Didn't know this
Same here. I'd knock her off. I bump her music. A couple months ago I was blasting it driving thru downtown Cleveland and I didn't give a fuggg. I love country music. Her pop stuff is touch and go, but I love the shake it off.
Music Biz: Taylor Swift Sells ‘Eras Tour’ Concert Film Rights to Disney+ !!
- Thread starter playahaitian
- Start date
Same here. I'd knock her off. I bump her music. A couple months ago I was blasting it driving thru downtown Cleveland and I didn't give a fuggg. I love country music. Her pop stuff is touch and go, but I love the shake it off.
Why Taylor Swift Is Nuts for Leaving Spotify
An orgy of Tayloriffic Swiftacular commentary on the release of Taylor Swift's new album, 1989, flooded the internet last week. Soon after came a second front of discussion. Swift, it was said, had broken up with Spotify.
There would be no streaming of her new album — and she removed all of her previous work from the service to boot. Was it smart? Well, we were informed, the numbers told the story. The album sold 1.2 million copies its first week out. (This was the highest any album had sold in one week in more than ten years.)
The gross on the album would be about $12 million. Spotify's payments are almost impossible to calculate given the variables of how the service works, but Swift might have gotten a few thousand dollars for every million streams on the service. It's a no-brainer — Swift was a genius. The CD lives!
Is that analysis correct? No.
First of all, readers should beware when the big, hyped story is that a big star does something big stars are supposed to do. Swift sells more records than anyone this side of Adele. All pop marketing these days is about making a splash. That's why we've seen Beyoncé and U2 go to such lengths to get our attention with their latest releases. Swift didn't have any real tricks like that up her sleeve, so she worked overtime before the release, calling attention to it, and in the end, she and her label did a good job.
Remember that Swift comes from country, with a much more traditional record-buying audience, and this album is her big crossover bid. She's a somewhat bland but sprightly star who appeals to moms and kids, genetically designed to be as ingratiating as possible. The successful marketing of such stuff shouldn’t be greeted with looks of wonder.
But remember that typically the label would have given her a large cash advance against future royalties, so it's probably keeping most of the money at this point. (Remember as well that labels have a highly evolved ability to route all money that does come in into its pockets, rather than the artist's, but that's a story for another day.)
Anyway, that means Swift might be making $2.4 million off the album this week in straight artist royalties. The real comparison is not between the gross of the album versus what she might make from a streaming service like Spotify, but the difference between her Spotify income and the income from the physical and digital sales she would have lost to the service.
Let's say it's 10 percent. That's $240,000 in royalties. If 1989 totals 100 million streams on Spotify, that might only produce $200,000 in payments back to Swift — and let's remember that on paper, at least, she's splitting those with Big Machine. So let's say $100,000 versus potential lost royalties of $240,000 ….
... meaning Spotify might have cost her $150,000. That's not nothing to me and you, but in TaylorWorld, it's really not much. On Swift's last tour, she grossed an average of $1.8 million — almost as much as she's making off her new album with its spectacular sales — per show; even after expenses and administrative costs, she will have made that $200,000 differential up at about the 20-minute mark of her next appearance.
The second misleading aspect of the debate is that the decision to be on Spotify or not is not really Swift's to make. She's a big star and undoubtedly has more juice than a lot of performers, but it's Big Machine's job to maximize its own sales. The label — again, this is in crude terms — is probably making three times as much as Swift is on the CD. The differential is a lot greater; from its perspective, it makes so much more off a CD sale that its business focus is on little else. (Also, as the Times reported, a sale of the label might be in the offing, and a strong performance by the label's star performer couldn't hurt the potential sale price.)
This is where the story gets portentous and sad. As we've seen over the past 15 years, the decisions record labels make are quite often not in the best interests of their customers, their artists, or, in the end, themselves. The CD Era is long gone. Sales will go on, of course, particularly in genres like country that haven't entirely made it to the digital world yet, but will continue to drop significantly each year. (At least until the CD becomes a neo-retro accouterment in the bewhiskered hipster pad the way LPs are now.)
The future of the industry lies in streaming. (It's not pretty — as Thom Yorke put it, it's "the last desperate fart of a dying corpse” — but that's what it is.) And here's the rub. Any transition in a business affects different parties differently. The sad fact of the music business is that everyone's making less money than they used to, and are going to make less in the future, but no one's working to maximize whatever that long-term lower status is. The labels weren't great on making tough decisions during their go-go years, so you can imagine the fighting to get to the lifeboats that's going on behind the scenes now. (It couldn't have happened to a nicer group of people.)
So let's look at the future. Spotify has a value to its customers if it actually has all the music people want to listen to. If all the major artists pull a Swiftie on the service when their new albums come out, it significantly devalues the value of the product to consumers. ("Why should I pay this place $10 a month if Taylor Swift, Beyoncé, Kanye, and Adele aren't on it?")
In this standoff, Spotify, which is constructing the industry of the future, has the high ground; it knows what it needs to do to succeed.
The proper play even for a greedy record industry is to put all the music on the streaming services all the time and make it part of everyday life. Then they can start jacking up the fees and ad rates. (There's a line of argument that in any case the industry will ultimately suck the service dry of all its profits, so it can never succeed, but that's a story for another day as well.)
Why? Because we can already see where folks are going to get their music if they decide a streaming option like Spotify doesn't give them the service they want. Here's what Swift's — and Spotify's — real competition is:
That's a screenshot of just part of a Pirate Bay page dedicated to 1989 torrents. I count about 7,000 folks sharing the thing right then, a week after the album came out. (With that many seeds, downloading an album takes about 45 seconds, so you can imagine the churn.) A single page on a different BitTorrent site, Kick Ass Torrents, said that just one particular torrent of many for the album had been downloaded close to 110,000 times.
And remember that this comes in the face of what I'm sure was a strong behind-the-scenes campaign by her label to keep the thing off the illegal networks.
Spotify's per-stream payout seems small, all right, but it's a lot bigger than the Pirate Bay's.
Thus far, the only big winner is Big Machine. Long-term, Swift has screwed herself over as well. This week, she announced a world tour. Tours are, of course, where the real money is; her next one, depending on how many dates there are in the end and whether she starts jacking up her (relatively low) ticket prices, may gross $200 million or more.
I'll bet you dollars to old scratched CDs that U2's plan was to announce its next world tour as the band members basked in the glow of their big Songs of Innocence album giveaway at that now-notorious Apple announcement; the silly imbroglio that resulted may well have held those plans up.
Why?
