fig did it, uncredited), and Frehley was not playing on all the songs. Finally, Chriss was fired. Frehley was fired or resigned, depending upon which aources one believes….

    2. The replacements for Chriss and Frehley were indeed hired as contractors. And all those who have come and gone have worked for hire, with no equity (including Chriss and Frehely during the reunion of the original line-up). However, when Kuhlick, Vincent, Singer, and Taylor left the band (as they all did, though the last two later returned) not one of them was “broke” – not even by “famous people standards.” Kuhlick, Singer, and Taylor left voluntarily and amicably (hell, they encouraged the reunion with Chriss and Frehley!). Taylor was a guitar technician for the band before joining them, and he remained in that rôle when he stepped down (one of his jobs was to teach Frehley the songs!). Everyone except Vincent was paid well, and benefitted. In fact, at some points they did better than Simmons and Stanley, because during lean times when albums were not selling well and tours were poorly attended and lost money, Simmons and Stanley were on the hook to pay the engineers, promoters, trucker-drivers, venue, roadies, etc. – but the hired guns all still got paid their $500,000.00 (or $1,000,000.00; or whatever) for the tour.

    3. Carr died. He’s a special case. There is dispute whether Simmons and Stanley did the decent thing and paid his medical bills and such, but if they did not, this makes them jerks – not crooks.

    4. Vincent is also a little different. Apparently he was such an insufferable douchebag he had to be fired despite his technical prowess and magnificent songwriting (ask the guys in Slaughter – the successor to Vinnie Vincent’s Invasion, which basically was the same band with a new guitarist because they’d had it with Vincent…). His songs were so good they literally saved the band from a slump that may have ended it (compare The Elder to Lick it Up). Vincent claims he was mistreated, screwed out of his publishing, and paid $500.00 a week. I find his credibility strained by the lack of such complaints from Kuhlick, Taylor, and Singer, and by the fact the guys in his own band also claim he was an asshat. A musical genius, sure…but still an asshat.

    5. There is actually no such thing as an “obligatory royalty” independent of what the parties may contract regarding a work for hire. Your expertise of copyright and employment law is as reprehensible as your knowledge of the band’s history. If indeed Vincent was not paid any publishing, that, again, makes Simmons and Stanley jerks, but not crooks (and if Vincent signed a contract permitting this arrangement, he was a musical genius, an asshat, and a complete moron vis-à-vis business acumen!).

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    How was it decided among the 4 founders of Kiss which two were entitled to fire the other two?

    My impression is that a lot of bands were formed on handshake deals with boyish One for All and All for One attitudes, which seem difficult to unravel when later some of the members prove more competent than other members.

  76. @Anonymous
    There are songwriting royalties and then there are performance and mechanicals royalties, and they are different. In Taylor Swift's case, she is famous for only doing her own material, so there is no other artist to cut out, but there is the old record company she wants out. In most rock bands, one or two members wrote the lion's share of material and as long as they stay with the program, the spice flows as far as the songwriting royalties but the performance from record sales and for some entities, more importantly the synchronization royalties can be redirected.

    Very few pop artists can successfully really recreate what they did decades ago, though, for many reasons. The new version "Doesn't sound quite right".

    This guy right here understands intellectual property. Heed him.

  77. @Anonymous
    After the first one or two, getting pumped , dumped and having a song written about you by Taylor Swift became a rite of passage in the industry, for erstwhile studs.

    There's also some question as to whether Tay-Tay is actually, you know, giving it up. John Mayer for his part is said to have told a couple of people I know at NAMM (Don probably knows one of them very well, though such talk would burn his virgin ears, I'm sure) that the problem in the relationship was that Tay just wasn't interested in actually doing it, and Mayer is famously a high libido kind of guy. There was always a rumor that she was a very closeted lesbian.

    It would make sense that if she were, being very closeted would in fact be the career move, because as an out lesbian parental support for being a Swiftie in Middle America would be strongly attenuated, and hipsters are never going to be a market for her. She knows her audience and they know her, or rather, they know her persona, carefully crafted.

    If in fact she has transgressed the Powers That Be and if she is in fact a closeted mussypuncher, expect her to be spectacularly outed. That would put the kibosh on her career as she's known it up until now, in all likelihood. But I'm not so sure she has transgressed. She's more likely to be controlled opposition.

    [H]ipsters are never going to be a market for her.

    I am surrounded by nothing but douchebag hipsters because of my location and my work, and I can assure you the above statement could not be more incorrect. Hipsters are an enormous market for her pablum; they gobble it up and pack stadiums to fawn over her. Hipster doofuses would do more for this blonde dyke than Lena Dunham would do for a Klondike. (Hat tip to Yeezy….)

    • LOL: Jim Don Bob
  78. @Autochthon

    Kiss has always been Gene Simmons and Paul Stanley (and their lawyers). The rest of the band are temps at whatever Kiss Inc. is called. The only former member who didn’t leave the band broke (by famous-people standards) was Vinnie Vincent. His job was to write music, and his songs were Kiss’s rock credibility comeback after they fell off into celebrity/disco/etc. in the early ’80s. “Work for hire” doesn’t cover everything; there are still obligatory royalties.
     
