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

[Frozen99]

they need to negotiate. taylor is a very big exception, re-recordings aren't profitable for the vast majority of artists.

[305]

The continuous real world impact

honestly i think her next major move would to start her own record label and shake the label industry to its core

[Aaron]

2 hours ago, vale9001 said:

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 

Most of your posts are incoherent gibberish; I wouldn’t be dragging anyone’s literacy if I were you. 

 

OT: This is to be expected, but it’s not Taylor’s fault tbh. 

Edited October 30, 2023 by Aaron

[Bloo]

The entire re-recording “fiasco” is literally the fault of the music industry that denied her, the artist, the opportunity to acquire her masters. The value of the product record labels’ profit off of comes from the artists, not the labels, and Taylor has proven that. If labels want to avoid future re-recording bouts, then they should fairly pay their artists. It’s really that simple. But, unfortunately, greed will inspire them to only look for ways to harm artists further. I’d love to see musical artists organize in some way to make sure artists are more fairly compensated. 

[XXI.]

1 hour ago, supaspaz said:

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.

The truth is most artists are interchangeable. Rihanna obviously isn't now, but earlier in her career she was. You don't become a Rihanna or a Taylor Swift without a label. 

 

The majority of artists are put into a room with producers and writers, and are handed songs that have been shopped to several artists. We've seen it with so many hits - where demos leak and multiple artists have had a stab at it ('Rare', 'God Is A Woman', 'The Middle', etc.). Artists sign major labor deals because they want to reach mainstream success . They sign because they don't have the resources major labels do to scale (visually, sonically, financially, logisitcally, etc). 

 

For most of these artists, they don't even have a song to rerecord in the first place if it wasn't for the label handing it to them, funding it, releasing it, marketing it, and then providing them the chance to tour and perform it to become a hit. Why would you expect labels to not prevent an artist from doing this once they invested so much in them to become a 'superstar' or have a 'global smash'? That success isn't only the artist's - none of these artists become what they are without their teams. 

[vale9001]

So basically you blame Taylor Swift cause She made a thing every artist has the right to do cause you're saying now some artists can't make in anymore as It's a bad thing. So She was the only artist with no right to do It?.

 

If her impact Is so big what She can do.?

She made exactly what every artist should have the right to do and wasn' the First artist at all in history to make It (prince, def leppard and many others are doing after Taylor made It).

 

Then when i say you have a 5th grade children level of analysis someone am i wrong?

 

If something you should blame labels are doing this after an artist showed artist can have Power and going against them...

 

But again an higher level of analysis of 5th grade children etc...

Edited October 30, 2023 by vale9001

[imabadkid]

1 hour ago, Watson! said:

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.

No because it's the honest truth.

[Bloo]

36 minutes ago, XXI. said:

The truth is most artists are interchangeable. Rihanna obviously isn't now, but earlier in her career she was. You don't become a Rihanna or a Taylor Swift without a label. 

And you don't make money as a label without artists putting in the work and generating the content for you to make money.

 

It's wild how y'all are shilling for label companies that do not give a damn about music. It should not be up for discussion that people who actually produce the music should be fairly paid for its consumption.

[supaspaz]

44 minutes ago, XXI. said:

The truth is most artists are interchangeable. Rihanna obviously isn't now, but earlier in her career she was. You don't become a Rihanna or a Taylor Swift without a label. 

 

The majority of artists are put into a room with producers and writers, and are handed songs that have been shopped to several artists. We've seen it with so many hits - where demos leak and multiple artists have had a stab at it ('Rare', 'God Is A Woman', 'The Middle', etc.). Artists sign major labor deals because they want to reach mainstream success . They sign because they don't have the resources major labels do to scale (visually, sonically, financially, logisitcally, etc). 

