Connect with us


Taylor Swift’s re-recorded albums eligible for Grammys, prompting ‘greed’ criticism



Taylor Swift’s re-recorded albums eligible for Grammys, prompting ‘greed’ criticism

Taylor Swift‘s re-recorded albums will be eligible for future Grammy Awards, according to a Recording Academy spokesperson.

Swifties were hyped to learn earlier this month that the “Evermore” singer officially finished re-recording one of her early albums, “Fearless,” which previously won four Grammys in total, including album of the year and best country album.

Since then, a Recording Academy spokesperson has confirmed some of her new recordings will be eligible for awards.

“Current eligibility guidelines would allow for the new performances and albums to be eligible if they were recorded within the last five years. However, none of the older songs would be eligible for songwriting awards,” a Recording Academy spokesperson told Billboard.

It was confirmed in November that the award-winnning artist can re-record her first five albums, which include “Taylor Swift,” “Fearless,” “Speak Now,” “Red” and “1989.” The develoment followed the revelation that producer/manager Scooter Braun bought the rights to Swift’s records she made with her former label Big Machine Records when he acquired the company for $300 million in 2019. She left the label in 2018.

Word of Swift’s renewed Grammy eligibility made its way to Twitter on Tuesday, prompting outcries from a majority of users weighing in which in turn sparked Swift loyalists to jump at her defense.

A majority of those fuming over Swift’s new award eligibility are raising concerns that the pop star is “greedy” and would be taking away from other musicians who deserve to be shown similar attention at the Grammys.

“ok but she already owns the Grammys she won for them so it’s stupid to allow her to submit them again,” one person critiqued on Twitter.

“Not denying it takes effort but it’s still primarily the same music she won awards for in the past, unless she wins something for whatever new songs she releases. I’m not even trying to discredit her in particular I just think it’s a nonsensical rule from the grammys,” another person continued.

“Calling BULLS–T on this — sorry NO- You get ONE time around for a Grammy per song. GTFOH – @taylorswift13,” another user slammed the singer.

“Im tired of her winning awards. Can we give someone else the chance,” another reacted, adding, “We all know the Grammy’s are corrupt.”

One person mocked the Grammys as the “Scammys” and claimed the show favors “a particular set” of artists.

Some fans insisted that Swift’s new re-recordings would only result in future Grammy wins if she submits her upcoming albums.

“If she seriously submits those albums again it’d be the greediest s–t Ive seen from her,” one person wrote of the possibility.

“Greed for constant attention, recognition & it boosts sales. That’s just my personal opinion & I’m not gonna have a further discussion about that & idc if she’s not the first.I don’t like that others did it before her either. The concept to me is greedy. Doesn’t matter who does it,” a fan slammed.

Billboard noted that Swift wouldn’t be the first musician to submit re-recordings for award consideration. Frank Sinatra and Nat King Cole are two legendary artists whose past albums featuring re-recordings snagged them nominations. Although the outlet claims voters “generally favor new projects over ones that revisit past glories.”

Swift’s fanbase leaped at her defense in response to the naysayers.

“I doubt she cares for a Grammy. I’m happy she’s finally able to own her albums,” one fan tweeted.

Taylor Swift attends the 2019 American Music Awards at Microsoft Theater in Los Angeles.
Taylor Swift attends the 2019 American Music Awards at Microsoft Theater in Los Angeles.
Getty Images

Another Twitter user argued: “Other people have won Grammys with re-recordings so it would be stupid not to. If others are allowed she should to, same with the other way around.” But that response spawned one negative response from another account that wrote: “Others shouldn’t be allowed to either.”

“then join the grammy committee and make the rules,” another clapped back.

“y’all what if taylor becomes the first woman to win the grammy for album of the year 3 times. think about it #TaylorSwift #swiftie #FearlessTaylorsVersion #grammys,” one fan gleefully said.

“Lol what is greedy about submitting something for a Grammy? She doesn’t receive anything but recognition. And if she does submit she wouldn’t be the first to do so or even to win with a rerecording,” another defended.