    Nearly this entire paragraph is nonsense.



    1. Kiss' profits and decision-making were divided equally four ways among Frehley, Criss, Stanley, and Simmons from their founding. However, the first two were idiots who mostly did drugs while the latter two improved their songwriting skills and abilities to perform, and made, eventually, all the decisions about leadership and business, because the first two could not be bothered. Eventually, things worsened to the point that Criss was not even able to (and thus not permitted) to play on the albums at all (people like Anton Fig did it, uncredited), and Frehley was not playing on all the songs. Finally, Chriss was fired. Frehley was fired or resigned, depending upon which aources one believes....

    2. The replacements for Chriss and Frehley were indeed hired as contractors. And all those who have come and gone have worked for hire, with no equity (including Chriss and Frehely during the reunion of the original line-up). However, when Kuhlick, Vincent, Singer, and Taylor left the band (as they all did, though the last two later returned) not one of them was "broke" – not even by "famous people standards." Kuhlick, Singer, and Taylor left voluntarily and amicably (hell, they encouraged the reunion with Chriss and Frehley!). Taylor was a guitar technician for the band before joining them, and he remained in that rôle when he stepped down (one of his jobs was to teach Frehley the songs!). Everyone except Vincent was paid well, and benefitted. In fact, at some points they did better than Simmons and Stanley, because during lean times when albums were not selling well and tours were poorly attended and lost money, Simmons and Stanley were on the hook to pay the engineers, promoters, trucker-drivers, venue, roadies, etc. – but the hired guns all still got paid their $500,000.00 (or $1,000,000.00; or whatever) for the tour.

    3. Carr died. He's a special case. There is dispute whether Simmons and Stanley did the decent thing and paid his medical bills and such, but if they did not, this makes them jerks – not crooks.

    4. Vincent is also a little different. Apparently he was such an insufferable douchebag he had to be fired despite his technical prowess and magnificent songwriting (ask the guys in Slaughter – the successor to Vinnie Vincent's Invasion, which basically was the same band with a new guitarist because they'd had it with Vincent...). His songs were so good they literally saved the band from a slump that may have ended it (compare The Elder to Lick it Up). Vincent claims he was mistreated, screwed out of his publishing, and paid $500.00 a week. I find his credibility strained by the lack of such complaints from Kuhlick, Taylor, and Singer, and by the fact the guys in his own band also claim he was an asshat. A musical genius, sure...but still an asshat.

    5. There is actually no such thing as an "obligatory royalty" independent of what the parties may contract regarding a work for hire. Your expertise of copyright and employment law is as reprehensible as your knowledge of the band's history. If indeed Vincent was not paid any publishing, that, again, makes Simmons and Stanley jerks, but not crooks (and if Vincent signed a contract permitting this arrangement, he was a musical genius, an asshat, and a complete moron vis-à-vis business acumen!).

    How was it decided among the 4 founders of Kiss which two were entitled to fire the other two?

    My impression is that a lot of bands were formed on handshake deals with boyish One for All and All for One attitudes, which seem difficult to unravel when later some of the members prove more competent than other members.

    • Replies: @Autochthon
    The shortest answer to that specific question is "I don't know, to be honest." A longer, more edifying answer can be reached by analysis of the facts. The answer to your original question, in the abstract, about these situations, is longer still, but basically amounts to "However the controlling agreements handle the possibility, or, if they do not, however a court decides, applying laws of contract, business organisations, and intellectual property in an effort to reach a sensible, equitable outcome. (It never helps your case to assault the other guys in the band, though.) Make no mistake, the boyish handshake deals are quickly reduced to writing once things get serious enough, and any decent manager or agent will see to that promptly – to protect everyone involved. Basically, they incorporate. Later you can see a copy of the bylaws for such an outfit (Queensrÿche) attached to the pleadings in a lawsuit I will talk about a little.

    Forgive me; I should have just responded your original question instead of gabbling in response to the other fellow. These situations (like all such disputes) have a legal side and a practical side. Even when an ostensibly "fired" person cannot be fired under the terms of the controlling articles of incorporation, bylaws, or contracts (say, he is a share holder with fifty-percent interest and comparable voting – Neil Tennant and Chris Lowe probably have something like that), if the other(s) refuse to write, record, or perform with him, claim he is fired, and so on.... Well, of course no court is going to force what is commonly called in labor and employment contexts an "odious environment." This is why the wrongfully discharged are made whole with monetary damages rather than reinstated at their jobs in many (probably most) cases. Now, I don't know the legal minutiae of KISS' early days, but I don't think this was a legal matter so much as a practical one. Criss was and is a shite drummer, and, aside from the fluke "Beth" – which, for all meaningful purposes, Bob Ezrin wrote, despite Criss' co-writing credit – Criss did not have much to market. What was he going to do?

