Opinion: 'Swimming in the Stars' release is disgusting.

[LeglessJamie]

Just now, Scrappy said:

 Anything put out now or in the future is disgusting because it goes against her express wishes. 

Does it? She only said she doesn't want to perform/record NEW music.

She never expressed her feelings towards releasing, re-releasing or simply buying OLD music thats already out.

This is made up by fans and Britney NEVER said a word about it. 

[1inamillion]

3 minutes ago, IForgotYouExisted said:

Does it? She only said she doesn't want to perform/record NEW music.

She never expressed her feelings towards releasing, re-releasing or simply buying OLD music thats already out.

This is made up by fans and Britney NEVER said a word about it. 

Go ahead and stream it then. But also keep in mind that you are betting your money on a "racehorse" while somebody else is profiting.

[PrettyGorl]

10 minutes ago, Geralt_of_Rivia said:

Can someone actually provide some proof when they're making such sweeping statements? I get the idea to boycott the brand but how much exactly are they going to take from a 4-year old record with a bunch of streams? It's not like there's a massive promotional campaign with Britney doing press interviews or performing. The streaming world we live in changed the artists' income from music sales long time ago. Agree to disagree, of course. 

Why release the song at all? To make money.

You are supporting the Britney machine if you stream or buy the vinyl. 

If you stop supporting everything Britney the machine will eventually give out so people can't use her anymore.

Just bc it isn't heavily promoted this time doesn't mean they won't do bigger release unbeknownst to Britney in the future. Theyre testing the waters. 

[Isla]

I'm not an expert on this, but I found this tweet which is pretty interesting. Besides, is Britney's c-ship really responsible for all of her music? She has a record label and people working at the label that help manage that. 

 

[Scrappy]

16 minutes ago, IForgotYouExisted said:

tbh she may contractually obliged to release stuff every now and then + this is an old unreleased song, she didn't work for it ever since it was done (which was prior to Glory) for both the song and the artwork.

They didn't make her do anything for this release.

That's why we CAN support this song.

This would be completely the opposite if the song and artwork were brand new and AFTER she said she didn't want to work. She's in no way forced in this project.

.... Britney in court: “I don’t want to work on new music or on my career if my father is still in charge.”
.... You: “Oh, so that means everything old is still good?”
.... Jamie: “Why of course! Here’s an unreleased song with an outtake as a cover!” 
.... You: “Sweet! I’m such a good Britney fan supporting her!”
.... Britney.... “......”

[The Exhale Psychic]

1 minute ago, Scrappy said:

.... Britney in court: “I don’t want to work on new music or on my career if my father is still in charge.”
.... You: “Oh, so that means everything old is still good?”
.... Jamie: “Why of course! Here’s an unreleased song with an outtake as a cover!” 
.... You: “Sweet! I’m such a good Britney fan supporting her!”
.... Britney.... “......”

Completley  agree

guys. dont be fooled by this. BRITNEY DOES NOT WANT TO  WORK RIGHT NOW

RESPECT THAT

[Scrappy]

1 minute ago, Isla said:

I'm not an expert on this, but I found this tweet which is pretty interesting. Besides, is Britney's c-ship really responsible for all of her music? She has a record label and people working at the label that help manage that. 

 

It has zero involvement with her team? LOL!!!!!!!!!!! ... so I guess it has ZERO INVOLVEMENT with Britney too then? I wonder who they hired to make the song since clearly it wasn’t Britney who was employed to do it. I guess royalties don’t exist either. Oh my god I just can’t... I can’t.

Eff this. Enjoy your old music and your old art. I’ll come back when you guys actually want to Stan the living artist and her future ambitions. I’ll wait for the real Ms. Britney Spears while you guys drool over your bread crumbs.

[Dream Within a Dream]

Ughh I just listened to the snippet. 

 

Forgive me Godney for i am too weak.

[A.a.A]

1 hour ago, THE BAJAN VIBE said:

It's exciting to listen something new by Britney, of course. And I got all the hype from the snipped but I'm not going to support it. The whole release and timing is disgusting and I'm not going to buy it.

 

#FREEBRITNEY and then, I'll give my money and streams to the brand again. 

THIS IS NOT how streaming works.
Artists make 0.13 cents per stream. Then the writers, producers and people who make the song get a cut, then Spotify (or whatever service) takes the rest. Her team makes no money off of streaming music. She makes no money off of streaming music.

All you guys are doing with the "boycott" of her songs is making sure the writers and producers don't get paid during a pandemic. We should re-think what we are boycotting.

She didn't ask you not to stream her music, she said she refuses to perform. Performing is what makes money. I respect this part, since it makes sense logically.

With this release, the label is either contractually obligated to release something or UO already bought the release rights and in which case Britney's team has already been paid and you are now boycotting a company (UO) that has done nothing wrong.

[PrettyGorl]

2 minutes ago, Isla said:

I'm not an expert on this, but I found this tweet which is pretty interesting. Besides, is Britney's c-ship really responsible for all of her music? She has a record label and people working at the label that help manage that. 

 

I'm not gonna pretend I understand economics or contracts but common sense tells me Sony and UO pay Britney's team for her music. So if we don't pay UO for Britneys music, they will not buy her music in the future bc there will be no market for it. 

Buying SITS will encourage UO to pay Britney's team more money for more music.

[THE BAJAN VIBE]

2 minutes ago, Scrappy said:

It has zero involvement with her team? LOL!!!!!!!!!!! ... so I guess it has ZERO INVOLVEMENT with Britney too then? I wonder who they hired to make the song since clearly it wasn’t Britney who was employed to do it. I guess royalties don’t exist either. Oh my god I just can’t... I can’t.

