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

[gotportugal]

3 minutes ago, mystery said:

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!

I see the vision. Jack *****Off should own half her recent masters! Seems legit since he half-produces them....

[Beyonnaise]

5 minutes ago, glitch said:

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

But that begs the question, how could Taylor “overcome” the system? By not rerecording and letting Scooter and some heirs of Walt Disney reap all the profits when How You Get The Girl is featured in the trailer of Secret Life of Pets 5? By complaining on Twitter?

[XXI.]

7 minutes ago, mystery said:

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!

No that's literally my point lol. Songwriters, producers, mixers, etc. are so overlooked. It's criminal.

[gotportugal]

2 minutes ago, Beyonnaise said:

But that begs the question, how could Taylor “overcome” the system? By not rerecording and letting Scooter and some heirs of Walt Disney reap all the profits when How You Get The Girl is featured in the trailer of Secret Life of Pets 5? By complaining on Twitter?

I don't know what they implied, but she overcame it. I simply think her fans think she is some supernatural being that is the only one entitled to do it.

[J-esper]

It honestly sounds more scare mongering than what is actually happening. Will labels try to put this into contracts? sure!

But a few months ago we had that article that the industry was into a despressing state since record labels couldn't find the next big pop star and now this.

 

The contracts in the music industry change constantly and loads of acts get signed under different conditions. There have been 360 deals, acts with their own imprints, there are so many possibilties that an article like this sounds terrifying but since a record deal isn't one size fits all, it is all a guessing game who gets offered this exact kind of deal.

 

 

 

[Revolution]

disgusting

[ImpressMeMuch]

Talk about missing the forest for the trees

[Mr. Blue_Shirt]

It's funny how these big labels were crying a couple months ago because they couldn't produce pop stars anymore, but then created the worst contract for potential artists that would sign with them

 

Ironic, isn't it?

 

[teenager]

Can’t believe people are defending record labels here who have been exploiting the life out of artists for decades.

 

If an artist creates their work they have every right to own their masters. Regardless if you like Taylor’s music or not this is INHERENTLY a good thing because of the awful contracts that labels have been getting away with so long. They are literally mad because it’s affecting their bag and people have realised that you can make it independent and artists aren’t going to take a shitty deal like they have been offering for YEARS.
 

They can put those conditions in the contract and if the artist still wants to sign to those conditions then that’s their choice. 
 

If anything, Taylor had put more power back into the hands of the artist, by highlighting the importance of having ownership over your work, not the other way around.

Edited October 30, 2023 by teenager

[trainsskyscrapers]

56 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.

Beyoncé & Rihanna own their music catalogs.   Why re-record when you're a beast in the boardroom? 

[Beyonnaise]

2 minutes ago, gotportugal said:

I don't know what they implied, but she overcame it. I simply think her fans think she is some supernatural being that is the only one entitled to do it.

That poster was alluding to the traditional fracture in left wing politics between those who want to “reform” a broken system by working within it and those who have more radical anti-establishment ambitions who want to tear the whole system down. In this context, though, they didn’t define what doing so would actually look like for Taylor.

[Cruel Summer]

Re: the discussion going on in here about other kinds of artists that are less songwriting-involved - all artists should own their own art, period. If many people worked on that piece of art, then those people should all own part of it, though I think the person with the greatest contribution (usually the artist whose name is on the song or album) should own the greatest part. No kind of artist should be restricted from owning their hard work by any label.

[Into The Void]

3 minutes ago, Cruel Summer said:

Re: the discussion going on in here about other kinds of artists that are less songwriting-involved - all artists should own their own art, period. If many people worked on that piece of art, then those people should all own part of it, though I think the person with the greatest contribution (usually the artist whose name is on the song or album) should own the greatest part. No kind of artist should be restricted from owning their hard work by any label.

Exactly  as many do most of the work 

[mystery]

6 minutes ago, Cruel Summer said:

Re: the discussion going on in here about other kinds of artists that are less songwriting-involved - all artists should own their own art, period. If many people worked on that piece of art, then those people should all own part of it, though I think the person with the greatest contribution (usually the artist whose name is on the song or album) should own the greatest part. No kind of artist should be restricted from owning their hard work by any label.

[Popboi.]

This is why we need more laws protecting artists' work when there's no stopping to these abusive contracts. 30 years is absolutely ridiculous

[imabadkid]

I have to be honest… like if she were a man and OUTSMARTED the industry I really don’t think people would be as mad. But that’s jmo. You can say a lot about Taylor but she’s smart and she outsmarted billionaire men in the system they created.

[trainsskyscrapers]

41 minutes ago, airplane said:

another thread about taylor where rihanna gets lashed unprovoked

And Rihanna owns her ENTIRE catalog, mind you.  

[Axolotl]

I think it's important that this is happening because the labels know they're f'cked. Newer artists get to analyze their contracts more closely and avoid what happened with Taylor in the first place.

[vale9001]

1 hour 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.

This whole thing Is actually the contrary if you can understand music industry and business.

 

But It's the same thread where people fan of Rihanna and Dua lipa calls someone capitalist so it's even useless to try to start conversations with people with analysis skills of 5th grade children 

Edited October 30, 2023 by vale9001

[rac7d]

1 hour ago, dussel_06 said:

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

With the bargaining power they don’t have 

[Velvet Night]

I think the main expected impact of the Taylor's Versions was to make new artists aware about their masters from the beginning and to encourage them to negotiate ownership or to avoid labels entirely. 

It's not surprising that labels would want to discourage re-recordings. However, I don't think more re-recordings were really ever the expected outcome anyway. Most artists have a hard enough time selling their work once, let alone twice.

Edited October 30, 2023 by Velvet Night

[QueenBeyoncé]

1 hour 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.

Beyoncé owns her masters.. some girls can read contracts so no need to re-record 

[glitch]

34 minutes ago, Beyonnaise said:

But that begs the question, how could Taylor “overcome” the system? By not rerecording and letting Scooter and some heirs of Walt Disney reap all the profits when How You Get The Girl is featured in the trailer of Secret Life of Pets 5? By complaining on Twitter?

I'm not so much talking about the act of her re-recording but the lessons some of her fans seem to be taking from it. In this instance, backing the label system and their exploitation of new artists, implying that only Taylor deserves to re-record and own her work because she's somehow "earned it". 

 

I don't think in this instance there was anything more she herself could've done.

[Rv1709]

Very on brand for Taylor to suppress new artists.

 

1. See Olivia writing credits fiasco 

2. This 

[perfectillusion204]

There is literally no one who could re-release their old albums like Taylor is doing. No other artists would make nearly as much noise. Taylor’s fan base is unique… no other fan base would go this hard. So this scenario is very unlikely to happen.

Edited October 30, 2023 by perfectillusion204