“she’s giving new unreleased music on her old albums, it’s not like she’s just submitting old work that we’ve all heard how is it greedy to try and get recognition and praise for the new songs that come with her old albums???” another account said.

"Fearless" will feature six never-before heard tracks "from the vault."
“Fearless” features six never-before heard tracks “from the vault.”
Beth Garrabrant

On Thursday, the 31-year-old singer made the surprise announcement that she’d be releasing her “Fearless” album soon. That night, she dropped the new version of the song “Love Story” off the album.

“Good morning America, it’s Taylor. I’m so excited to share with you that tonight at midnight I’ll be putting out my version of my song ‘Love Story’ which was originally on my album ‘Fearless,’” she said in a video.

Swift added that her new version of “Fearless” will differ from the original album in that it will feature six new never-before-heard songs.

“I’ve now gone back and recorded those so that everyone will be able to hear not only the songs that made the album but the songs that almost made it. The full picture!” she said.

A rep for the Recording Academy did not immediately respond to Fox News’ request for comment.

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Drake’s ‘Scary Hours 2’ sparks Kim Kardashian rumors




Drake's 'Scary Hours 2' sparks Kim Kardashian rumors

Is Drake being ‘Scary’ honest?

The singer dropped three new songs Friday morning as part of his latest release, “Scary Hours 2.” 

But fans of the 34-year-old Canadian crooner are now wondering if his new music is all part of his long-standing beef with Kanye West, 43.

Drizzy’s trifecta of new songs, “What’s Next,” “Lemon Pepper Freestyle” and “Wants and Needs,” come as a highly acclaimed sequel to his first “Scary Hours” album which dropped in 2018. For this new edition to the anthology, Drake tapped rappers Rick Ross and Lil Baby to bless the EP with their lyrical talents. 

As for his flow, Drake, true to form, laces his latest verses with emotional innuendos and double entendres. 

But cyberspace sleuths with keen ears for shade have taken to Twitter, suspecting the OVO frontman of confirming a hookup with Kanye’s estranged wife, Kim Kardashian. 

Yeah, I probably go link to Yeezy I need me some Jesus / But as soon as I start confessin’ my sins, he wouldn’t believe us,” Drake raps on song “Wants and Needs.”

“Did Drake basically confess to hittn Kim on wants and needs??” one fan tweeted. 

“Drake basically admit he smashed Kim and told kanye,” added another. 

No stranger to alluding to his issues with Kanye, nor his alleged past with Kim, Drake previously suggested he and the 40-year-old “Keeping Up With the Kardashians” star shared a romance on his 2018 track “In My Feelings.”

Following its release, Kanye digitally confronted Drake in a scathing series of videos. 

So far, Ye has yet to comment on Drake’s latest insinuations. 

Regardless of anyone’s feelings on the thinly veiled sub diss, fans are totally feeling “Scary Hours 2” as a whole. 

In addition to bars, Drake dropped a music video for “What’s Next;” however, Drake’s devotees are still waiting for visuals for “Lemon Pepper Freestyle” and “Wants and Needs.”

His long-awaited “Certified Lover Boy” album was set to take over streaming platforms in January; however, he pushed the release date in order to recover from surgery. 

“I was planning to release my album this month but between surgery and rehab my energy has been dedicated to recovery,” he said in an Instagram update. 

“I’m blessed to be back on my feet feeling great and focused on the album, but CLB won’t dropping in January. I’m looking forward to sharing it with you all in 2021.”

As for now, “Scary Hours 2” is available via Spotify, Apple Music and Tidal. 

Continue Reading


NYC’s dueling Van Gogh exhibits: Here’s the original




NYC's dueling Van Gogh exhibits: Here's the original

One ear, two exhibits.

Vincent van Gogh fans are lost in the starry internet night of ticket sellers as two competing exhibits about the famed Dutch painter head to NYC. 