Eff this. Enjoy your old music and your old art. I’ll come back when you guys actually want to Stan the living artist and her future ambitions. I’ll wait for the real Ms. Britney Spears while you guys drool over your bread crumbs.

People trying to make excuses to keep helping the Britney machine lol

So, according to that, Britney would not get money for her music because it's a thing of Sony, right? Yeah, the deal is between RCA and UO but it affects the artist obviously. And Britney, as an artist and as a person is not only Britney since 2008.

[Dream Within a Dream]

2 minutes ago, A.a.A said:

THIS IS NOT how streaming works.
Artists make 0.13 cents per stream. Then the writers, producers and people who make the song get a cut, then Spotify (or whatever service) takes the rest. Her team makes no money off of streaming music. She makes no money off of streaming music.

All you guys are doing with the "boycott" of her songs is making sure the writers and producers don't get paid during a pandemic. We should re-think what we are boycotting.

She didn't ask you not to stream her music, she said she refuses to perform. Performing is what makes money. I respect this part, since it makes sense logically.

With this release, the label is either contractually obligated to release something or UO already bought the release rights and in which case Britney's team has already been paid and you are now boycotting a company (UO) that has done nothing wrong.

They did something wrong by making deals with an abused person that clearly expressed she doesn’t want to work anymore. 

[Mr. Cavill]

16 minutes ago, PrettyGorl said:

Why release the song at all? To make money.

You are supporting the Britney machine if you stream or buy the vinyl. 

If you stop supporting everything Britney the machine will eventually give out so people can't use her anymore.

Just bc it isn't heavily promoted this time doesn't mean they won't do bigger release unbeknownst to Britney in the future. Theyre testing the waters. 

Have you actually got any solid proof that it's the conservatorship behind this? Have you heard of contractual obligations? Bear in mind that it's also an exclusive on Urban Outfitters, so who do you think will be getting the money which, to begin with, isn't going to be a lot? 'Britney the machine will eventually give out' lol. I'm sorry but that's not really the way this works. People think that we're holding the gun here but let's give Britney some credit for actually fighting the conservatorship in court with her lawyers. Streaming her music has little to do with it. 

Britney herself posted a video when 'Glory' went number 1 on the pop chart (I think?) thanking the fans for the immense support. Britney herself has said many times that she's been more involved with the project ARTISTICALLY which is why we've got Mood Ring AND now we will be getting another one. What if this is Britney's way of thanking her fans for the support? I mean, she can't go in the studio now for obvious reasons, why not release something from a project she cared about and was artistically involved? There's always two sides of the coin.

[Scrappy]

16 minutes ago, IForgotYouExisted said:

Does it? She only said she doesn't want to perform/record NEW music.

She never expressed her feelings towards releasing, re-releasing or simply buying OLD music thats already out.

This is made up by fans and Britney NEVER said a word about it. 

I’m gonna pray for you. The Wizard of Oz can help... I’m sure. We just have to follow the yellow brick road. 

[1inamillion]

Britney doesn't have a voice. We can't know her beliefs/wants exactly because she is so controlled. What we know comes for Ingham in the most official way -court documents-. She has said that she refuses to work for as long as her dad is her conservator.

Did he leave? -No

Should we support it? -No 

 

Put yourself in her position. Imagine them trying to tear you down for your money and with your money. And then you go and buy/stream stuff. You are basically helping them and they make a fun of you and her.

Ffs she Britney the person and not the artist for once.

[A.a.A]

1 minute ago, Dream Within a Dream said:

They did something wrong by making deals with an abused person that clearly expressed she doesn’t want to work anymore. 

They didn’t make deals with her. Most likely these deals were made years in advance.

Do people think they just thought of this recently and started a massive production on it? It doesn’t work that way.

[THE BAJAN VIBE]

1 minute ago, A.a.A said:

THIS IS NOT how streaming works.
Artists make 0.13 cents per stream. Then the writers, producers and people who make the song get a cut, then Spotify (or whatever service) takes the rest. Her team makes no money off of streaming music. She makes no money off of streaming music.

All you guys are doing with the "boycott" of her songs is making sure the writers and producers don't get paid during a pandemic. We should re-think what we are boycotting.

She didn't ask you not to stream her music, she said she refuses to perform. Performing is what makes money. I respect this part, since it makes sense logically.

With this release, the label is either contractually obligated to release something or UO already bought the release rights and in which case Britney's team has already been paid and you are now boycotting a company (UO) that has done nothing wrong.

Yeah, same happens with Youtube views. I mean millions / billions don't mean that amount of money, obviously. But it's about my moral. I don't support the Britney brand, I don't feel good with it. I don't feel connected with the Britney machine anymore. I don't care if my support means 0$ or 1000$, I just don't.

I don't buy nor stream because it's against my values.

[Dream Within a Dream]

1 minute ago, A.a.A said:

They didn’t make deals with her. Most likely these deals were made years in advance.

Do people think they just thought of this recently and started a massive production on it? It doesn’t work that way.

What years in advance wtf? The freebritney movement has been going on FOR MORE THAN TWO YEARS

[Isla]

5 minutes ago, PrettyGorl said:

I'm not gonna pretend I understand economics or contracts but common sense tells me Sony and UO pay Britney's team for her music. So if we don't pay UO for Britneys music, they will not buy her music in the future bc there will be no market for it. 

Buying SITS will encourage UO to pay Britney's team more money for more music.

I mean, I don't really know how else to respond to you or @Scrappybut that was just my thoughts on the whole thing. Again, I'm not an expert. But I think there's been some logical/interesting explanations posted just after I made my post.

[davidspears]

I get your point, but in Britney's career she has always been behind music producers and managers, our money always goes into someone else's pockets.

What you are asking is that Britney owns her own record label, manages herself and writes and produces all her own music.

Never gonna happen.