    Criss can say "You can't fire me! I have a quarter of the equity in this outfit and I refuse to leave!" Then maybe the other guys seek relief in court (or he seeks relief against them, maybe seeking an injunction against their use of the name KISS or against their not continuing to pay him his quarter share). Well, is it even worth that preliminary legal wrangling? The other guys might say "Screw it; we'll be KISSED. You can be "KISS and see how many people will pay to come hear you sing "Beth" to a tape then flail arrhythmically through a forty-minute drum solo. It should really pack 'em in!" Then they leave Criss his quarter stake in a moribund outfit. In the event, Criss knew he was not going to come out ahead either way, and he signed off on whatever negotiated offer it was, as I understand things. All this stuff holds true for Ace Frehley's departure, too. Sometimes voting is involved, and majorities of the directors or shareholders – i.e., the members of the band (of KISS, Inc., if you like) – in which case maybe Simmons, Stanley, and Frehley voted out Criss, with Simmons and Stanley then voting out Frehley a little later....)

    But what of the practicalities when the disputants are not so mismatched. A good example of this is the separation of Chris Squire and Jon Anderson around 1980. In that event, the two founders were not only both comparably talented and therefore equally positioned to succeed as Yes without the other, but they were, thankfully, also neither of them drug-addled or nasty persons. There were certainly lawyers involved and doubtless some tension in the negotiations, but they more or less amicably agreed Squire got to carry on using the name Yes and Anderson would not use the name. Even then, classy guy that he is, Squire called his next venture Cinema because he didn't think it right to carry on as Yes with the new sound...until, following his reunion with Anderson, the project again was called Yes. Meanwhile, a bit later, parted again, we saw the Anderson's British camp perform as Anderson Bruford Wakeman Howe, while Squire, Rabin, White, and Downes were preparing a new Yes album...until both camps realised the unholy amount of money to be made on the Union album and tour as – again – Yes... More recently still, "Yes" now consists of Jon Davison, Geoff Downes, Billy Sherwood, Alan White, and Steve Howe. My guess is that Howe and White have full equity (Downes may) and that Sherwood and Davison are working for hire). Simultaneously, "Yes Featuring Jon Anderson, Trevor Rabin, & Rick Wakeman" (say that ten times fast) consists of ... well, no points for guessing, along with a hired rhythm section. It's all much better when all parties involved are civil, and everyone can win. And both groups do just swimmingly.

    "But," you ask, "what if KISS or Yes had fought it out in court? What is the FINAL LEGAL ANSWER to all this stuff. That's my burning question, you damned windbag!" Look to Seattle, and a case where two very talented camps went at it very nastily, when Geoff Tate was fired from Queensrÿche by Scott Rockenfield, Mike Wilton, and Eddie Jackson. Then Tate sued, effectively asking the court to tell the other guys he couldn't be fired, and he was going to carry on making decisions for the band, running its Websites, releasing music under the name, and so on. Most of the important filings are available here, and, like most nasty lawsuits, they can be pretty entertaining reading. Start with the complaint, then read the answer and the defendants' reply on the motion for summary judgement, if you don't have enough popcorn to read the whole mess.

    Eventually, after a two-year shit-show, the parties settled: Geoff Tate got to release one last album as Queensrÿche and tour as "Geoff Tate of Queensrÿche" or "Queensrÿche featuring Geoff Tate" or some such for a year, and he got some money; the other guys got to keep being "Queensrÿche" in perpetuity and they didn't have to put up with Tate's shit anymore.

    Their lawyers all got remodeled kitchens, including countertops of the finest Italian marble and barstools of rich, Corinthian leather as well as long vacations to Tahiti, where large-breasted women with breeding hips rubbed sunscreen on their backs for them. Which last point brings the legal full circle, back into the realm of the practical, and is exactly why these things are almost invariably handled the way they were by KISS and Yes....

    , @donvonburg
    The book that covers these things is thus:


    This Business of Music, 10th Edition (This Business of Music: Definitive Guide to the Music Industry) Hardcover – June 26, 2007
    by M. William Krasilovsky (Author), Sidney Shemel (Author), John M Gross (Author)

    The bible of the music industry! Now in its tenth edition, This Business of Music has been revised and completely updated to reflect the latest changes in the ever-evolving music business. Every chapter has been revised. An entirely new chapter has been added, asking and answering the question “Are there borders in cyberspace?” The answer is yes, and the book clearly and concisely explains what they are and how to maintain them. Commentary on recent legislation, a reader-friendly summary of the laws on copyright duration, and much more insightful analysis—plus fully updated lists of music organizations and important websites—make This Business of Music indispensable for musicians, agents, managers, marketers, music publishers and groups, colleges and universities, and everyone who wants to make music and make money.
     
    https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0823077233/

    What this does not cover is the strategies of why you would or would not do some things that seem obvious upon reading the book. For example, if you are in a pop band that primarily performs music that one or more members of the group itself write, you'd want to set up your own publishing company, which any knowledgeable entertainment lawyer can easily and relatively cheaply do, right? Well, maybe and maybe not. Giving up that publishing may give a third party with contacts and experience an incentive to get your music placed aggressively. (J.J.Cale used to say that half of something beats all of nothing.) Also, if you have shown that you are a diligent and knowledgeable person and have set yourself up well-a label may just not want to offer you a deal.

