celeb news Taylor angers label executives, they punish new artists with worse contracts

[Carry My Heart]

Billboard: Labels Want to Prevent ‘Taylor’s Version’-Like Re-Recordings From Ever Happening Again

Record companies are trying to keep artists from re-recording their songs for longer periods — and in some cases ever again.

 

 

Quote

While Taylor Swift has been racking up billions of streams with updated “Taylor’s Version” re-recordings of her original hits over the past couple years, making cultural moments out of old material and simultaneously driving down the value of those original recordings that were sold away from her, record companies have been working to prohibit this sort of thing from happening again.

Quote

The major labels, Universal Music Group, Sony Music Entertainment, and Warner Music Group, have recently overhauled contracts for new signees, according to top music attorneys, some demanding artists wait an unprecedented 10, 15 or even 30 years to re-record releases after departing their record companies. “The first time I saw it, I tried to get rid of it entirely,” says Josh Karp, a veteran attorney, who has viewed the new restrictions in UMG contracts. “I was just like, ‘What is this? This is strange. Why would we agree to further restrictions than we’ve agreed to in the past with the same label?'”

Quote

Suddenly, the concept of re-recording masters has evolved from archaic fine print buried in record deals to a widely scrutinized cause celebre. “Obviously, this is a big headline topic — the Taylor Swift thing,” Savur says. “Labels, of course, are going to want to do whatever they can to address that and to prevent it...”

Quote

Adds Dina LaPolt, a music attorney with a long history of grappling with labels over contracts: “Now, because of all this Taylor Swift sh–, we have an even new negotiation. It’s awful. We’re seeing a lot of ‘perpetuity’ sh–. When we were negotiating deals with lawyers, before we would get the proposal,, we’d get the phone call from the head of business affairs. We literally would say, ‘If you send that to me, it will be on f—ing Twitter in 10 minutes.’ It never showed up.”

Read the full Billboard article here

[RideOrDie]

read it and don't sign it then 

[XXI.]

Taylor, in my opinion is a unique exception, in that she actually wrote and composed her songs...she deserves to own them.

 

Most pop stars don't - and in those cases I agree with the labels. The labels are the ones coordinating the sessions, pitching the songs, or linking the artists with writers, producers, collaborators, etc. and then marketing them to be hits.

Edited October 30, 2023 by XXI.

[MingYouToo]

1 minute ago, XXI. said:

Taylor, in my opinion is a unique exception, in that she actually wrote and composed her songs...she deserves to own them. Most pop stars don't - and in those cases I agree with the labels. The labels are the ones coordinated the sessions, pitching the songs, or linking the artists with writers, producers, collaborators, etc. and then marketing them to be hits.

This.

 

I think these types of iron clad revisions are probably more for the Ariana's, Beyonce's, Rihanna's of the pop industry.

[KingWitch]

This was bound to happen,shocked its even UMG doing it too. She kinda did a great thing for herself but it was never going to be a fairytale ending for other artists .

3 minutes ago, RideOrDie said:

read it and don't sign it then 

Some new artists who are desperate will sign a contract no matter how bad the terms are,case in point Ms Grant there in your profile pic did the same thing in the beginning of her career.

[Draper.]

This was obviously gonna happen. 

[Bussea]

or just treat your artists correctly and fairly so they don’t feel as though they have to do it? like…

Edited October 30, 2023 by Cult Leader 𐕣𐕣

[supaspaz]

6 minutes ago, XXI. said:

Taylor, in my opinion is a unique exception, in that she actually wrote and composed her songs...she deserves to own them.

 

Most pop stars don't - and in those cases I agree with the labels. The labels are the ones coordinating the sessions, pitching the songs, or linking the artists with writers, producers, collaborators, etc. and then marketing them to be hits.

Ew. Imagine being anti-labor except for Taylor Swift.

[DeadInside]

Most artists would never bother rerecording in the first place. 

[Devin]

2 minutes ago, Cult Leader 𐕣𐕣 said:

or just treat your artists correctly and fairly so they don’t feel as thought they have to do it? like…

.

[dussel_06]

At least Taylor is encouraging artists to bargain the ownership of their masters from the very beginning. 

[Trent W]

Good, you have to be really really stupid to sign with a big label in 2023

 

No one in their right mind would do that

 

Artists have a better shot on their own these days tbh

[Jpkun]

2 minutes ago, DeadInside said:

Most artists would never bother rerecording in the first place. 

^ Most artists would lose money bothering with a re-recording..

[SinnerCity]

3 minutes ago, MingYouToo said:

This.

 

I think these types of iron clad revisions are probably more for the Ariana's, Beyonce's, Rihanna's of the pop industry.

This is a rather stupid take, just because certain artists re-record their songs mean they will get magically songwriting credits to get more % of the profit. Most of them make sure they get publishing rights. 