Because U2's next tour may well gross a billion dollars. If bad PR mojo should have cost the band a one percent drop in ticket sales, that's a lot of money down the drain. (Live Nation gets mad when that happens.)
Look what's happened to Swift. The message of her tour has been muddled with this Spotify debate; even if the coverage is overwhelmingly pro-Swift (which is how it reads to me), at best, the intimation that's she's doing things not for her fans but for money clashes with her brand.
The next decision those readers are going to make is whether they should shell out $100 or $150 to see her live, or pay for their kids to do so. Their decision might put a frownie face on even the nicest pop star's tour accountant.
An orgy of Tayloriffic Swiftacular commentary on the release of Taylor Swift's new album, 1989, flooded the internet last week. Soon after came a second front of discussion. Swift, it was said, had broken up with Spotify.
There would be no streaming of her new album — and she removed all of her previous work from the service to boot. Was it smart? Well, we were informed, the numbers told the story. The album sold 1.2 million copies its first week out. (This was the highest any album had sold in one week in more than ten years.)
The gross on the album would be about $12 million. Spotify's payments are almost impossible to calculate given the variables of how the service works, but Swift might have gotten a few thousand dollars for every million streams on the service. It's a no-brainer — Swift was a genius. The CD lives!
Is that analysis correct? No.
First of all, readers should beware when the big, hyped story is that a big star does something big stars are supposed to do. Swift sells more records than anyone this side of Adele. All pop marketing these days is about making a splash. That's why we've seen Beyoncé and U2 go to such lengths to get our attention with their latest releases. Swift didn't have any real tricks like that up her sleeve, so she worked overtime before the release, calling attention to it, and in the end, she and her label did a good job.
Remember that Swift comes from country, with a much more traditional record-buying audience, and this album is her big crossover bid. She's a somewhat bland but sprightly star who appeals to moms and kids, genetically designed to be as ingratiating as possible. The successful marketing of such stuff shouldn’t be greeted with looks of wonder.
Now let's look at the numbers. First of all, Swift doesn't make $12 million from her record. Her record company, Big Machine, does. And the company doesn't make it either, in the end. It makes 60 or 70 cents on the dollar from iTunes. It's selling for $10 at Amazon, $14 at Walmart. Big Machine might make $8 a sale on average. That's $9 million in round figures. Now, these numbers could be larger if Swift's promotional deals with the retailers got her more money; barring that, Swift is going to make about $2 per sale.
But remember that typically the label would have given her a large cash advance against future royalties, so it's probably keeping most of the money at this point. (Remember as well that labels have a highly evolved ability to route all money that does come in into its pockets, rather than the artist's, but that's a story for another day.)
Anyway, that means Swift might be making $2.4 million off the album this week in straight artist royalties. The real comparison is not between the gross of the album versus what she might make from a streaming service like Spotify, but the difference between her Spotify income and the income from the physical and digital sales she would have lost to the service.
Let's say it's 10 percent. That's $240,000 in royalties. If 1989 totals 100 million streams on Spotify, that might only produce $200,000 in payments back to Swift — and let's remember that on paper, at least, she's splitting those with Big Machine. So let's say $100,000 versus potential lost royalties of $240,000 ….
... meaning Spotify might have cost her $150,000. That's not nothing to me and you, but in TaylorWorld, it's really not much. On Swift's last tour, she grossed an average of $1.8 million — almost as much as she's making off her new album with its spectacular sales — per show; even after expenses and administrative costs, she will have made that $200,000 differential up at about the 20-minute mark of her next appearance.
The second misleading aspect of the debate is that the decision to be on Spotify or not is not really Swift's to make. She's a big star and undoubtedly has more juice than a lot of performers, but it's Big Machine's job to maximize its own sales. The label — again, this is in crude terms — is probably making three times as much as Swift is on the CD. The differential is a lot greater; from its perspective, it makes so much more off a CD sale that its business focus is on little else. (Also, as the Times reported, a sale of the label might be in the offing, and a strong performance by the label's star performer couldn't hurt the potential sale price.)
This is where the story gets portentous and sad. As we've seen over the past 15 years, the decisions record labels make are quite often not in the best interests of their customers, their artists, or, in the end, themselves. The CD Era is long gone. Sales will go on, of course, particularly in genres like country that haven't entirely made it to the digital world yet, but will continue to drop significantly each year. (At least until the CD becomes a neo-retro accouterment in the bewhiskered hipster pad the way LPs are now.)
The iTunes Era is over as well. Few have been paying attention, but digital sales are now collapsing in unison with CD sales. Swift's 1989 sales are not a sign that this process is being reversed; she's just an outlier with a good marketing staff.
The future of the industry lies in streaming. (It's not pretty — as Thom Yorke put it, it's "the last desperate fart of a dying corpse” — but that's what it is.) And here's the rub. Any transition in a business affects different parties differently. The sad fact of the music business is that everyone's making less money than they used to, and are going to make less in the future, but no one's working to maximize whatever that long-term lower status is. The labels weren't great on making tough decisions during their go-go years, so you can imagine the fighting to get to the lifeboats that's going on behind the scenes now. (It couldn't have happened to a nicer group of people.)
So let's look at the future. Spotify has a value to its customers if it actually has all the music people want to listen to. If all the major artists pull a Swiftie on the service when their new albums come out, it significantly devalues the value of the product to consumers. ("Why should I pay this place $10 a month if Taylor Swift, Beyoncé, Kanye, and Adele aren't on it?")
In this standoff, Spotify, which is constructing the industry of the future, has the high ground; it knows what it needs to do to succeed.
The proper play even for a greedy record industry is to put all the music on the streaming services all the time and make it part of everyday life. Then they can start jacking up the fees and ad rates. (There's a line of argument that in any case the industry will ultimately suck the service dry of all its profits, so it can never succeed, but that's a story for another day as well.)
Swift has already shown herself to be a very naïve person when it comes to the music business: Her Wall Street Journal op-ed piece last summer was strikingly solipsistic and uninformed. If she supports Big Machine's decision, as she seems to be indicating, she's really hurting both other artists and herself in another way.
Why? Because we can already see where folks are going to get their music if they decide a streaming option like Spotify doesn't give them the service they want. Here's what Swift's — and Spotify's — real competition is:
That's a screenshot of just part of a Pirate Bay page dedicated to 1989 torrents. I count about 7,000 folks sharing the thing right then, a week after the album came out. (With that many seeds, downloading an album takes about 45 seconds, so you can imagine the churn.) A single page on a different BitTorrent site, Kick Ass Torrents, said that just one particular torrent of many for the album had been downloaded close to 110,000 times.
