Chapter 1: A Fan's Perspective

Who would dedicate time to criticize Taylor Swift's perceived hypocrisy? Perhaps a grumpy, out-of-shape individual who fails to recognize her artistry. I wouldn't classify myself as such, though I may fit the description in some aspects. Still, I genuinely appreciate her talent.

To clarify, I've invested a considerable amount for my family of four to witness the Eras Tour in Mexico City and later paid to see the Eras Tour movie (was that necessary?). I stream her music regularly and own five of her albums on vinyl. I've even written about her lyrics, which often find their way into my daily conversations. I might have purchased a calendar featuring her for my daughter, just to bolster her fandom.

I've ardently defended Swift among my peers, arguing that while she may not be a musical genius, her combined talents create something exceptional. Her lyrics hold deeper meaning than many realize, and she possesses remarkable business acumen—an ideal mix of talent, ambition, looks, and marketing prowess. However, there comes a time when I must draw the line, and I believe I've found that point.

A NOTE

The following content presents mainly factual information, albeit with some speculation interspersed throughout.

Chapter 2: The Streaming Controversy

In 2014, shortly after the launch of her pop album, 1989, Swift removed her entire catalog from Spotify. By highlighting the relatively low royalty payouts from emerging streaming platforms, she was celebrated as a champion for artists, advocating for the rights of her fellow creators. This decision occurred when physical sales and downloads were still relevant, not yet the relics they would become. Swift recognized that her devoted fanbase would purchase her album through traditional means, making her exit from Spotify a strategic business choice.

She maintained this stance until 2017, when streaming had evolved into the dominant mode of music consumption. Coincidentally, that same year, Swift released her next album, Reputation. The circumstances that had once prompted her departure from Spotify now suggested a return, as the dynamics of the market had shifted.

By 2018, Swift's contract with Big Machine Records was nearing its end. Both parties anticipated that a high-profile artist like her would explore other options. A crucial point of discussion during negotiations was the ownership of her recordings. Ultimately, she transitioned to Republic Records (part of Universal Music Group), which offered her ownership of all future recordings.

Big Machine Records subsequently sold its valuable catalog, with Swift's father, who held a small stake, earning millions from the sale. This was standard practice in the industry.

However, a complication arose: Swift was not pleased with the new owner, Scooter Braun, who had a reputation for being a shrewd and sometimes ruthless figure in the music world, particularly due to his ties to her former rival, Kanye West. To counter Braun, Swift decided to re-record her earlier music, branding them as Taylor’s Version, and encouraged her fans to purchase and stream these new versions.

Many hailed this as a victory for artists everywhere. However, the platforms that were once viewed as adversaries, like Spotify, soon became flooded with her re-recordings. While some tracks from Taylor’s Version included previously unreleased material, the overall quality was questionable—were the re-recorded versions really better?

Despite this, Swift's new arrangements allowed her to secure a much larger share of royalties. By saturating streaming platforms with her re-recorded material, she significantly increased her streamshare, ultimately becoming Spotify's most-streamed artist in 2023, albeit at the potential expense of other artists.

Meanwhile, record labels are now trying to revise contracts for new artists to restrict the ability to re-record music, or at least delay the process for several decades.

As we reflect on the past decade since Swift was widely regarded as an advocate for artists, it is worth questioning: Is she genuinely pro-artist, or is her allegiance primarily to her own interests? And when will we see a shift away from this façade?