    I had (still have) a very good customer who is both a very good acoustic fingerpicker (of the Chet rather than Fahey school) and a pretty good songwriter both in the country and MOR/pop genres. (He had got a couple of songs on albums by modestly successful country acts.) He was in a country-rock band and talked them into going to an entertainment lawyer in Nashville and getting all set up. But although he had some regional interest, they just never could get a record deal, it was always vague and unspecified reasons that caused labels to lose interest. Well, they gigged their butts off for a while but never got signed and after enough of living in a conversion van, they decided to break up and go back to their day jobs. Years later I got to talking with someone who had done work for some labels and this guy's name came up. The bottom line, he said, was that these guys were obviously going to not be "giving the label a very advantageous deal", so the labels just didn't offer. Had they said "we'll sign you but we want half the publishing" they would have agreed, but the labels just didn't bother, they moved on.

    A lot of people in this business really just want to take advantage of un-knowledgeable people and sometimes you have to let them think you're a sucker to get them to look at you.

    One thing that "the right people" offer is the ability to get your stuff viewed favorably by radio, which I believe is today far more important than people on streaming services realize ( a lot of people still listen to radio in the car and that's how they hear new music, if they do at all: many more people than the young think are techno-ignoramuses) and also just as corrupt as it's ever been. If you're in a polka band appealing only to rural cheeseheads, that's irrelevant, but if you want to be in markets where radio is, you have to be on it.
  79. @Steve Sailer
    How was it decided among the 4 founders of Kiss which two were entitled to fire the other two?

    My impression is that a lot of bands were formed on handshake deals with boyish One for All and All for One attitudes, which seem difficult to unravel when later some of the members prove more competent than other members.

    The shortest answer to that specific question is “I don’t know, to be honest.” A longer, more edifying answer can be reached by analysis of the facts. The answer to your original question, in the abstract, about these situations, is longer still, but basically amounts to “However the controlling agreements handle the possibility, or, if they do not, however a court decides, applying laws of contract, business organisations, and intellectual property in an effort to reach a sensible, equitable outcome. (It never helps your case to assault the other guys in the band, though.) Make no mistake, the boyish handshake deals are quickly reduced to writing once things get serious enough, and any decent manager or agent will see to that promptly – to protect everyone involved. Basically, they incorporate. Later you can see a copy of the bylaws for such an outfit (Queensrÿche) attached to the pleadings in a lawsuit I will talk about a little.

    [MORE]

    Forgive me; I should have just responded your original question instead of gabbling in response to the other fellow. These situations (like all such disputes) have a legal side and a practical side. Even when an ostensibly “fired” person cannot be fired under the terms of the controlling articles of incorporation, bylaws, or contracts (say, he is a share holder with fifty-percent interest and comparable voting – Neil Tennant and Chris Lowe probably have something like that), if the other(s) refuse to write, record, or perform with him, claim he is fired, and so on…. Well, of course no court is going to force what is commonly called in labor and employment contexts an “odious environment.” This is why the wrongfully discharged are made whole with monetary damages rather than reinstated at their jobs in many (probably most) cases. Now, I don’t know the legal minutiae of KISS’ early days, but I don’t think this was a legal matter so much as a practical one. Criss was and is a shite drummer, and, aside from the fluke “Beth” – which, for all meaningful purposes, Bob Ezrin wrote, despite Criss’ co-writing credit – Criss did not have much to market. What was he going to do?

    Criss can say “You can’t fire me! I have a quarter of the equity in this outfit and I refuse to leave!” Then maybe the other guys seek relief in court (or he seeks relief against them, maybe seeking an injunction against their use of the name KISS or against their not continuing to pay him his quarter share). Well, is it even worth that preliminary legal wrangling? The other guys might say “Screw it; we’ll be KISSED. You can be “KISS and see how many people will pay to come hear you sing “Beth” to a tape then flail arrhythmically through a forty-minute drum solo. It should really pack ’em in!” Then they leave Criss his quarter stake in a moribund outfit. In the event, Criss knew he was not going to come out ahead either way, and he signed off on whatever negotiated offer it was, as I understand things. All this stuff holds true for Ace Frehley’s departure, too. Sometimes voting is involved, and majorities of the directors or shareholders – i.e., the members of the band (of KISS, Inc., if you like) – in which case maybe Simmons, Stanley, and Frehley voted out Criss, with Simmons and Stanley then voting out Frehley a little later….)