And remember that this comes in the face of what I'm sure was a strong behind-the-scenes campaign by her label to keep the thing off the illegal networks.
Spotify's per-stream payout seems small, all right, but it's a lot bigger than the Pirate Bay's.
Thus far, the only big winner is Big Machine. Long-term, Swift has screwed herself over as well. This week, she announced a world tour. Tours are, of course, where the real money is; her next one, depending on how many dates there are in the end and whether she starts jacking up her (relatively low) ticket prices, may gross $200 million or more.
I'll bet you dollars to old scratched CDs that U2's plan was to announce its next world tour as the band members basked in the glow of their big Songs of Innocence album giveaway at that now-notorious Apple announcement; the silly imbroglio that resulted may well have held those plans up.
Why?
Because U2's next tour may well gross a billion dollars. If bad PR mojo should have cost the band a one percent drop in ticket sales, that's a lot of money down the drain. (Live Nation gets mad when that happens.)
Look what's happened to Swift. The message of her tour has been muddled with this Spotify debate; even if the coverage is overwhelmingly pro-Swift (which is how it reads to me), at best, the intimation that's she's doing things not for her fans but for money clashes with her brand.
The next decision those readers are going to make is whether they should shell out $100 or $150 to see her live, or pay for their kids to do so. Their decision might put a frownie face on even the nicest pop star's tour accountant.
Aloe Blacc on streaming music services: FUCK YOU, PAY ME!
http://www.bgol.us/board/showthread.php?p=14914411&posted=1#post14914411
http://www.bgol.us/board/showthread.php?p=14914411&posted=1#post14914411
wtf..?
Apple Reverses Royalties Policy After Taylor Swift Criticism
Well, that was a “Swift” response.
Less than 24 hours after chart-topping singer Taylor Swift criticized Apple for not paying royalties to artists during the three-month free-trial period for its new Apple Music service, the company’s chief content czar signaled the policy has been reversed via Twitter.
“Apple will always make sure that artist are paid,” tweeted Apple’s Eddy Cue on Sunday night in a series of three tweets that called out Swift.
Cue’s response may have headed off what could have been a bruising battle for Apple during a crucial period in which Apple Music is attempting to compete with streaming services like Spotify, which knows all too well what it’s like to be on the receiving end of Swift’s ire.
Swift signaled earlier in the day that Apple’s refusal to pay royalties during the initial period meant she would hold back her latest album, “1989,” from availability on Apple Music.
“I find it to be shocking, disappointing, and completely unlike this historically progressive and generous company,” she wrote on her Tumblr page.
https://www.yahoo.com/music/s/apple-reverses-royalties-policy-taylor-swift-criticism-035809170.html
http://www.bgol.us/board/showthread.php?p=15556731&posted=1#post15556731
Well, that was a “Swift” response.
Less than 24 hours after chart-topping singer Taylor Swift criticized Apple for not paying royalties to artists during the three-month free-trial period for its new Apple Music service, the company’s chief content czar signaled the policy has been reversed via Twitter.
“Apple will always make sure that artist are paid,” tweeted Apple’s Eddy Cue on Sunday night in a series of three tweets that called out Swift.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">We hear you <a href="https://twitter.com/taylorswift13">@taylorswift13</a> and indie artists. Love, Apple</p>— Eddy Cue (@cue) <a href="https://twitter.com/cue/status/612824947342229504">June 22, 2015</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr"><a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/AppleMusic?src=hash">#AppleMusic</a> will pay artist for streaming, even during customer’s free trial period</p>— Eddy Cue (@cue) <a href="https://twitter.com/cue/status/612824775220555776">June 22, 2015</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr"><a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/AppleMusic?src=hash">#AppleMusic</a> will pay artist for streaming, even during customer’s free trial period</p>— Eddy Cue (@cue) <a href="https://twitter.com/cue/status/612824775220555776">June 22, 2015</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Cue’s response may have headed off what could have been a bruising battle for Apple during a crucial period in which Apple Music is attempting to compete with streaming services like Spotify, which knows all too well what it’s like to be on the receiving end of Swift’s ire.
Swift signaled earlier in the day that Apple’s refusal to pay royalties during the initial period meant she would hold back her latest album, “1989,” from availability on Apple Music.
“I find it to be shocking, disappointing, and completely unlike this historically progressive and generous company,” she wrote on her Tumblr page.
https://www.yahoo.com/music/s/apple-reverses-royalties-policy-taylor-swift-criticism-035809170.html
http://www.bgol.us/board/showthread.php?p=15556731&posted=1#post15556731
Cardi B Doubled Taylor Swift’s Apple Music Streaming Record
Cardi B’sInvasion of Privacy just broke Taylor Swift’s record to become Apple Music’s most-streamed album by a female artist in its first week. Per Variety, Invasion of Privacy more than doubled Reputation’s streams by midweek. (Though in Swift’s defense Reputation wasn’t available to stream until three weeks after its release.) Cardi’s debut album currently holds the fifth spot on Apple Music’s chart of most-streamed albums ever, and seems poised to top the Billboard 200. The last time Cardi snatched a streaming victory from Taylor Swift, the Reputation singer sent Cardi a bouquet of flowers. The old Taylor can’t come to the phone right now … she’s on another call with her florist.
Taylor Swift makes surprise announcement about new song at Teen Choice Awards
By Rachel Yang
August 11, 2019 at 10:13 PM EDT
FBTwitter
KEVIN MAZUR/GETTY IMAGES
While accepting the Icon Award at the 2019 Teen Choice Awards, Taylor Swiftannounced that she’s releasing her new song, “Lover,” on Friday, Aug. 16.
Lover is also the name of her upcoming seventh album, which debuts Aug. 23. The singer previously dropped her tracks “You Need to Calm Down,” “The Archer,” and “Me!,” which will all be on Lover. The star-studded music video for “You Need to Calm Down” featured everyone from the guys of Queer Eye to Ellen DeGeneres.
Swift also revealed the album cover in an Instagram post back in June. In an Instagram Live stream, she also explained more about what fans can expectfrom the project.
“It’s very romantic and not just simply thematically, like it’s all love songs or something. I think that romance can be found in loneliness or sadness or going through conflicts in your life. [The album] just looks at things in a romantic gaze,” Swift said of Lover, which will feature 18 tracks — more than any of the songstress’ previous albums.
In her TCA acceptance speech, Swift also publicly supported presenter Alex Morgan and her USWNT teammates in their fight for equal pay. She also thanked her fans and offered some wise advice to those in the crowd.