So the Ariana, Beyoncé and Rihanna’s of pop industry couldn’t give a flying **** about owning their masters or re-recording their catalogues since most do their income come form different sources like side business and touring.

Taylor marketed the re-recordings as a way to own her work but it turned to be the most smart business move no one could’ve anticipated and it works for her, it wouldn’t work for anyone else.

[DAP]

It’s been time for musicians to organize. There needs to be a union protecting their collective bargaining as SAG-AFTRA does for the actors, etc 

Edited October 30, 2023 by DAP

[Dear Reader]

Labels and streaming services are the worst for artists, ironically. This is horrible and I hope artists get better deals than this… it’s unfair. Taylor Swift is on a level of fame where she CAN do it and will benefit but a smaller artist might not. 

[Saintlor]

6 minutes ago, DAP said:

It’s been time for musicians to organize. There needs to be a union protecting their collective bargaining after SAG-AFTRA does for the actors, etc 

Singers would never do this

 

Big singers can be successful even if independent singers dont get paid well. 

 

There are no films to be released if small / less known actors strike

Edited October 30, 2023 by Saintlor

[Zack]

Artists like JoJo, who didn't necessarily write their hit songs in the beginning but did so much hard work, going out there promoting and singing the songs, sure as hell deserved not to be screwed over by a record label. Re-recording definitely helped her.

 

As far as I'm concerned, if those karaoke businesses who release songs "in the style of" are allowed, then the original artist should also be able to re-record versions too...especially if the recording contract is over. 

[Rev8]

I think this is the first time I am seeing something that Taylor did industry-wise, that has a negative effect for artists

Usually her impact is exactly that, changing the music industry business-wise etc

 

Can't wait for big labels to die out and people to be able to win with music, without big backup

[XXI.]

7 minutes ago, supaspaz said:

Ew. Imagine being anti-labor except for Taylor Swift.

Why should someone even as huge as Rihanna (for example) have stake to own songs she didn't have a part in creating? Most (if not all) of her songs are a product of a manufactured setting organized by her label... Those songs were created even before Rihanna entered the room. If anything those songs should be owned by the people writing and producing them... 

 

Artists like Taylor or Adele where it's them and one other songwriter per track and are actually creating tracks inspired by their lives... It's not just Taylor but Taylor is a unique example in an industry saturated by artists singing songs that were pitched to dozens of artists at a time... and were destined to be hits long before they even laid their cut. 

Edited October 30, 2023 by XXI.

[perpetual novice]

15 minutes ago, XXI. said:

Taylor, in my opinion is a unique exception, in that she actually wrote and composed her songs...she deserves to own them.

 

Most pop stars don't - and in those cases I agree with the labels. The labels are the ones coordinating the sessions, pitching the songs, or linking the artists with writers, producers, collaborators, etc. and then marketing them to be hits.

I disagree here, the kinds of artists you're mentioning here are the minority, it's only a small amount of the most marketable stars that the label get this heavy-handed with. Most artists put together their own albums entirely albeit in a feedback loop with the label's A&R and they shouldn't have to suffer from tighter restrictions in an already anti-artist market.

[Cruel Summer]

2 minutes ago, Rev8 said:

I think this is the first time I am seeing something that Taylor did industry-wise, that has a negative effect for artists

Usually her impact is exactly that, changing the music industry business-wise etc

 

Can't wait for big labels to die out and people to be able to win with music, without big backup

It’s not so much that she’s done something with a negative impact - it’s that by raising awareness of the issue and empowering young artists to be more critical about their contracts, which are great things to do, she’s unfortunately going up against a very greedy industry that will do everything it can to try to stop the shift of power from labels to individual artists. They’re seeing how much money she’s making from this situation and they’re terrified their other artists might do that and bite off a chunk of label profits.

[mystery]

19 minutes ago, XXI. said:

Taylor, in my opinion is a unique exception, in that she actually wrote and composed her songs...she deserves to own them.

 

Most pop stars don't - and in those cases I agree with the labels. The labels are the ones coordinating the sessions, pitching the songs, or linking the artists with writers, producers, collaborators, etc. and then marketing them to be hits.

What? Imagine saying only Taylor deserves to own her masters...

[airplane]

another thread about taylor where rihanna gets lashed unprovoked

[Rev8]

Just now, Cruel Summer said:

It’s not so much that she’s done something with a negative impact - it’s that by raising awareness of the issue and empowering young artists to be more critical about their contracts, which are great things to do, she’s unfortunately going up against a very greedy industry that will do everything it can to try to stop the shift of power from labels to individual artists. They’re seeing how much money she’s making from this situation and they’re terrified their other artists might do that and bite off a chunk of label profits.

Yea, I guess that it can be seen as a positive thing too because it will give a push for artists to turn off from big labels (at least the greedy ones, as u say) and actually seek people who aren't interested in screwing them over

 

The change is already starting to happen thanks to streaming tho unfortunately streaming platforms are also showing their greed already (and small artists are going to suffer the most )