Taylor Swift's re-recordings expose the misogyny that lies behind the media
Holly Tunstall
Belfast is densely populated with ‘Swifties’. Whether it is because the country twang is reminiscent of Irish folk music, or the fact she was so recently in residence – she undoubtedly has a hold on the Emerald Isle. There are even ‘Swiftogeddon’ club nights dedicated solely to Taylor’s music. But what is it her re-recorded music (Taylor’s version) really represents?
Taylor reportedly made multiple denied attempts to purchase the master copies of her music
It is common practice for artists in the music industry to own the music they write, but for record labels to own the master copy. This is the recorded version of the music that is released to the public. When Scooter Braun’s Ithaca Holdings bought and absorbed the assets of Nashville based record label Big Machine, owner Scott Borchetta allowed Scooter Braun to purchase the master copies of Taylor Swift’s music. Taylor reportedly made multiple denied attempts to purchase these herself and insisted the deal occurred without her knowledge or consent. This was not the first time she had clashed with Scooter. His client Kanye West name-dropped her in in his rap “Famous”: ‘I feel like me and Taylor might still have sex, why, I made that b*tch famous’. She likened her conflict with the two men to a divorce. Contractually, Taylor’s recordings were no longer her own property. They were used to try and stop her filming her documentary Miss Americana and performing at the AMA’s following her victory as artist of the decade. It has only in the last few years become legally possible for her to re-record her songs. Hence, (Taylor’s version).
Taylor has always been outspoken about her thoughts on the double standards for men and women in the music industry. In particular, her experiences with gendered language in the media. Her examples feel applicable to most professional environments. Men can make strategic decisions; women are calculated. Men react; women overreact. The list could go on, and it does. Hysterical is resigned only for a female description. The etymology derives from the belief that the ‘hyster’, the womb, moved around a woman’s body and made them behave erratically.
Her experiences as a woman in the music industry feel applicable to most professional environments
Gendered language is everywhere and it’s dangerous. The media constantly reinforce misogynistic tropes. Please allow me to womansplain. Our language is a reflection of our culture and whilst protesting to change vocabulary might appear futile and insignificant, it is vital in the fight for feminism. What purpose does it serve for a woman to divulge her relationship status on a form with Miss/Mrs/Ms when a man can remain enigmatic with Mr? Senorita vs senora; mademoiselle vs madame? There seems to be no greater gulf than between the connotations of the ‘equivalent’ terms bachelor and spinster. Mistress is another interesting example. Beginning as the female answer to master to describe someone with authority and power, mistress was added to the English language from French following the Norman conquest. Yet since the beginning of the seventeenth century, it has taken the virtually exclusive definition of a woman who has a sexual relationship with a married man.
Taylor’s experiences with the media’s gendered language have only brought an existing problem to the front and centre of the public sphere. Remember ‘Megxit’? A headline intended to blame Meghan Markle for the mutual decision of the Sussex family to resign from Royal life. The picture was painted as a controlling woman brainwashing a poor, unsuspecting husband. As if said husband wasn’t Eton educated and more than capable of making his own decisions.
Misogynistic terms perpetuated in the press are villainising women in popular and everyday culture. Enough is enough.
Holly Tunstall is the Queen’s University Belfast Students’ Union part-time women students’ officer.