 

For most of these artists, they don't even have a song to rerecord in the first place if it wasn't for the label handing it to them, funding it, releasing it, marketing it, and then providing them the chance to tour and perform it to become a hit. Why would you expect labels to not prevent an artist from doing this once they invested so much in them to become a 'superstar' or have a 'global smash'? That success isn't only the artist's - none of these artists become what they are without their teams. 

No wonder record labels are so excited about the potential of AI music. Because there are actually people out there like you that would gladly consume that shit!

[awesomepossum]

4 hours 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.

So you think the songwriter should own the masters? So then Max Martin, Shellback, Jack Antonoff, Liz Rose, and her other cowriters should own the masters too? If not, why not? They also 'wrote and composed' the songs. 

 

The reality is that whoever pays to produce the recordings DESERVES to own the masters. Anyone can write songs for free on their own time, but it's very expensive to produce good quality recordings - and to market them effectively. How is the person paying for that supposed to make their money back? Especially when the chances of success are so low even with incredibly talented artists and producers. 

 

Scott Borchetta and the investors in Big Machine Records (including Taylor's father) spent millions of dollars on a teenager with no fan base to speak of. Yes, she's incredibly talented and hardworking and her music spoke to many people, but the label has no guarantee that the millions they spent would result in any profit coming back to them. Despite her talent, she is an individual. That's another layer of risk. Everything is riding on that one person to succeed. How do they know she won't change her mind after 3 albums and decide she'd rather be a judge on The Voice or launch some makeup line or collapse under the immense pressure of public scrutiny, like MOST artists do these days if they are lucky enough to have some success?? The music industry is capital intensive and high risk. It's a business, not a charity, and Taylor Swift knows that better than anyone. Downvote me all you want, but she was not wronged in any way. The fact that she's now purposely devaluing THEIR investment IN HER - and further enriching herself in the process - is pretty ruthless. The fact that she's managed to convince her fans that she's somehow been wronged is a testament to her business acumen. 

[awesomepossum]

4 hours ago, dussel_06 said:

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

Can I ask you a question? You don't have to tell me what your job is, but do you own what you produce? Do you own the work you create for your job?

[Antikythera]

This is a business and an industry.

 

I find it so strange that today everyone own their masters, this used to be so difficult. Also, I don't quite understand how re-recording works, even if you wrote, do u have to give money to the original producers? I'm sure she would have to give some money to the publishing house, no?

 

Record companies are predatory, but they also spend a lot to make an artist happen, payola, playlisting, promo, tours, videos, nothing is for free and not every artist is huge like Taylor to stand against a record company.

[XXI.]

39 minutes ago, supaspaz said:

No wonder record labels are so excited about the potential of AI music. Because there are actually people out there like you that would gladly consume that ****!

I work in the music industry. I've worked for two of the three major recording companies and now work for a DSP. My opinion on this matter is a bit biased. I have grips with both sides having worked with artists directly and on behalf of a label. I'm not an outsider. Labels aren't all evil. 

[WildHeart]

27 minutes ago, awesomepossum said:

So you think the songwriter should own the masters? So then Max Martin, Shellback, Jack Antonoff, Liz Rose, and her other cowriters should own the masters too? If not, why not? They also 'wrote and composed' the songs. 

 

The reality is that whoever pays to produce the recordings DESERVES to own the masters. Anyone can write songs for free on their own time, but it's very expensive to produce good quality recordings - and to market them effectively. How is the person paying for that supposed to make their money back? Especially when the chances of success are so low even with incredibly talented artists and producers. 

 

Scott Borchetta and the investors in Big Machine Records (including Taylor's father) spent millions of dollars on a teenager with no fan base to speak of. Yes, she's incredibly talented and hardworking and her music spoke to many people, but the label has no guarantee that the millions they spent would result in any profit coming back to them. Despite her talent, she is an individual. That's another layer of risk. Everything is riding on that one person to succeed. How do they know she won't change her mind after 3 albums and decide she'd rather be a judge on The Voice or launch some makeup line or collapse under the immense pressure of public scrutiny, like MOST artists do these days if they are lucky enough to have some success?? The music industry is capital intensive and high risk. It's a business, not a charity, and Taylor Swift knows that better than anyone. Downvote me all you want, but she was not wronged in any way. The fact that she's now purposely devaluing THEIR investment IN HER - and further enriching herself in the process - is pretty ruthless. The fact that she's managed to convince her fans that she's somehow been wronged is a testament to her business acumen. 