“If you’re out there and you’re being really hard on yourself right now for something that’s happened or for messing up or feeling embarrassed, it’s normal,” Swift said. “That’s what’s going to happen to you in life. No one gets through unscathed. We’re all going to have a few scratches on us. So just please, please, we live in an insane world and in an insane time. Please be kind to yourself and please stand up for yourself.”
Swift has been having a jam-packed summer, not just in music — she wrote an open letter supporting the Equality Act; appeared in the trailer for the big-screen adaptation of Cats; tied with Ariana Grande for the most VMA nominations; and announced she’ll be performing in New York City the day before her album drops, and on Aug. 26 at the VMAs.
By Rachel Yang
August 11, 2019 at 10:13 PM EDT
FBTwitter
KEVIN MAZUR/GETTY IMAGES
While accepting the Icon Award at the 2019 Teen Choice Awards, Taylor Swiftannounced that she’s releasing her new song, “Lover,” on Friday, Aug. 16.
Lover is also the name of her upcoming seventh album, which debuts Aug. 23. The singer previously dropped her tracks “You Need to Calm Down,” “The Archer,” and “Me!,” which will all be on Lover. The star-studded music video for “You Need to Calm Down” featured everyone from the guys of Queer Eye to Ellen DeGeneres.
Swift also revealed the album cover in an Instagram post back in June. In an Instagram Live stream, she also explained more about what fans can expectfrom the project.
“It’s very romantic and not just simply thematically, like it’s all love songs or something. I think that romance can be found in loneliness or sadness or going through conflicts in your life. [The album] just looks at things in a romantic gaze,” Swift said of Lover, which will feature 18 tracks — more than any of the songstress’ previous albums.
In her TCA acceptance speech, Swift also publicly supported presenter Alex Morgan and her USWNT teammates in their fight for equal pay. She also thanked her fans and offered some wise advice to those in the crowd.
“If you’re out there and you’re being really hard on yourself right now for something that’s happened or for messing up or feeling embarrassed, it’s normal,” Swift said. “That’s what’s going to happen to you in life. No one gets through unscathed. We’re all going to have a few scratches on us. So just please, please, we live in an insane world and in an insane time. Please be kind to yourself and please stand up for yourself.”
Swift has been having a jam-packed summer, not just in music — she wrote an open letter supporting the Equality Act; appeared in the trailer for the big-screen adaptation of Cats; tied with Ariana Grande for the most VMA nominations; and announced she’ll be performing in New York City the day before her album drops, and on Aug. 26 at the VMAs.
Look What You Made Her Do! Taylor Swift Will Rerecord Her Old Albums
By Rebecca Alter
Photo: Broadimage/Shutterstock
If you can’t beat ’em, rerecord ’em. According to a press release, Taylor Swift will announce plans to rerecord her entire six-album back catalog in an interview with Tracy Smith on this week’s episode of CBS Sunday Morning. In the interview, when Smith asks Swift whether she plans to rerecord her earlier songs to have control over the masters — which were recently bought by Swift’s nemesis Scooter Braun — Swift responds not only with an “oh yeah,” but even a “yeah, absolutely.”
What would drive an artist to rerecord six albums’ worth of work? In brief: At the end of June, two weeks after the release of LGBTQ-Ally track (not that LGBTQ-Allytrack) “You Need to Calm Down,” Swift updated her Tumblr with a personal, heartfelt message: that Braun, Kanye West’s former manager, had bought the masters to all of her past work from her longtime previous label, Scott Borchetta’s Big Machine Records. In the post, she explained why she’d left last fall for Universal: She did not want to sign a contract with Borchetta and have to work to earn back the ownership rights to her masters track by track. And now Braun — whom Swift calls an “incessant, manipulative” bully — has total ownership over her past six albums after acquiring Big Machine.
Fans were incensed on her behalf, and supporters like Kelly Clarkson chimed in with an idea: If she didn’t want to buy the masters back from Braun, why not rerecord the tracks altogether?
This would not be the first battle Swift has waged over issues of music ownership and artists’ rights: She has taken streaming services like Apple Music and Spotify to task over royalties in the past. Nor would Swift be the first artist to leave a record label and then rerecord her tracks to gain ownership; JoJo rerecorded her debut album after her old label Blackground removed it from streaming services last fall. The possibility of rerecorded versions of her old songs, especially in an age when listeners are less likely to keep older, physical manifestations of media that can be streamed and edited, raises some questions for Swifties: Will the old versions still be available? Will these new recordings of old favorites be 2019Lion King–level uncanny copies? Will she re-create that “Our Song”–era faux twang? One can only hope that Swift will go further into detail in her interview, which airs on CBS on August 25.
By Rebecca Alter
Photo: Broadimage/Shutterstock
If you can’t beat ’em, rerecord ’em. According to a press release, Taylor Swift will announce plans to rerecord her entire six-album back catalog in an interview with Tracy Smith on this week’s episode of CBS Sunday Morning. In the interview, when Smith asks Swift whether she plans to rerecord her earlier songs to have control over the masters — which were recently bought by Swift’s nemesis Scooter Braun — Swift responds not only with an “oh yeah,” but even a “yeah, absolutely.”
What would drive an artist to rerecord six albums’ worth of work? In brief: At the end of June, two weeks after the release of LGBTQ-Ally track (not that LGBTQ-Allytrack) “You Need to Calm Down,” Swift updated her Tumblr with a personal, heartfelt message: that Braun, Kanye West’s former manager, had bought the masters to all of her past work from her longtime previous label, Scott Borchetta’s Big Machine Records. In the post, she explained why she’d left last fall for Universal: She did not want to sign a contract with Borchetta and have to work to earn back the ownership rights to her masters track by track. And now Braun — whom Swift calls an “incessant, manipulative” bully — has total ownership over her past six albums after acquiring Big Machine.
Fans were incensed on her behalf, and supporters like Kelly Clarkson chimed in with an idea: If she didn’t want to buy the masters back from Braun, why not rerecord the tracks altogether?
This would not be the first battle Swift has waged over issues of music ownership and artists’ rights: She has taken streaming services like Apple Music and Spotify to task over royalties in the past. Nor would Swift be the first artist to leave a record label and then rerecord her tracks to gain ownership; JoJo rerecorded her debut album after her old label Blackground removed it from streaming services last fall. The possibility of rerecorded versions of her old songs, especially in an age when listeners are less likely to keep older, physical manifestations of media that can be streamed and edited, raises some questions for Swifties: Will the old versions still be available? Will these new recordings of old favorites be 2019Lion King–level uncanny copies? Will she re-create that “Our Song”–era faux twang? One can only hope that Swift will go further into detail in her interview, which airs on CBS on August 25.
