#and she knows whomever she chooses won't be able to spend as much time with her afterwards

[corpocyborg]

i'm like maybe 60/40 on whether evelyn would chose vivienne or cassandra as divine (leaning towards vivienne)... evelyn has a personal history with vivienne bc as the youngest in a very long line of trevelyan children she was given to the templar order as an infant and trained as a templar for years until her magic manifested and she was carted off to the circle... then she ended up becoming a knight enchanter which is how she met vivienne... but although they genuinely really like each other they are fiercely competitive (which is actually part of what they like about each other) so i'm not sure she'd want vivienne to be divine over herself... but it's impossible to chose yourself... plus i think she'd actually rather continue to lead the inquisition anyway even if she could chose herself... and i think that although she thinks she can't truly manipulate vivienne she definitely can make mutually-beneficial deals with her and predict her actions... plus she likes the idea of giving power to another clever chantry-supporting mage who knows how to play the game as well as she does... cassandra is another matter bc they also get along really well... and evelyn was raised to respect/fear seekers... and she thinks cassandra is even more trustworthy and predictable than vivienne bc she'll always do whatever she thinks is right... which can also make her hard to manage in instances where they disagree... but they don't disagree often... so i can just imagine evelyn actually staying up late in skyhold struggling really hard with this decision... leliana is not an option bc evelyn doesn't believe in fully abolishing the circles... but the choice between those other two is hard... she genuinely could go either way... but i think i will probably go with vivienne for maximum chaos (and to complete my trilogy of mages who wreak as much havoc on thedas as possible)

[nevermesswithteddybears]

TAYLOR SWIFT FOUGHT FOR YOUR ARTIST INTEGRITY – WHY WON'T YOU DO THE SAME? - AN OPEN LETTER TO EVERY ARTIST

I haven't been debating for three years for nothing so here we fucking GO.

Dear whomever it may concern,

In June 2015 – four years ago – Taylor Swift wrote an open letter to Apple Music explaining why she would not have her music be available for streaming on the platform; to give you a quick reminder and sum-up, she refused to have her music be streamed because the platform did not compensate artists for the three month free trial their users were getting.

To quote Taylor: „This is not about me. (...) This is about the new artist or band that has just released their first single and will not be paid for its success. This is about the young songwriter who just got his or her first cut and thought that the royalties from that would get them out of debt. This is about the producer who works tirelessly to innovate and create, just like the innovators and creators at Apple are pioneering in their field… but will not get paid for a quarter of a year’s worth of plays on his or her songs.“

Apple Music changed their policy, and stated that they would be paying artists their earned due during the three months of the free trial, and on that day, Taylor Swift herself changed the game for many – if not all – artists in the industry; especially those she sought out to protect, the new talent. In fact, many artists speaking up about the current situation – some of them against Taylor, to which I'll get to in a moment – probably got quite a few cheques from their Apple Music streams that definitely helped them become financially stable. Most of all, though, this action did not remain on one streaming platform. As it is in physics, every action has a reaction, and here Taylor's actions echoed throughout the industry and insured the payment of every artist throughout the streaming platforms that are largely the way people listen to music today.

Taylor Swift did not fight for herself. By the time she released 1989, she was already an established enough artists to earn more than enough money for herself, her crew, and everyone attached to her in a more than decent manner simply by playing her live shows. As quoted above, she fought for YOU. YOU, reading this. YOU, an artist she might not even know but whose work she already valued enough to put her name and reputation on the line. YOU, who might now open your mailbox and receive a cheque of royalties from a streaming service and not even know that it might be a fraction more than it would've been four years ago before Taylor asked for adequate payment for all artists. SHE FOUGHT FOR YOU. SHE FOUGHT FOR YOUR INTEGRITY. Taylor Swift has been a punching bag of the industry for years, and yet she put a then controversial topic upon her shoulders – in actuality one of many Taylor has spoken up her, be it LGBT+ issues, sexual assault, and her recent open involvement with politics – and did it all because she through it only seeked to help the fight for OTHERS.

TAYLOR SWIFT FOUGHT FOR YOUR ARTIST INTEGRITY IN 2015. WHY WON'T YOU DO THE SAME NOW?

I pose this question beacause, once again, Taylor is placed to speak within an issue that currently to many seems small and insignificant, seems like it might be an overreaction or not that important, but will through time, echo throughout the industry in a way that will change it from the ground up.

I firmly believe what I say now; One day, you will find yourself owning your own masters without a catch. And in some way it will – much like the numbers on the cheques from the streaming companies – be thanks to Taylor Swift, and what she is doing NOW.