 

21 minutes ago, awesomepossum said:

Can I ask you a question? You don't have to tell me what your job is, but do you own what you produce? Do you own the work you create for your job?

Taylor didn’t have any problem with not owning her work. 

Her problem was that she was not given a change to buy the work she worked to create over a decade. Why are you acting like she demanded something for free 

[satellites.™]

4 hours ago, gotportugal said:

you cannot take the ultracapitalism out of swifties

no, cause it literally gives, "I would own slaves, I mean... everyone else did."

[XXI.]

29 minutes ago, awesomepossum said:

So you think the songwriter should own the masters? So then Max Martin, Shellback, Jack Antonoff, Liz Rose, and her other cowriters should own the masters too? If not, why not? They also 'wrote and composed' the songs. 

 

The reality is that whoever pays to produce the recordings DESERVES to own the masters. Anyone can write songs for free on their own time, but it's very expensive to produce good quality recordings - and to market them effectively. How is the person paying for that supposed to make their money back? Especially when the chances of success are so low even with incredibly talented artists and producers. 

 

Scott Borchetta and the investors in Big Machine Records (including Taylor's father) spent millions of dollars on a teenager with no fan base to speak of. Yes, she's incredibly talented and hardworking and her music spoke to many people, but the label has no guarantee that the millions they spent would result in any profit coming back to them. Despite her talent, she is an individual. That's another layer of risk. Everything is riding on that one person to succeed. How do they know she won't change her mind after 3 albums and decide she'd rather be a judge on The Voice or launch some makeup line or collapse under the immense pressure of public scrutiny, like MOST artists do these days if they are lucky enough to have some success?? The music industry is capital intensive and high risk. It's a business, not a charity, and Taylor Swift knows that better than anyone. Downvote me all you want, but she was not wronged in any way. The fact that she's now purposely devaluing THEIR investment IN HER - and further enriching herself in the process - is pretty ruthless. The fact that she's managed to convince her fans that she's somehow been wronged is a testament to her business acumen. 

I agree with this lol. I think it's very convoluted. In some cases, I think an artist deserves more ownership of their music (eg. Taylor Swift). In other cases I think it's the writers and producers who are crafting these songs and are severely underrecognized and underpaid. I also think some artists are incredibly entitled.

 

I don't have all the answers, but as I've said... labels invest very heavily into the products these artists are making. The artists and their music don't become successes independent of the label's investment. I can understand why labels are adding such a clause like this to their deals. However, that said... Taylor Swift is a bit of an anomaly. I don't think any other artist can do what she is doing currently and see the type of success she is seeing.

[XXI.]

1 hour ago, Bloo said:

And you don't make money as a label without artists putting in the work and generating the content for you to make money.

 

It's wild how y'all are shilling for label companies that do not give a damn about music. It should not be up for discussion that people who actually produce the music should be fairly paid for its consumption.

This is essentially what I'm saying. The point I'm making is most artists aren't artisitcly involved in the music they're creating - so why should they own the master? 

 

A perfect example being Natalie La Rose. She was an unknown artist that was given the resources to record a hit song she didn't write and then given a trendy feature, performance opportunities, radio support, etc. Should she now own the master? Or be able to rerecord it and devalue the original version? 

 

This song wasn't a hit because of the artist it was because of how the label manufactured and propelled it forward.

 

 

Edited October 30, 2023 by XXI.

