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

[rihannafan]

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.

Just because you wrote a song, doesn't mean you have to own it. Look at this is what you came for. Taylor wrote it and she doesnt even have the range to sing it.

[Popboi.]

18 minutes ago, trainsskyscrapers said:

And Rihanna owns her ENTIRE catalog, mind you.  

It's not like there were bidding wars for it.

[rihannafan]

1 minute ago, Popboi. said:

It's not like there were bidding wars for it.

Right? Who would want the best selling catalogue of the 21st century?

[slw84]

1 hour ago, Carry My Heart said:

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.

 

 

Read the full Billboard article here

Talk about one of a kind.

Welp, artists will come up with something new.

 

Re-releases are Taylors niche strategy.

 

Labels obviously are going to protect themselves from loopholes.

 

More artist need to take business courses before they step into this industry, too.

[WildHeart]

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.

Apple Music to pay royalties during free trial: ‘We hear you Taylor Swift’

 

Taylor Swift's new record deal spins a win for Universal Music artists

 

 

2 minutes ago, rihannafan said:

Right? Who would want the best selling catalogue of the 21st century?

Not Jay-Z, for sure 

[rihannafan]

1 minute ago, Artistofthedecade said:

Apple Music to pay royalties during free trial: ‘We hear you Taylor Swift’

 

Taylor Swift's new record deal spins a win for Universal Music artists

 

 

Not Jay-Z, for sure 

Only the swifties are delulu enough to think owning your original masters instead of even shittier versions of them is a drag

Edited October 30, 2023 by rihannafan

[supaspaz]

1 hour 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. 

Even when an artist like Rihanna sings a song that someone else wrote, she’s not just some interchangeable widget. She put in work to record the song and perhaps even helped shape it in the studio, and thus deserves to be compensated fairly.

 

Being a pop star shouldn’t be about simply enriching someone else. It’s hard enough for some of these emerging artists to make it as it is. Rooting on the labels as they take away a potential avenue for artists trapped in contract disputes — remember, before Taylor did this, there was JoJo’s re-recordings — is cartoonishly villainous.

[Solaria]

What is with certain ATRLers consistently acting holier than thou about artists who have written their own music  so just because someone didn’t write their own music means they shouldn’t be compensated for being in the studio, being the voice behind a hit, being the one that gathers people together to finish a product? None of Rihanna’s hits would have been hits if they were sung by other people. There’s a reason labels wanted artist with a similar island husky sound for radio

[DAP]

1 hour ago, Saintlor said:

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

Even many of the minority of singers that can sustain a career are at the mercy of corporations whose leverage over them is entrenched by law (unlike theirs) and greater. They can lose whatever autonomy they have if Spotify or whoever removes their entire catalog as reprisal and it would be perfectly legal because contractors have no right to strike or bargain under US law.

 

But things are changing. Musicians are mobilizing and even a record label successfully unionized last year. It’s only a matter of time before the big singers join. 

Edited October 30, 2023 by DAP

[Kimbra]

Y'all telling these artist go indie like it's easy. For every Mitski they are 100,000unknowns 100,000 new tracks are uploaded daily on spotify. How are you going to compete with that without a label.

[Kimbra]

Y'all are setting up these rookies to go in these meetings demanding their masters with no leverage.

[trainsskyscrapers]

46 minutes ago, Popboi. said:

It's not like there were bidding wars for it.

When you spend the beginning of your career being often underestimated by the label (and overdelivering), that 5-10-year record label re-negotiation is where most successful masters owners put in their claim.

 

We all know Rihanna's early struggles to be taken seriously at a label already stacked in her lane with Christina Milian and Teairra Mari. I also remember reading the debut Destiny's Child album only had an 85K advance from Sony and the label wouldn't even release their albums in other countries (Canada, United Kingdom, Germany, France) unless they had 5 consecutive weeks on the Billboard 200 Chart. Talk about starting from the bottom. Look at their career album/singles sales NOW? Both Rihanna and Beyonce kept the lights on at their labels for several years when hits were thin outside of their projects, and they were rewarded handsomely with relatively-relaxed negotiations for ownership of their music. TSwift was lulled into a false-sense of security/loyalty as her Dad owned a little piece of the company and she came in on the ground-floor of Big Machine, while B & Rih knew in the back of their minds that the label would exist without them because of the way they were treated at the beginning and acted accordingly.