Taylor Swift left Big Machine Records – a label she had been signed to since she was fifteen, the label that had discovered her and under which she had released six albums, starting with her self-titled Taylor Swift and ending with reputation – last year, and through that action, through her choosing what was best for her future career, she was forced to leave her masters behind. Now, the company – and the masters – have been sold to Scooter Braun, and Taylor – whose fight for the masters I will touch upon soon – is farther from them now than she ever was.

Before I go further, I want to ask you one question. One question that sums up this entire debate that has been brought up since the news broke. One question which, when answered, should tell you whose „side“ you should be on. One question.

DO YOU, AS AN ARTIST, BELIEVE YOU SHOULD OWN YOUR OWN WORK?

Is your answer no? Well then, I won't claim to understand it, but I certainly won't stop you to continue your career without truly owning a single piece of what you've achieved. If that is where you find comfort, if that is where you are content and happy, then side with Scooter Braun.

But, I believe, in your heart, that the answer is YES. And this is where I will tell you that it is important to stand with Taylor, as it will ultimately lead to a change in your opportunities as well.

To put this into perspective quickly before I move on: Imagine you are an artist. Imagine you have a lead writing and producing credit on every single one of your songs. Imagine that, at nineteen, you wrote an entire album all by yourself. And imagine now, that you DO NOT OWN ANY OF THAT. This is the situation with Taylor Swift. After a career that's slowly reaching two decades, Taylor Swift will only truly own her upcoming album Lover, out August 23rd. She does not own the masters to any of her SIX previous ones.

Taylor has publicly said that she has fought to own her masters for years, and was continuously denied, and she has also only found out about the sale of Big Machine Records along with the world. Imagine that, imagine your life's work being entirely in the hands that are not yours, and then – without your knowladge or consent – being sold to someone else. Someone who, throughout your career, has brought you only pain. And now they hold six pieces of your heart. Now they own your fifteen years.

Scott Burchetta, the previous owner of Big Machine Records, has released a statement along with the final offer he supposedly gave Taylor for her to aquire her masters, one she has denied. And he presented that offer as if to say Taylor has no one to blame but herself for not now owning her masters, had she accepted the offer. But, he doesn't point out one thing: where Taylor offered to stay in the company for an additional seven years to in return get full ownership of her masters, Scott Burchetta wanted ten. In fact, for every album master of hers Taylor wanted to own, Scott Burchetta asked for an additional album. Even for Taylor, an artist who for the longest time had an album out on average every two years, it would far exceed the ten year timeframe. Taylor Swift took the way out, even if it meant leaving the rights to her life's work behind, because she knew it was the right thing to do. Otherwise, she would have stayed. And the management would've still changed. And she would've been left caged for the remainder of her career.

The issue at hand here, though, is that not at one point was Taylor ever again reached out to with the option to buy her masters. Not once was she brought into the conversation of what was going to happen with her fifteen year legacy. And not once was she given the opportunity to buy that legacy back. Because ultimately, this was never about money. It was about POWER. It was about two men gaining the power over a female artist's fifteen years of work, the female artist whose sole discography brings the company 35% of its entire earnings, the female artist who now probably won't get updated certifications on any of her older songs, and who through that will never be able to officially reach her deserved status of an artist legend.

The line „if a man talks shit then I owe him nothing, and if he spends my change then he had it coming“ is now owned by a man who has complete power over Taylor's masters, a man who gets money off every one of your streams or previous album purchases. A man who has done nothing but abused and bullied Taylor throughout her career.

This isn't the first situation of an artist trying to get control over their masters. Recently, artist JoJo re-recorded and re-released an album she did not hold the masters to, rendering the masters useless, and that is one solution that Taylor could try. But the point is, she shouldn't HAVE to. None of the artists should have to. JoJo herself should not have had to.

I will bring back that question now. The main question. DO YOU BELIEVE ARTISTS SHOULD OWN THEIR OWN WORK? FULLY AND COMPLETELY, DO YOU BELIEVE THAT? Because THAT is what this conversation is about. Ultimately, it is not about who is mean or who is nice, not about who has what reputation, or who gets the bigger name to stand behind them, it is not about who needs to give a half-assed apology or anything of that sort. It is about arists integrity. It is about Taylor Swift, and YOU, and any other artist, being afforded the opportunity to own their own work.

I believe they should. I believe something should be done to protect artists. I believe there should be a clause that all artists get their own masters once they leave once their contract is settled. If not that, then I believe all those artists should be given the opportunity to buy them back; especially once the management of the company is changing.

If you believe so too, if you believe in YOUR integrity the way Taylor Swift always has, if you believe in HER ARTIST INTEGRITY as well, then stand by her and speak up. Be the reaction to her action. Be part of the echo throughout the industry. Fight for her right because you are most certainly fighting for yours.

@taylorswift, I stand with you. Everyone else should too.

With love,

Katarina