    But what of the practicalities when the disputants are not so mismatched. A good example of this is the separation of Chris Squire and Jon Anderson around 1980. In that event, the two founders were not only both comparably talented and therefore equally positioned to succeed as Yes without the other, but they were, thankfully, also neither of them drug-addled or nasty persons. There were certainly lawyers involved and doubtless some tension in the negotiations, but they more or less amicably agreed Squire got to carry on using the name Yes and Anderson would not use the name. Even then, classy guy that he is, Squire called his next venture Cinema because he didn’t think it right to carry on as Yes with the new sound…until, following his reunion with Anderson, the project again was called Yes. Meanwhile, a bit later, parted again, we saw the Anderson’s British camp perform as Anderson Bruford Wakeman Howe, while Squire, Rabin, White, and Downes were preparing a new Yes album…until both camps realised the unholy amount of money to be made on the Union album and tour as – again – Yes… More recently still, “Yes” now consists of Jon Davison, Geoff Downes, Billy Sherwood, Alan White, and Steve Howe. My guess is that Howe and White have full equity (Downes may) and that Sherwood and Davison are working for hire). Simultaneously, “Yes Featuring Jon Anderson, Trevor Rabin, & Rick Wakeman” (say that ten times fast) consists of … well, no points for guessing, along with a hired rhythm section. It’s all much better when all parties involved are civil, and everyone can win. And both groups do just swimmingly.

    “But,” you ask, “what if KISS or Yes had fought it out in court? What is the FINAL LEGAL ANSWER to all this stuff. That’s my burning question, you damned windbag!” Look to Seattle, and a case where two very talented camps went at it very nastily, when Geoff Tate was fired from Queensrÿche by Scott Rockenfield, Mike Wilton, and Eddie Jackson. Then Tate sued, effectively asking the court to tell the other guys he couldn’t be fired, and he was going to carry on making decisions for the band, running its Websites, releasing music under the name, and so on. Most of the important filings are available here, and, like most nasty lawsuits, they can be pretty entertaining reading. Start with the complaint, then read the answer and the defendants’ reply on the motion for summary judgement, if you don’t have enough popcorn to read the whole mess.

    Eventually, after a two-year shit-show, the parties settled: Geoff Tate got to release one last album as Queensrÿche and tour as “Geoff Tate of Queensrÿche” or “Queensrÿche featuring Geoff Tate” or some such for a year, and he got some money; the other guys got to keep being “Queensrÿche” in perpetuity and they didn’t have to put up with Tate’s shit anymore.

    Their lawyers all got remodeled kitchens, including countertops of the finest Italian marble and barstools of rich, Corinthian leather as well as long vacations to Tahiti, where large-breasted women with breeding hips rubbed sunscreen on their backs for them. Which last point brings the legal full circle, back into the realm of the practical, and is exactly why these things are almost invariably handled the way they were by KISS and Yes….

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    Thanks.
    , @Autochthon
    *Thayer, not [Tommy] Taylor...yeesh; I was subconsciously thinking of the great drummer, Tommy Taylor, I guess....
  80. @Autochthon
    The shortest answer to that specific question is "I don't know, to be honest." A longer, more edifying answer can be reached by analysis of the facts. The answer to your original question, in the abstract, about these situations, is longer still, but basically amounts to "However the controlling agreements handle the possibility, or, if they do not, however a court decides, applying laws of contract, business organisations, and intellectual property in an effort to reach a sensible, equitable outcome. (It never helps your case to assault the other guys in the band, though.) Make no mistake, the boyish handshake deals are quickly reduced to writing once things get serious enough, and any decent manager or agent will see to that promptly – to protect everyone involved. Basically, they incorporate. Later you can see a copy of the bylaws for such an outfit (Queensrÿche) attached to the pleadings in a lawsuit I will talk about a little.

    Forgive me; I should have just responded your original question instead of gabbling in response to the other fellow. These situations (like all such disputes) have a legal side and a practical side. Even when an ostensibly "fired" person cannot be fired under the terms of the controlling articles of incorporation, bylaws, or contracts (say, he is a share holder with fifty-percent interest and comparable voting – Neil Tennant and Chris Lowe probably have something like that), if the other(s) refuse to write, record, or perform with him, claim he is fired, and so on.... Well, of course no court is going to force what is commonly called in labor and employment contexts an "odious environment." This is why the wrongfully discharged are made whole with monetary damages rather than reinstated at their jobs in many (probably most) cases. Now, I don't know the legal minutiae of KISS' early days, but I don't think this was a legal matter so much as a practical one. Criss was and is a shite drummer, and, aside from the fluke "Beth" – which, for all meaningful purposes, Bob Ezrin wrote, despite Criss' co-writing credit – Criss did not have much to market. What was he going to do?

    Criss can say "You can't fire me! I have a quarter of the equity in this outfit and I refuse to leave!" Then maybe the other guys seek relief in court (or he seeks relief against them, maybe seeking an injunction against their use of the name KISS or against their not continuing to pay him his quarter share). Well, is it even worth that preliminary legal wrangling? The other guys might say "Screw it; we'll be KISSED. You can be "KISS and see how many people will pay to come hear you sing "Beth" to a tape then flail arrhythmically through a forty-minute drum solo. It should really pack 'em in!" Then they leave Criss his quarter stake in a moribund outfit. In the event, Criss knew he was not going to come out ahead either way, and he signed off on whatever negotiated offer it was, as I understand things. All this stuff holds true for Ace Frehley's departure, too. Sometimes voting is involved, and majorities of the directors or shareholders – i.e., the members of the band (of KISS, Inc., if you like) – in which case maybe Simmons, Stanley, and Frehley voted out Criss, with Simmons and Stanley then voting out Frehley a little later....)