Look What You Made Her Do! Taylor Swift Will Rerecord Her Old Albums
By Rebecca Alter
Photo: Broadimage/Shutterstock
If you can’t beat ’em, rerecord ’em. According to a press release, Taylor Swift will announce plans to rerecord her entire six-album back catalog in an interview with Tracy Smith on this week’s episode of CBS Sunday Morning. In the interview, when Smith asks Swift whether she plans to rerecord her earlier songs to have control over the masters — which were recently bought by Swift’s nemesis Scooter Braun — Swift responds not only with an “oh yeah,” but even a “yeah, absolutely.”
What would drive an artist to rerecord six albums’ worth of work? In brief: At the end of June, two weeks after the release of LGBTQ-Ally track (not that LGBTQ-Allytrack) “You Need to Calm Down,” Swift updated her Tumblr with a personal, heartfelt message: that Braun, Kanye West’s former manager, had bought the masters to all of her past work from her longtime previous label, Scott Borchetta’s Big Machine Records. In the post, she explained why she’d left last fall for Universal: She did not want to sign a contract with Borchetta and have to work to earn back the ownership rights to her masters track by track. And now Braun — whom Swift calls an “incessant, manipulative” bully — has total ownership over her past six albums after acquiring Big Machine.
Fans were incensed on her behalf, and supporters like Kelly Clarkson chimed in with an idea: If she didn’t want to buy the masters back from Braun, why not rerecord the tracks altogether?
This would not be the first battle Swift has waged over issues of music ownership and artists’ rights: She has taken streaming services like Apple Music and Spotify to task over royalties in the past. Nor would Swift be the first artist to leave a record label and then rerecord her tracks to gain ownership; JoJo rerecorded her debut album after her old label Blackground removed it from streaming services last fall. The possibility of rerecorded versions of her old songs, especially in an age when listeners are less likely to keep older, physical manifestations of media that can be streamed and edited, raises some questions for Swifties: Will the old versions still be available? Will these new recordings of old favorites be 2019Lion King–level uncanny copies? Will she re-create that “Our Song”–era faux twang? One can only hope that Swift will go further into detail in her interview, which airs on CBS on August 25.
By Rebecca Alter
Photo: Broadimage/Shutterstock
If you can’t beat ’em, rerecord ’em. According to a press release, Taylor Swift will announce plans to rerecord her entire six-album back catalog in an interview with Tracy Smith on this week’s episode of CBS Sunday Morning. In the interview, when Smith asks Swift whether she plans to rerecord her earlier songs to have control over the masters — which were recently bought by Swift’s nemesis Scooter Braun — Swift responds not only with an “oh yeah,” but even a “yeah, absolutely.”
What would drive an artist to rerecord six albums’ worth of work? In brief: At the end of June, two weeks after the release of LGBTQ-Ally track (not that LGBTQ-Allytrack) “You Need to Calm Down,” Swift updated her Tumblr with a personal, heartfelt message: that Braun, Kanye West’s former manager, had bought the masters to all of her past work from her longtime previous label, Scott Borchetta’s Big Machine Records. In the post, she explained why she’d left last fall for Universal: She did not want to sign a contract with Borchetta and have to work to earn back the ownership rights to her masters track by track. And now Braun — whom Swift calls an “incessant, manipulative” bully — has total ownership over her past six albums after acquiring Big Machine.
Fans were incensed on her behalf, and supporters like Kelly Clarkson chimed in with an idea: If she didn’t want to buy the masters back from Braun, why not rerecord the tracks altogether?
This would not be the first battle Swift has waged over issues of music ownership and artists’ rights: She has taken streaming services like Apple Music and Spotify to task over royalties in the past. Nor would Swift be the first artist to leave a record label and then rerecord her tracks to gain ownership; JoJo rerecorded her debut album after her old label Blackground removed it from streaming services last fall. The possibility of rerecorded versions of her old songs, especially in an age when listeners are less likely to keep older, physical manifestations of media that can be streamed and edited, raises some questions for Swifties: Will the old versions still be available? Will these new recordings of old favorites be 2019Lion King–level uncanny copies? Will she re-create that “Our Song”–era faux twang? One can only hope that Swift will go further into detail in her interview, which airs on CBS on August 25.
How Scooter Braun Became the Latest Taylor Swift Villain
By Zoe Haylock@zoe_alliyah
Photo: Getty Images
Internet sleuths love to blame a recent controversy on a marketing scam. It happens every time Keeping Up With the Kardashians airs and, seemingly, every time Taylor Swift puts out an album. But this time it’s not the stans who are suspicious. Taylor Swift herself has got bad blood with Scooter Braun. After the infamous manager acquired her former label, Big Machine (which still owns all of her masters), Swift penned a Tumblr postabout how Braun has systematically bullied her through Kanye West, Kim Kardashian, and Justin Bieber. So, how did he go from glorified party planner to the Swifties’ biggest enemy?
Where did Scooter Braun come from?
Scooter Braun is a rich kid from Connecticut who once owned a T-Mobile Sidekick. His phone of choice may have upgraded, but he still exudes that energy to this day. Braun started his career off young thanks to connections he made as a party promoter in Atlanta. In 2001, at 20 years old, music producer Jermaine Dupri made him executive director of marketing atSo So Def Records. Braun dropped out of Emory College and began working with Usher, Kevin Federline, and more. When he left to do independent consulting, he brokered a $10 million deal between Ludacris and Pontiac. He had clout and he knew what he wanted to do with it: manage artists.
How did he meet Justin Bieber?
The origin story is Belieber lore. Scooter Braun discovered Justin Bieber on YouTube in 2007 and basically stalked him and his mother until they agreed to work with him. Both Usher and Justin Timberlake wanted to sign the 13-year-old. Scooter leveraged Timberlake’s interest and, soon after, Bieber was signed by Usher’s mentor, L.A. Reid at Island Def Jam Music Group, in partnership with Braun and Usher’s Raymond Braun Music Group. Bieber’s skyrocket to stardom needs no description. Even at his lowest, Braun was by his side, engineered his comeback, and if you ask him, saved Justin Bieber’s life. Throughout Bieber’s career, even as he faltered, Braun was only growing more and more successful.