[Bloo]

12 minutes ago, XXI. said:

This is essentially what I'm saying. The point I'm making is most artists aren't artisitcly involved in the music they're creating - so why should they own the master? 

 

A perfect example being Natalie La Rose. She was an unknown artist that was given the resources to record a hit song she didn't write and then given a trendy feature, performance opportunities, radio support, etc. Should she now own the master? Or be able to rerecord it and devalue the original version? 

 

This song wasn't a hit because of the artist it was because of how the label manufactured and propelled it forward.

 

 

But it's not? You are probably the most vocal person arguing on the side of the record labels whereas the vast majority of this thread is actively agreeing that writers should get more recognition because it takes a village of creatives to create good art. However, that doesn't change the simple truth that the record labels are exploiting the artists (i.e., the singers, the writers, the producers) to maximize their profit lines. Smaller music artists, both those that are heavily involved in all creative aspects and those that aren't, work their asses off and struggle to pay rent. That's obscene and inexcusable.

 

The side you are contending with is the side simply saying that record labels shouldn't be able to have free reign to take all credit for art. Ownership should be split up more evenly than how it currently is done at scale.

 

I'm not sure why this is confusing or controversial.

[shinyshimmery]

Unless these label execs can carry a tune, they gonna have to loosen up their butth contracts regarding these policies. They are about to find out they no longer have as much power as they once used to. Artists are proving big labels are no longer needed for success. 

[réveuse]

6 hours 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.

All popstars should own their work.

[ForgottenSoul]

If you write the song I feel like ofc you deserve to own that music but if you just sing them im not sure, your company/producer/writer put just as much effort if not more into the music. 

Edited October 30, 2023 by ForgottenSoul

[XXI.]

3 hours ago, Bloo said:

But it's not? You are probably the most vocal person arguing on the side of the record labels whereas the vast majority of this thread is actively agreeing that writers should get more recognition because it takes a village of creatives to create good art. However, that doesn't change the simple truth that the record labels are exploiting the artists (i.e., the singers, the writers, the producers) to maximize their profit lines. Smaller music artists, both those that are heavily involved in all creative aspects and those that aren't, work their asses off and struggle to pay rent. That's obscene and inexcusable.

 

The side you are contending with is the side simply saying that record labels shouldn't be able to have free reign to take all credit for art. Ownership should be split up more evenly than how it currently is done at scale.

 

I'm not sure why this is confusing or controversial.

I don't necessarily agree with what you're saying.

 

My argument is that Taylor Swift has the platform she does as a result of the labels she signed with. That infrastructure built her to be the superstar she is today. There is no Taylor Swift without a machine behind you. Artists sign these deals in hopes of becoming the next Taylor Swift.

 

Yes, the artists, songwriters, producers should also in part own their work, but why isn't the label entitled to own a portion of what they're funding? Not only are they funding the ability for the artist to be in any recording studio with any level of writer or producer, but then they are also funding the marketing, digital, press and out of home (performances, touring, billboards) to make it a success. To then rerecord your masters and devalue the original investment is wild. Why wouldn't a label want to protect their original investment?

 

I'm not sure why this is confusing or controversial either... especially when the majority of these artists aren't even writing their own songs and are a product of the label's own A&R teams.

 

Edited October 30, 2023 by XXI.

[Shaner69]

Why does Taylor swift always manage in a bad way to be strange. 

 

 

She records albums over and over her fans are almost cult red neck Americana. 

 

Something seems terribly off she's  feeding into MAGA

 

Let's try to get along. 

 

 

 

Edited October 30, 2023 by Shaner69

[DamianSolo]

I hope these artists fight back harder than ever against these scummy contracts. Labels have gotten over on people for long enough, by being wickedly deceitful.

[dussel_06]

8 hours ago, awesomepossum said:

Can I ask you a question? You don't have to tell me what your job is, but do you own what you produce? Do you own the work you create for your job?

I don’t know. Do I own my videos I made for my onlyfans? Hmmmmm