Edited October 30, 2023 by trainsskyscrapers

[Archetype]

12 minutes ago, Kimbra said:

Y'all are setting up these rookies to go in these meetings demanding their masters with no leverage.

I think it's setting a correct precedent that any artist in discussions to sign to a big label needs a lawyer to review their contract and negotiate with the label.  I think we've seen time and time again how younger artists who were signed with the help of their parents or a friend all got screwed by their labels because they didn't understand the terms of the contract they signed until much later.  

[WildHeart]

10 minutes ago, trainsskyscrapers said:

TSwift was lulled into a false-sense of security/loyalty as her Dad owned a little piece of the company and she came in on the ground-floor of Big Machine, while B & Rih knew in the back of their minds that the label would exist without them because of the way they were treated at the beginning and acted accordingly.

All of Taylor, Rihanna and Beyonce tried to buy their masters years after their first albums. Two of them were able to buy it because owners of masters agreed to sell it/give it to them while Scott tried to sell his flop label off of Taylor's masters. 

 

Investors still agreed to buy the label because... well, Taylor’s masters worth more than other two's combined. 

 

[Machete]

In this thread you have the same people shaming Taylor Swift for f*cking her old label and taking ownership of her masters AND saying she doesn't resist against evil corporations and her fans are bootlickers

OTHs are pathetic.

[Watson!]

1 hour ago, imabadkid said:

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.

arent you tired with using the female card? she wouldnt be so popular if she was a man.

her father and ancestors were rich because they served the billionaire men.

she probably has invested her money in this system.

[feelslikeadream]

This could be a good thing if it prevents future travesties like Michelle Branch re-recording her debut album 

[Kimbra]

2 minutes ago, Archetype said:

I think it's setting a correct precedent that any artist in discussions to sign to a big label needs a lawyer to review their contract and negotiate with the label.  I think we've seen time and time again how younger artists who were signed with the help of their parents or a friend all got screwed by their labels because they didn't understand the terms of the contract they signed until much later.  

These conversations have been happening since the 90's with Prince. Most of these artists don't come from backgrounds where they could afford a competent lawyer or entertainment lawyer. Even Taylor with her privileged background, fathr owning parts of the label and signing to a start up label still didn't give her enough leverage to own her masters. It's EXTREMELY rare for artist to own 50% of their masters coming in. And unheard of them owning 100%. It's unlikely for them to be offered in the first place.

[lillavend3r]

So she's the reason artists are getting even ****¡er deals? 

[trainsskyscrapers]

Just now, Artistofthedecade said:

All of Taylor, Rihanna and Beyonce tried to buy their masters years after their first albums. Two of them were able to buy it because owners of masters agreed to sell it/give it to them while Scott tried to sell his flop label off of Taylor's masters. 

 

Investors still agreed to buy the label because... well, Taylor’s masters worth more than other two's combined. 

 

*Shrugs* That may be so, but Columbia & Def Jam could never take credit and say they "made" B or Rih after forcing them to jump through so many hoops just to survive, and that admission is where I believe TSwift's negotiations hit the wall.

[Cruel Summer]

5 minutes ago, lillavend3r said:

So she's the reason artists are getting even ****¡er deals? 

No, that would still be the labels.

[Cloröx]

It's time for artists to go indie capitalize the social media like tik tok, let the labels struggle to search for new talents (they are indeed in problems right now we haven't seen big artists for a while except Olivia and Doja maybe)

[Peak Now]

Some of y'all are way too predictable istg...

 

Anyway, y'all have to stop acting like Taylor "made" the labels do this. What the labels should have done is to treat the artists they sign more equitably and not the other way round. They made a conscious choice to screw over artists more themselves.

[Beyonnaise]

10 minutes ago, Machete said:

In this thread you have the same people shaming Taylor Swift for f*cking her old label and taking ownership of her masters AND saying she doesn't resist against evil corporations and her fans are bootlickers

OTHs are pathetic.

It continues to be so weird to me how people nowadays feel like they have to have moral justifications for not liking things  ContraPoints talked about this in her Canceling video. "I find this celebrity annoying" always has to become "this celebrity is problematic for xyz reason."

[Arrows]

Taylor is a disrupter, industry executives only like her when she makes them money.

 

**** UMG for participating in this!