    But what of the practicalities when the disputants are not so mismatched. A good example of this is the separation of Chris Squire and Jon Anderson around 1980. In that event, the two founders were not only both comparably talented and therefore equally positioned to succeed as Yes without the other, but they were, thankfully, also neither of them drug-addled or nasty persons. There were certainly lawyers involved and doubtless some tension in the negotiations, but they more or less amicably agreed Squire got to carry on using the name Yes and Anderson would not use the name. Even then, classy guy that he is, Squire called his next venture Cinema because he didn't think it right to carry on as Yes with the new sound...until, following his reunion with Anderson, the project again was called Yes. Meanwhile, a bit later, parted again, we saw the Anderson's British camp perform as Anderson Bruford Wakeman Howe, while Squire, Rabin, White, and Downes were preparing a new Yes album...until both camps realised the unholy amount of money to be made on the Union album and tour as – again – Yes... More recently still, "Yes" now consists of Jon Davison, Geoff Downes, Billy Sherwood, Alan White, and Steve Howe. My guess is that Howe and White have full equity (Downes may) and that Sherwood and Davison are working for hire). Simultaneously, "Yes Featuring Jon Anderson, Trevor Rabin, & Rick Wakeman" (say that ten times fast) consists of ... well, no points for guessing, along with a hired rhythm section. It's all much better when all parties involved are civil, and everyone can win. And both groups do just swimmingly.

    "But," you ask, "what if KISS or Yes had fought it out in court? What is the FINAL LEGAL ANSWER to all this stuff. That's my burning question, you damned windbag!" Look to Seattle, and a case where two very talented camps went at it very nastily, when Geoff Tate was fired from Queensrÿche by Scott Rockenfield, Mike Wilton, and Eddie Jackson. Then Tate sued, effectively asking the court to tell the other guys he couldn't be fired, and he was going to carry on making decisions for the band, running its Websites, releasing music under the name, and so on. Most of the important filings are available here, and, like most nasty lawsuits, they can be pretty entertaining reading. Start with the complaint, then read the answer and the defendants' reply on the motion for summary judgement, if you don't have enough popcorn to read the whole mess.

    Eventually, after a two-year shit-show, the parties settled: Geoff Tate got to release one last album as Queensrÿche and tour as "Geoff Tate of Queensrÿche" or "Queensrÿche featuring Geoff Tate" or some such for a year, and he got some money; the other guys got to keep being "Queensrÿche" in perpetuity and they didn't have to put up with Tate's shit anymore.

    Their lawyers all got remodeled kitchens, including countertops of the finest Italian marble and barstools of rich, Corinthian leather as well as long vacations to Tahiti, where large-breasted women with breeding hips rubbed sunscreen on their backs for them. Which last point brings the legal full circle, back into the realm of the practical, and is exactly why these things are almost invariably handled the way they were by KISS and Yes....

    Thanks.

    • Replies: @Autochthon
    You are welcome.

    The partnership agreement governing Queensrÿche begins on the fourth page of this filing. N.B. it grants 20% stakes to each of the five founders of the band. Chris DeGarmo left in 1997 to be a professional pilot, but the agreement was not updated. The agreement calls for an 80% vote to remove any member. (Thus, any four members could eject a fifth.) Because guitarist DeGarmo's departure left each of four equity partners with a 25% stake, it was technically impossible for anyone to be fired involuntarily (three members could at most muster a 75% vote). Hence vocalist Tate's lawsuit contesting his termination. See here for bassist Eddie Jackson's declaration that despite the lack of an amended agreement, the understanding was that the voting requirements implicitly and proportionately shifted to require only a 75% vote for a termination. This point is the metaphorical and proverbial baby a judge would have had to divide if a settlement were not reached. (The partnership agreement also details who gets what in the event of a termination.)

    It's all a good case study about what to do and avoid in entertainment law – and a reminder it's a lot cheaper to pay us lawyers to prevent problems than to pay us to resolve them.... (The best of us much prefer the former anyway.)

    It's all also a damned shame, because not even Steve Perry ever sang like this:

    https://youtu.be/xk84dVq644k
  81. @Steve Sailer
    How was it decided among the 4 founders of Kiss which two were entitled to fire the other two?

    My impression is that a lot of bands were formed on handshake deals with boyish One for All and All for One attitudes, which seem difficult to unravel when later some of the members prove more competent than other members.