SB Projects, a management company that reaches much farther than music. Past and present musicians include Ariana Grande, Asher Roth, Carly Rae Jepsen, Psy, David Guetta, Idina Menzel, Tori Kelly, Zac Brown Band, Usher, Kanye West, J Balvin, Demi Lovato, and Hilary Duff. Outside of music, SB Projects manages models Ashley Graham and Karlie Kloss. They’ve pushed into film and television with projects, including both of Justin Bieber’s concert films and the television show Scorpion. Braun was the mastermind behind Ariana Grande’s One Love Manchester charity event. He signed Psy when “Gangnam Style” was at 60,000 views on YouTube. Ithaca, Braun’s $120 million investment fund, also acts as a holding company for SB Projects and “seven of the country’s largest music management companies,” according to Fortune. On his own, Scooter Braun has over 3 million followers on Instagram. Businesses aside, Braun carries his own influence.
So, what did he just acquire?
On June 30, 2019, when Taylor Swift woke up and read the news that Scooter Braun’s Ithaca Holdings had bought her former label and the owners of her masters, Big Machine Label Group, Braun got a lot more than that. Big Machine’s talent still includes Lady Antebellum, Florida Georgia Line, Reba McEntire, Thomas Rhett, Rascal Flatts, and more.
Why does Taylor Swift hate him?
In Taylor Swift’s Tumblr post, she holds Braun accountable for the drama surrounding Kanye West’s “Famous.” The song and music video are his reactions to both the 2009 VMAs controversy, where West interrupted Swift onstage. After Taylor Swift denied being warned about Kanye West’s explicit “Famous” music video, Kim Kardashian West shared a video of Swift agreeing to the concept. As West’s manager at the time, Swift blames Braun for both the video and the leak. She also believes Justin Bieber’s 2016 Instagram post of himself, Kanye West, and Braun FaceTiming with the caption “Taylor Swift what up,” was Braun’s doing. (The caption has since been removed.) Braun and West ended their professional relationship in April of 2018. With his purchase of Big Machine Label Group, Scooter Braun effectively owns every album from Taylor Swift to Reputation.In a since-deleted Instagram Story, Braun reposted a story captioned, “When your friend buys Taylor Swift,” a reference to his latest acquisition.
What other celebrities hate him?
Since Swift’s post, many celebrities have either voiced their support or silently disconnected themselves from the music manager. Sky Ferreira, Alessia Cara, Halsey, Cara Delevingne, Haim, Iggy Azalea, Jack Antonoff, and Todrick Hall have all commented. Nicki Minaj, Camila Cabello, Miley Cyrus, and Rihanna have all unfollowed him on Instagram.
Who is on Scooter Braun’s side?
The most outspoken members in Braun’s corner are Demi Lovato and Justin Bieber. Braun’s day one, Bieber, wrote an open letter to Taylor Swift apologizing for the Instagram post, but defending his manager. Hailey Bieber commended him for it, placing her on Scooter’s side. Lovato spoke upafter Todrick Hall called Braun “homophobic,” citing her own positive experience with him. Scooter Braun’s wife, Yael Cohen Braun, also wrote a message to Swift on Instagram. Kendall Jenner and Kacey Musgraves “liked” the post, although Musgraves’s likes have since been removed. After spending years dealing with his clients’ drama, now we wait and see how Scooter Braun will handle his own.
By Zoe Haylock@zoe_alliyah
Photo: Getty Images
Internet sleuths love to blame a recent controversy on a marketing scam. It happens every time Keeping Up With the Kardashians airs and, seemingly, every time Taylor Swift puts out an album. But this time it’s not the stans who are suspicious. Taylor Swift herself has got bad blood with Scooter Braun. After the infamous manager acquired her former label, Big Machine (which still owns all of her masters), Swift penned a Tumblr postabout how Braun has systematically bullied her through Kanye West, Kim Kardashian, and Justin Bieber. So, how did he go from glorified party planner to the Swifties’ biggest enemy?
Where did Scooter Braun come from?
Scooter Braun is a rich kid from Connecticut who once owned a T-Mobile Sidekick. His phone of choice may have upgraded, but he still exudes that energy to this day. Braun started his career off young thanks to connections he made as a party promoter in Atlanta. In 2001, at 20 years old, music producer Jermaine Dupri made him executive director of marketing atSo So Def Records. Braun dropped out of Emory College and began working with Usher, Kevin Federline, and more. When he left to do independent consulting, he brokered a $10 million deal between Ludacris and Pontiac. He had clout and he knew what he wanted to do with it: manage artists.
How did he meet Justin Bieber?
The origin story is Belieber lore. Scooter Braun discovered Justin Bieber on YouTube in 2007 and basically stalked him and his mother until they agreed to work with him. Both Usher and Justin Timberlake wanted to sign the 13-year-old. Scooter leveraged Timberlake’s interest and, soon after, Bieber was signed by Usher’s mentor, L.A. Reid at Island Def Jam Music Group, in partnership with Braun and Usher’s Raymond Braun Music Group. Bieber’s skyrocket to stardom needs no description. Even at his lowest, Braun was by his side, engineered his comeback, and if you ask him, saved Justin Bieber’s life. Throughout Bieber’s career, even as he faltered, Braun was only growing more and more successful.
SB Projects, a management company that reaches much farther than music. Past and present musicians include Ariana Grande, Asher Roth, Carly Rae Jepsen, Psy, David Guetta, Idina Menzel, Tori Kelly, Zac Brown Band, Usher, Kanye West, J Balvin, Demi Lovato, and Hilary Duff. Outside of music, SB Projects manages models Ashley Graham and Karlie Kloss. They’ve pushed into film and television with projects, including both of Justin Bieber’s concert films and the television show Scorpion. Braun was the mastermind behind Ariana Grande’s One Love Manchester charity event. He signed Psy when “Gangnam Style” was at 60,000 views on YouTube. Ithaca, Braun’s $120 million investment fund, also acts as a holding company for SB Projects and “seven of the country’s largest music management companies,” according to Fortune. On his own, Scooter Braun has over 3 million followers on Instagram. Businesses aside, Braun carries his own influence.
So, what did he just acquire?
On June 30, 2019, when Taylor Swift woke up and read the news that Scooter Braun’s Ithaca Holdings had bought her former label and the owners of her masters, Big Machine Label Group, Braun got a lot more than that. Big Machine’s talent still includes Lady Antebellum, Florida Georgia Line, Reba McEntire, Thomas Rhett, Rascal Flatts, and more.
Why does Taylor Swift hate him?
