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

[XXI.]

7 minutes ago, perpetual novice said:

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.

This is partially true. Even the smallest of artists have organized songwriting sessions or are linked with producers and/or collaborators that are sourced by the label. Those artists should have some rights reserved, but even in those scenarios the label is still paying and investing in the session itself and then the marketing, visuals, tour etc... they still have some claim to the music being created - even if not 100%.

 

Artists sign with labels in the hopes of becoming mainstream... that's their end goal. I don't see a scenario where the label would ever be completely cut out and then still expect them to market you... especially when they're providing you all of their resources.

Edited October 30, 2023 by XXI.

[Shinning]

I’ve been saying for ages her “impact” in the industry is self-serving and only improves her position and is actually detrimental to other artists and the industry as a whole.

[gotportugal]

24 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.

you cannot take the ultracapitalism out of swifties

[XXI.]

6 minutes ago, mystery said:

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

Where did I say Taylor is the only artist that deserves to own her masters? 

[gotportugal]

1 minute ago, XXI. said:

This is partially true. Even the smallest of artists have organized songwriting sessions or are linked with producers and/or collaborators that are sourced by the label. Those artists should have some rights reserved, but even in those scenarios the label is still paying and investing in the session itself and then the marketing, visuals, tour etc... they still have some claim to the music being created - even if not 100%.

 

Artists sign with labels in the hopes of becoming mainstream... that's their end goal. I don't see a scenario where the label would ever be completely cut out and then still expect them to market you... especially when they're providing you all of their resources.

Labels can still make lots of money from artists without owning their masters. They can get significant returns over the marketing and distribution they are involved in

[West Coast]

How do we make this Taylor’s fault 

[XXI.]

27 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.

Let me clarify.. Taylor is a unique exception  in that she is one of the only artists that could re-record her music and have it be worth anything.

 

This is such a niche argument, and isn't even applicable to most artists. 

[Illuminati]

The goal is not to sign unless you get to own the masters, rather than negotiate with the label when you can spend millions re-recording your music.

 

This wasn't Taylor's only contribution, and as more established artists like Olivia Rodrigo take ownership of their music seriously the labels will have to come up with a new strategy.

[gotportugal]

4 minutes ago, Shinning said:

I’ve been saying for ages her “impact” in the industry is self-serving and only improves her position and is actually detrimental to other artists and the industry as a whole.

Disagree completely. Both her moves with Spotify and her labels have shined a big light into potential traps artists can fall into.

You cannot simply blame Taylor for labels being greedy.mp3 fuckers yet again and taking even a bigger slice of the pie from artists.

[XXI.]

2 minutes ago, gotportugal said:

Labels can still make lots of money from artists without owning their masters. They can get significant returns over the marketing and distribution they are involved in

Agreed, that's a valid argument. Slay a bit. 

[gotportugal]

1 minute ago, XXI. said:

Let me clarify.. Taylor is a unique exception  in that she is one of the only artists that could re-record her music and have it be worth anything.

This is exactly why this move by labels is so weird, the whole perpetuity argument like nearly any other artist would do this and get any meaningful revenue out of the previous material is insane.

They absolutely just want a bigger pie of the revenues for life.

[mystery]

8 minutes ago, XXI. said:

Where did I say Taylor is the only artist that deserves to own her masters? 

Don't try to squirm out of it now come on. You know very well what you said. Mind you everything you said goes directly against the precedent Taylor is fighting for and trying to set with these re-recordings, instead you are trying to celebrate and uplift only her while putting down the rest.
 

35 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.

Edited October 30, 2023 by mystery

[The Next Day]

It's getting easier and easier by day for small artists to be independent. So coming up with ridiculous conditions isn't the smart move. It's kinda funny to see how labels are spiralling, trying to sign every artist with a viral TikTok sound, which leaves the A&Rs with no resources to actually take care of the artists. And yet they pull **** like this, acting all tough. Truly desperate.

[Magdalene]

as poppy said i don't think music executives even like music or music artists lol

[glitch]

33 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.

This isn't even true though. A lot of artists, especially newbies, are writing their own stuff and it gets sold off to bigger artists at the expense of their own careers. Taylor is an exception because she was signed to a indie record label from the start of her career and thus was never exploited in the same way a lot of young artists are. She was also allowed to write her own songs (a lot of the time artists are made to record writers camp demos, even if they write their own stuff - look at Raye for example).

[Big Bad Wolf]

Ruining the industry for others  Truly a capitalist queen. 

[Dialamba]

Are they playing dense ? Taylor wouldn’t re recorded her songs if they didn’t sell her masters 

[Bubble Tea]

The music industry is such a damn mess and a shambles. They really should have a strike and negotiate some standardisation once and for all. If that pushes up the price of streaming, so be it. Art isn't free, nor does it cost nothing to make. 

[XXI.]

4 minutes ago, mystery said:

Don't try to squirm out of it now come on. You know very well what you said. Mind you everything you said goes directly against the precedent Taylor is fighting for and trying to set with these re-recordings, instead you are trying to celebrate and uplift only her while putting down the rest.
 

You took my direct quote and even where you bolded still doesn't prove your point I said most pop stars don't... it doesn't say all pop stars, and I even specifically distinguished a particular genre in saying pop. Don't manipulate my words 

[barbiegrande]

42 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.

 

40 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.

The way Swifties have become corporate boot lickers is crazy 

[Contessa]

Taylor exceptionalism is truly a disease of the 21st century

[glitch]

2 minutes ago, barbiegrande said:

 

The way Swifties have become corporate boot lickers is crazy 

I remember this quote that said "Taylor Swift teaches her fans to succeed under oppressive systems, not overcome them" which I think applies here

[mystery]

2 minutes ago, XXI. said:

You took my direct quote and even where you bolded still doesn't prove your point I said most pop stars don't... it doesn't say all pop stars, and I even specifically distinguished a particular genre in saying pop. Don't manipulate my words 

I took your direct quote and pointed out exactly what you meant. Come on now...

Since you are putting so much weight on effort and input. Why should the singers even own their masters when the producers and mixers are the ones who do most of the work. They should own it then!

[istan4badgalriri]

30 minutes ago, XXI. said:

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. 

And how exactly would you know that. There’s no correlation between master recordings and songwriters either… songwriters get paid through publishing rights.

 

Rihanna owns her masters, since 2014, so… poor you. 🤷🏻‍♂️

[rac7d]

54 minutes ago, RideOrDie said:

read it and don't sign it then 

And stay independent 

because if you don’t someone else will