    The book that covers these things is thus:

    This Business of Music, 10th Edition (This Business of Music: Definitive Guide to the Music Industry) Hardcover – June 26, 2007
    by M. William Krasilovsky (Author), Sidney Shemel (Author), John M Gross (Author)

    The bible of the music industry! Now in its tenth edition, This Business of Music has been revised and completely updated to reflect the latest changes in the ever-evolving music business. Every chapter has been revised. An entirely new chapter has been added, asking and answering the question “Are there borders in cyberspace?” The answer is yes, and the book clearly and concisely explains what they are and how to maintain them. Commentary on recent legislation, a reader-friendly summary of the laws on copyright duration, and much more insightful analysis—plus fully updated lists of music organizations and important websites—make This Business of Music indispensable for musicians, agents, managers, marketers, music publishers and groups, colleges and universities, and everyone who wants to make music and make money.

    https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0823077233/

    What this does not cover is the strategies of why you would or would not do some things that seem obvious upon reading the book. For example, if you are in a pop band that primarily performs music that one or more members of the group itself write, you’d want to set up your own publishing company, which any knowledgeable entertainment lawyer can easily and relatively cheaply do, right? Well, maybe and maybe not. Giving up that publishing may give a third party with contacts and experience an incentive to get your music placed aggressively. (J.J.Cale used to say that half of something beats all of nothing.) Also, if you have shown that you are a diligent and knowledgeable person and have set yourself up well-a label may just not want to offer you a deal.

    I had (still have) a very good customer who is both a very good acoustic fingerpicker (of the Chet rather than Fahey school) and a pretty good songwriter both in the country and MOR/pop genres. (He had got a couple of songs on albums by modestly successful country acts.) He was in a country-rock band and talked them into going to an entertainment lawyer in Nashville and getting all set up. But although he had some regional interest, they just never could get a record deal, it was always vague and unspecified reasons that caused labels to lose interest. Well, they gigged their butts off for a while but never got signed and after enough of living in a conversion van, they decided to break up and go back to their day jobs. Years later I got to talking with someone who had done work for some labels and this guy’s name came up. The bottom line, he said, was that these guys were obviously going to not be “giving the label a very advantageous deal”, so the labels just didn’t offer. Had they said “we’ll sign you but we want half the publishing” they would have agreed, but the labels just didn’t bother, they moved on.

    A lot of people in this business really just want to take advantage of un-knowledgeable people and sometimes you have to let them think you’re a sucker to get them to look at you.

    One thing that “the right people” offer is the ability to get your stuff viewed favorably by radio, which I believe is today far more important than people on streaming services realize ( a lot of people still listen to radio in the car and that’s how they hear new music, if they do at all: many more people than the young think are techno-ignoramuses) and also just as corrupt as it’s ever been. If you’re in a polka band appealing only to rural cheeseheads, that’s irrelevant, but if you want to be in markets where radio is, you have to be on it.

  82. @Autochthon
    The shortest answer to that specific question is "I don't know, to be honest." A longer, more edifying answer can be reached by analysis of the facts. The answer to your original question, in the abstract, about these situations, is longer still, but basically amounts to "However the controlling agreements handle the possibility, or, if they do not, however a court decides, applying laws of contract, business organisations, and intellectual property in an effort to reach a sensible, equitable outcome. (It never helps your case to assault the other guys in the band, though.) Make no mistake, the boyish handshake deals are quickly reduced to writing once things get serious enough, and any decent manager or agent will see to that promptly – to protect everyone involved. Basically, they incorporate. Later you can see a copy of the bylaws for such an outfit (Queensrÿche) attached to the pleadings in a lawsuit I will talk about a little.

    Forgive me; I should have just responded your original question instead of gabbling in response to the other fellow. These situations (like all such disputes) have a legal side and a practical side. Even when an ostensibly "fired" person cannot be fired under the terms of the controlling articles of incorporation, bylaws, or contracts (say, he is a share holder with fifty-percent interest and comparable voting – Neil Tennant and Chris Lowe probably have something like that), if the other(s) refuse to write, record, or perform with him, claim he is fired, and so on.... Well, of course no court is going to force what is commonly called in labor and employment contexts an "odious environment." This is why the wrongfully discharged are made whole with monetary damages rather than reinstated at their jobs in many (probably most) cases. Now, I don't know the legal minutiae of KISS' early days, but I don't think this was a legal matter so much as a practical one. Criss was and is a shite drummer, and, aside from the fluke "Beth" – which, for all meaningful purposes, Bob Ezrin wrote, despite Criss' co-writing credit – Criss did not have much to market. What was he going to do?

    Criss can say "You can't fire me! I have a quarter of the equity in this outfit and I refuse to leave!" Then maybe the other guys seek relief in court (or he seeks relief against them, maybe seeking an injunction against their use of the name KISS or against their not continuing to pay him his quarter share). Well, is it even worth that preliminary legal wrangling? The other guys might say "Screw it; we'll be KISSED. You can be "KISS and see how many people will pay to come hear you sing "Beth" to a tape then flail arrhythmically through a forty-minute drum solo. It should really pack 'em in!" Then they leave Criss his quarter stake in a moribund outfit. In the event, Criss knew he was not going to come out ahead either way, and he signed off on whatever negotiated offer it was, as I understand things. All this stuff holds true for Ace Frehley's departure, too. Sometimes voting is involved, and majorities of the directors or shareholders – i.e., the members of the band (of KISS, Inc., if you like) – in which case maybe Simmons, Stanley, and Frehley voted out Criss, with Simmons and Stanley then voting out Frehley a little later....)