In Taylor Swift’s Tumblr post, she holds Braun accountable for the drama surrounding Kanye West’s “Famous.” The song and music video are his reactions to both the 2009 VMAs controversy, where West interrupted Swift onstage. After Taylor Swift denied being warned about Kanye West’s explicit “Famous” music video, Kim Kardashian West shared a video of Swift agreeing to the concept. As West’s manager at the time, Swift blames Braun for both the video and the leak. She also believes Justin Bieber’s 2016 Instagram post of himself, Kanye West, and Braun FaceTiming with the caption “Taylor Swift what up,” was Braun’s doing. (The caption has since been removed.) Braun and West ended their professional relationship in April of 2018. With his purchase of Big Machine Label Group, Scooter Braun effectively owns every album from Taylor Swift to Reputation.In a since-deleted Instagram Story, Braun reposted a story captioned, “When your friend buys Taylor Swift,” a reference to his latest acquisition.
What other celebrities hate him?
Since Swift’s post, many celebrities have either voiced their support or silently disconnected themselves from the music manager. Sky Ferreira, Alessia Cara, Halsey, Cara Delevingne, Haim, Iggy Azalea, Jack Antonoff, and Todrick Hall have all commented. Nicki Minaj, Camila Cabello, Miley Cyrus, and Rihanna have all unfollowed him on Instagram.
Who is on Scooter Braun’s side?
The most outspoken members in Braun’s corner are Demi Lovato and Justin Bieber. Braun’s day one, Bieber, wrote an open letter to Taylor Swift apologizing for the Instagram post, but defending his manager. Hailey Bieber commended him for it, placing her on Scooter’s side. Lovato spoke upafter Todrick Hall called Braun “homophobic,” citing her own positive experience with him. Scooter Braun’s wife, Yael Cohen Braun, also wrote a message to Swift on Instagram. Kendall Jenner and Kacey Musgraves “liked” the post, although Musgraves’s likes have since been removed. After spending years dealing with his clients’ drama, now we wait and see how Scooter Braun will handle his own.
In Taylor Swift vs. Scooter Braun, Who’s Lying?
By Craig Jenkins
There’s something fishy about this Big Machine situation that’s hard to nail down. Photo: DIMITRIOS KAMBOURIS/Getty Images for TIME
Somebody’s lying. It is not possible for manager to the stars, Scooter Braun, to be the terror Taylor Swift says he is and also the sweetheart defender of the arts that Justin Bieber and Demi Lovato have stepped up and stated that he’s been in prickly situations sometimes involving Swift. It is not possible for Swift to have had no chance to buy her masters and no idea they were sold and also have been extended the opportunity for purchase and the notification of sale that Big Machine president Scott Borchetta says he offered the former crown jewel of his Nashville-based independent country imprint. It is not possible for Borchetta to be a merciful steward of good music and also be selling the singer her history back one piece at a time, as Swift said in her bombshell Tumblr post over the weekend, is it? Someone is fudging their details rather dramatically.
From a certain angle, a guy who has worked closely with Kanye Westreceiving the keys to the Taylor Swift back catalogue looks like a Machiavellian power play. Friendships and business partnerships have died over acquisitions like these. Michael Jackson and Paul McCartney famously stopped speaking when Sir Paul gave the young star a lesson on the value of stockpiling the rights to other artists’ music, only to have Jackson outbid him a few years later for the purchase of ATV, a music-publishing company that held the rights to over 200 Beatles songs, then sell large cuts of the stash to Sony to stay afloat in 1995 and 2006 (this is why we hear quirky Beatles covers in commercials now), and keep the last sliver in his family after he passed. Business does get personal; a quick, shrewd player is bound to make enemies.
signed to Universal with the stipulation that she retain control of the masters for each project she creates there, starting with this summer’s Lover, you could tell her sights were set on stewardship of her catalogue. It is a very lucrative body of work, though, and if you’re Scott Borchetta, whose label has been the subject of a bidding war for months at a minimum, there’s no way in hell you’re giving up the big fish before you sell the lake.
Swift is right to say that the music business is a place where people who write great music often toil at the mercy of people who don’t. Her efforts in spotlighting artists’ and songwriters’ struggles in an industry that sells and trades their life’s work like antiques shows are noble. Her row about how streaming services like Apple Music and Spotify treat and pay artists was vital. (It is strange to remember that the summer when Taylor took the industry to task for unfair splits on streams is the same one when people scoffed through Jay-Z’s star-studded Tidal press conference for pushing the same point.) Her sexual harassment case cast light on predatory practices music-industry women have faced for years. Even if you don’t care for the music, there’s no denying that Swift uses her platform to force conversation and change. This tiff over masters continues her quest to illustrate how the biz should run but doesn’t, how it ought to go but maybe couldn’t.
Artists deserve to own their art, and young creatives deserve protections from deals that stiff them out of assets they live to regret forking over. The sense that you have to toil for a decade in order to earn the cultural cachet to chisel out a fair deal is not how a structure built to celebrate creativity and collaboration should work. (Ed note: And a new statement from Swift’s lawyer, Donald Passman, reiterates her argument that she was not given a chance to buy back her masters: “Scott Borchetta never gave Taylor Swift an opportunity to purchase her masters, or the label, outright with a check in the way he is now apparently doing for others.”) The decades and decades of stories about beloved artists fighting and failing to claim full ownership of their compositions and recordings create the impression that, to quote Prince, “if you don’t own your masters, your master owns you.” Creating a public fuss has worked for Taylor Swift in the past, and there’s a certain brilliance to casting the public support for your upcoming album as a matter of ethical consumption, but there’s something fishy about this Big Machine situation that’s hard to nail down.
The idea that Scooter Braun was interested in the Big Machine catalogue as a $300 million fuck-you to Taylor seems far-fetched. Most likely, he wants what anyone wants when they acquire a trove of beloved pop-music works: to make money or stash money somewhere he can be sure the value won’t depreciate. This is what Michael wanted when he stiffed McCartney out of the Beatles publishing. Is there a nefarious edge to this move, or is a major pop and rap wheeler and dealer just looking to dig his heels into country music? Is Taylor understandably taking this gesture personally, considering the history of all the players involved, or is it another case of her seeking woke points and weaponizing her fans and famous friends to help with her personal vendettas, the way she did with Kanye West and Kim Kardashian? Who’s lying?
By Craig Jenkins
There’s something fishy about this Big Machine situation that’s hard to nail down. Photo: DIMITRIOS KAMBOURIS/Getty Images for TIME
Somebody’s lying. It is not possible for manager to the stars, Scooter Braun, to be the terror Taylor Swift says he is and also the sweetheart defender of the arts that Justin Bieber and Demi Lovato have stepped up and stated that he’s been in prickly situations sometimes involving Swift. It is not possible for Swift to have had no chance to buy her masters and no idea they were sold and also have been extended the opportunity for purchase and the notification of sale that Big Machine president Scott Borchetta says he offered the former crown jewel of his Nashville-based independent country imprint. It is not possible for Borchetta to be a merciful steward of good music and also be selling the singer her history back one piece at a time, as Swift said in her bombshell Tumblr post over the weekend, is it? Someone is fudging their details rather dramatically.
