the context is pretty important on this one, she's rerecording and covering her entire catalog as precisely as possible because the original releases were all under a record label who's being extremely territorial and exploitative with the rights to those tracks.
This act is pretty cool and punk in a vacuum, but of course Taylor Swift is a billionaire and is likely richer than the CEO of her old label so they can both get the
I think expropriation and reeducation is more suitable for Ms. Swift.
She is an idea, a world-historical heroine, light itself.
I've seen variations of that quote but I don't know where it's from.
https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/hillary-clinton-more-president-172108999.html
Isn't she the one who rose to stardom because her rich daddy worked in the music industry while infinitely more talented women got screwed over in the same industry?
Most famous music artists and actors are nepo babies - almost exclusively so.
Which is why the punk scene was so protective of its styles and motifs. They were trying to exclude the people who literally could not understand them.
As much as poser is an overused term now, a little discretion in which artists you support is important.
IIRC her parents worked for a bank. Her dad bought a majority share in a small Nashville record label that released her first album, then she got a deal with a big label from that.
I've been less harsh on Swift over the years, but only out of kindness to all the Swifties that are honestly really cool more often than not. Like, any Swift-fan I've met is usually a gay communist zoomer.
I am nice to Swifties because I don't them to cast a Swiftcurse on me and turn all of my blood into glitter