    But what of the practicalities when the disputants are not so mismatched. A good example of this is the separation of Chris Squire and Jon Anderson around 1980. In that event, the two founders were not only both comparably talented and therefore equally positioned to succeed as Yes without the other, but they were, thankfully, also neither of them drug-addled or nasty persons. There were certainly lawyers involved and doubtless some tension in the negotiations, but they more or less amicably agreed Squire got to carry on using the name Yes and Anderson would not use the name. Even then, classy guy that he is, Squire called his next venture Cinema because he didn't think it right to carry on as Yes with the new sound...until, following his reunion with Anderson, the project again was called Yes. Meanwhile, a bit later, parted again, we saw the Anderson's British camp perform as Anderson Bruford Wakeman Howe, while Squire, Rabin, White, and Downes were preparing a new Yes album...until both camps realised the unholy amount of money to be made on the Union album and tour as – again – Yes... More recently still, "Yes" now consists of Jon Davison, Geoff Downes, Billy Sherwood, Alan White, and Steve Howe. My guess is that Howe and White have full equity (Downes may) and that Sherwood and Davison are working for hire). Simultaneously, "Yes Featuring Jon Anderson, Trevor Rabin, & Rick Wakeman" (say that ten times fast) consists of ... well, no points for guessing, along with a hired rhythm section. It's all much better when all parties involved are civil, and everyone can win. And both groups do just swimmingly.

    "But," you ask, "what if KISS or Yes had fought it out in court? What is the FINAL LEGAL ANSWER to all this stuff. That's my burning question, you damned windbag!" Look to Seattle, and a case where two very talented camps went at it very nastily, when Geoff Tate was fired from Queensrÿche by Scott Rockenfield, Mike Wilton, and Eddie Jackson. Then Tate sued, effectively asking the court to tell the other guys he couldn't be fired, and he was going to carry on making decisions for the band, running its Websites, releasing music under the name, and so on. Most of the important filings are available here, and, like most nasty lawsuits, they can be pretty entertaining reading. Start with the complaint, then read the answer and the defendants' reply on the motion for summary judgement, if you don't have enough popcorn to read the whole mess.

    Eventually, after a two-year shit-show, the parties settled: Geoff Tate got to release one last album as Queensrÿche and tour as "Geoff Tate of Queensrÿche" or "Queensrÿche featuring Geoff Tate" or some such for a year, and he got some money; the other guys got to keep being "Queensrÿche" in perpetuity and they didn't have to put up with Tate's shit anymore.

    Their lawyers all got remodeled kitchens, including countertops of the finest Italian marble and barstools of rich, Corinthian leather as well as long vacations to Tahiti, where large-breasted women with breeding hips rubbed sunscreen on their backs for them. Which last point brings the legal full circle, back into the realm of the practical, and is exactly why these things are almost invariably handled the way they were by KISS and Yes....

    *Thayer, not [Tommy] Taylor…yeesh; I was subconsciously thinking of the great drummer, Tommy Taylor, I guess….

  83. @Steve Sailer
    Thanks.

    You are welcome.

    The partnership agreement governing Queensrÿche begins on the fourth page of this filing. N.B. it grants 20% stakes to each of the five founders of the band. Chris DeGarmo left in 1997 to be a professional pilot, but the agreement was not updated. The agreement calls for an 80% vote to remove any member. (Thus, any four members could eject a fifth.) Because guitarist DeGarmo’s departure left each of four equity partners with a 25% stake, it was technically impossible for anyone to be fired involuntarily (three members could at most muster a 75% vote). Hence vocalist Tate’s lawsuit contesting his termination. See here for bassist Eddie Jackson’s declaration that despite the lack of an amended agreement, the understanding was that the voting requirements implicitly and proportionately shifted to require only a 75% vote for a termination. This point is the metaphorical and proverbial baby a judge would have had to divide if a settlement were not reached. (The partnership agreement also details who gets what in the event of a termination.)

    It’s all a good case study about what to do and avoid in entertainment law – and a reminder it’s a lot cheaper to pay us lawyers to prevent problems than to pay us to resolve them…. (The best of us much prefer the former anyway.)

    It’s all also a damned shame, because not even Steve Perry ever sang like this:

  84. @Bitfu
    Taylor Swift and her 160+ IQ. What gives you that impression--her lyrics? [I'm embarrassed to even be associated with such a question--but I gotta know where this guy is coming from.]

    Is it her success? So, Beyonce is right there with theoretical physicists then...

    She’s a great lyricist:

    https://genius.com/Taylor-swift-treacherous-lyrics

    https://genius.com/Taylor-swift-clean-lyrics

    And she’s eons more successful than Beyonce, don’t let the media propaganda tell you otherwise. Besides, unlike Beyonce, she doesn’t have a smart husband pulling the strings.

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS
PastClassics
How America was neoconned into World War IV
The “war hero” candidate buried information about POWs left behind in Vietnam.
Our Reigning Political Puppets, Dancing to Invisible Strings