From a certain angle, a guy who has worked closely with Kanye Westreceiving the keys to the Taylor Swift back catalogue looks like a Machiavellian power play. Friendships and business partnerships have died over acquisitions like these. Michael Jackson and Paul McCartney famously stopped speaking when Sir Paul gave the young star a lesson on the value of stockpiling the rights to other artists’ music, only to have Jackson outbid him a few years later for the purchase of ATV, a music-publishing company that held the rights to over 200 Beatles songs, then sell large cuts of the stash to Sony to stay afloat in 1995 and 2006 (this is why we hear quirky Beatles covers in commercials now), and keep the last sliver in his family after he passed. Business does get personal; a quick, shrewd player is bound to make enemies.
signed to Universal with the stipulation that she retain control of the masters for each project she creates there, starting with this summer’s Lover, you could tell her sights were set on stewardship of her catalogue. It is a very lucrative body of work, though, and if you’re Scott Borchetta, whose label has been the subject of a bidding war for months at a minimum, there’s no way in hell you’re giving up the big fish before you sell the lake.
Swift is right to say that the music business is a place where people who write great music often toil at the mercy of people who don’t. Her efforts in spotlighting artists’ and songwriters’ struggles in an industry that sells and trades their life’s work like antiques shows are noble. Her row about how streaming services like Apple Music and Spotify treat and pay artists was vital. (It is strange to remember that the summer when Taylor took the industry to task for unfair splits on streams is the same one when people scoffed through Jay-Z’s star-studded Tidal press conference for pushing the same point.) Her sexual harassment case cast light on predatory practices music-industry women have faced for years. Even if you don’t care for the music, there’s no denying that Swift uses her platform to force conversation and change. This tiff over masters continues her quest to illustrate how the biz should run but doesn’t, how it ought to go but maybe couldn’t.
Artists deserve to own their art, and young creatives deserve protections from deals that stiff them out of assets they live to regret forking over. The sense that you have to toil for a decade in order to earn the cultural cachet to chisel out a fair deal is not how a structure built to celebrate creativity and collaboration should work. (Ed note: And a new statement from Swift’s lawyer, Donald Passman, reiterates her argument that she was not given a chance to buy back her masters: “Scott Borchetta never gave Taylor Swift an opportunity to purchase her masters, or the label, outright with a check in the way he is now apparently doing for others.”) The decades and decades of stories about beloved artists fighting and failing to claim full ownership of their compositions and recordings create the impression that, to quote Prince, “if you don’t own your masters, your master owns you.” Creating a public fuss has worked for Taylor Swift in the past, and there’s a certain brilliance to casting the public support for your upcoming album as a matter of ethical consumption, but there’s something fishy about this Big Machine situation that’s hard to nail down.
The idea that Scooter Braun was interested in the Big Machine catalogue as a $300 million fuck-you to Taylor seems far-fetched. Most likely, he wants what anyone wants when they acquire a trove of beloved pop-music works: to make money or stash money somewhere he can be sure the value won’t depreciate. This is what Michael wanted when he stiffed McCartney out of the Beatles publishing. Is there a nefarious edge to this move, or is a major pop and rap wheeler and dealer just looking to dig his heels into country music? Is Taylor understandably taking this gesture personally, considering the history of all the players involved, or is it another case of her seeking woke points and weaponizing her fans and famous friends to help with her personal vendettas, the way she did with Kanye West and Kim Kardashian? Who’s lying?
I had to stop reading. @playahaitian what’s your take on all of this?
I am FAR from an expert
@ViCiouS can REALLY break it down PROPER
but for me?
This is NOT REALLY new... but is becoming MUCH more prevalent
as soon as streaming first began
in fact even BEFORE THAT...
as artists started getting SMARTER about their masters...
(the FIRST I remember doing this was Jay, in fact I think the momentary name change had something to do this also)
the artist can actually RE-RECORD their OWN material and get full ownership of THOSE.
Swift has BEEN had beef with streaming companies and record labels and music ownership for YEARS...
but Kanye old agent buying up all her masters was apparently the breaking point.
I think Swift doing this could be a MAJOR shift though because of her fame.
I remember Prince being adamant about artistic freedom and owning his own masters in his fight with Warner Brothers too.
Crazy how so many of these brilliant, genre-defining artists don’t even own their own work.
Uh......
Ok........
Ok........
damn cuz...
I KNEW I was getting it wrong.
So I'm confuse...what is the deal with the re-recording then?
could be lots of reasons- mostly creative
only way rerecording works is if the label only had copyright of the recording
Every label, including Big Machine, has a rerecord clause in its contracts with artists. The clause prevents the artist from rerecording on another label, or on their own, and marketing those rerecordings.
That clause usually has an expiration date, but even when it does there's another roadblock. It's called an original production clause -- and it prevents the artist from copying the OG version. So, when and if Taylor remakes her Big Machine tunes ... she will have to deviate from the first versions.
So, Taylor WILL get something -- she'll own her new master recordings -- but if she's just doing it for revenge ... it might not be a great play.
https://www.tmz.com/2019/08/21/tayl...d-masters-scooter-braun-purchase-big-machine/
That clause usually has an expiration date, but even when it does there's another roadblock. It's called an original production clause -- and it prevents the artist from copying the OG version. So, when and if Taylor remakes her Big Machine tunes ... she will have to deviate from the first versions.
So, Taylor WILL get something -- she'll own her new master recordings -- but if she's just doing it for revenge ... it might not be a great play.
https://www.tmz.com/2019/08/21/tayl...d-masters-scooter-braun-purchase-big-machine/
It's not crazy once you think about it.
When these artists were trying to get a break....they were broke and starving. They signed deals to live and to do their art. Record companies are footing the bill and want a return on their investment.
Simple.
So ohh
So ohhhhhh
So ohhhhhh
So ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
You need to calm down
You're being too loud
And I'm just like...
So ohhhhhh
So ohhhhhh
So ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
You need to calm down
You're being too loud
And I'm just like...
I think he just outsmarted her.
I'm a fan of her old stuff.
She has changed a lot... She wouldn't be able to do the old material justice today. It would be like karaoke.
She has changed a lot... She wouldn't be able to do the old material justice today. It would be like karaoke.