There’s the large-scale animated projection exhibit “Immersive Van Gogh” and then there’s “Van Gogh: The Immersive Experience.”

And the Better Business Bureau is warning New Yorkers that one of them is not like the other.

Their names and promotion material are confusingly similar, but those who’ve delved into the differences between the dueling experiences say there’s a huge difference. “Immersive Van Gogh” offers an impressive homage to the late artist created by Italian immersive-exhibition pioneer Massimiliano Siccardi and involving more than “500,000 cubic feet of projections.” It has gotten rave reviews during its multi-city run (“a cathartic and liberating experience,” wrote the Toronto Sun) and sold out in Toronto and Chicago, according to its website. It was even featured in Netflix’s “Emily in Paris.”

“Van Gogh: The Immersive Experience,” on the other hand, promises 360-degree projections, 15,000 square feet of screens, and “a one of kind Virtual Reality interactive,” according to its site, but watchdogs say its European-based ticketing platform is problematic, and fans of the painter say they’ve unintentionally bought tickets for it thinking it’s the slightly shorter-named homage. 

“They had some issues in the past,” Mario Iacampo, a “Van Gogh: The Immersive Experience” producer told CBS of their ticketing platform, Fever, which the Better Business Bureau currently lists as having an F — the worst possible rating. 

“They have 64 complaints over the last three years, 59 of them just in the last 12 months that we’ve closed,” Better Business Bureau president Claire Rosenzweig told CBS. 

“Read the descriptions really, really closely because it may not be the thing you want to go to,” said Kathleen Schmidt, who accidentally bought her and her 13-year-old advanced tickets for “The Immersive Experience” thinking it was “Immersive Van Gogh.” 

The competing exhibit even alludes to the duel on its website.

“Check before you GOGH,” warns “Immersive Van Gogh’s” website. 

“Immersive Van Gogh,” opens in NYC on June 10, with tickets starting at $39.99. “Van Gogh: The Immersive Experience,” opens in NYC on July 1, with tickets starting at $39.90.

Continue Reading


How Disney decides which content gets ‘offensive’ disclaimer




How Disney decides which content gets 'offensive' disclaimer

Disney holds monthly meetings to determine what content in its archive needs to have a warning added. 

The meetings are held virtually and are “very raw” according to one attendee. 

“We’ve had some very raw conversations on those Zooms,” African American Film Critics Association President Gil Robertson told the Hollywood Reporter. As part of Disney’s Stories Matter initiative’s advisory council, Robertson and his colleagues watch films believed to possibly be problematic and then tell Disney their reaction. 

“They want to make up for any offensive messaging they may have been a part of,” Robertson told the publication. “It feels sincere, and it’s also good business.”

In November 2019, when Disney launched its Disney+ streaming service, the company added content warnings ahead of its animated classics “Dumbo” (1941), “The Jungle Book” (1967) and “Aladdin” (1992) to warn audiences that the movies “may contain outdated cultural depictions.”

The iconic films “Aristocats” (1970), “Peter Pan” (1953) and “Swiss Family Robinson” (1960) also feature the warning ahead of the film.

The highly controversial “Song of the South” (1946) is not available on the streaming service.

Most recently, “The Muppet Show” had warning disclaimers placed prior to each episode, warning viewers that the show features “stereotypes” and “mistreatment of people or cultures.”

“Rather than remove this content, we want to acknowledge its harmful impact, learn from it and spark conversation to create a more inclusive future together,” the disclaimer says, adding “Disney is committed to creating stories with inspirational and aspirational themes that reflect the rich diversity of the human experience around the globe.”

The disclaimers are not a signal that the films have been canceled, Ben Mankiewicz, a host on classic TV network TCM, told the Reporter.

“Nobody’s canceling these movies,” he said. “Our job is not to get up and say, ‘Here’s a movie that you should feel guilty about for liking.’ But to pretend that the racism in it is not painful and acute? No. I do not want to shy away from that. This was inevitable. And welcomed. And overdue.”

Continue Reading