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

[Vespertine]

9 hours 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. 

You are free to think the label deserves to own the masters in exchange for their initial investment. In fact, Taylor has never once claimed otherwise. Her complaint all along is that she had the means to purchase them and asked to purchase them, but was never given the opportunity before private equity was brought in. Legally and financially, they did nothing wrong, but it’s not hard to understand why, on a basic artistic level, people think musicians should have right of first refusal for their own work. 

 

All of that is a moot point, though, because that’s not what the story in the OP is about. This is about trying to lock artists out of the right to revisit or re-record their own original intellectual property, which was previously never tied to the first master recordings outside of a reasonable window of time (in Taylor’s case, 5 years after the original recording). This has never been the standard in any creative industry, which is why there can be multiple movie adaptations of the same book, or why Joni Mitchell was able to re-record orchestral versions of her folk songs later in her career, or why Sam McKinniss can license out his painting to be reproduced on the Melodrama album cover even if someone else owns the original painting now, or why a writer can re-publish a 10th Anniversary edition of a book after their contract with the first publisher is over. Their original intellectual property remains their intellectual property. 

 

The contracts being described in the OP are effectively trying to control artists’ intellectual property in perpetuity in addition to the master recordings the labels already own. 

 

Who owns and controls what intellectual property is ultimately going to be one of the biggest/most important cultural issues of the 21st century. Between music labels and movie studios planning to use AI to produce

new content, and private equity firms (which are eroding nearly every aspect of society from housing to medicine to music) buying up all the original content they can, it’s going to get very dire and very dull if some artists don’t stand their ground.  

[Eglė]

3 hours ago, dussel_06 said:

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

[Letemtalk]

17 hours ago, dussel_06 said:

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

The point here is that labels don't want to give the masters to artists. Just look at some older albums like Rumours and Nevermind doing huge streaming numbers decades after their release. Or even just one 45 year old song like "Dreams" going viral.

 

They don't want the artist to be able to re-record their albums, because that allows the artist to devalue the original album.

 

Shutting down re-recording makes it easier to stop artists from owning their masters.

The artists bargaining power has been reduced.

[Rep2000]

14 hours 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. 

Wait, so who is the corpo shill now, Ms. Thing? Labels using their resources to screw over artists under their roofs all the bloody times, you don't need to lick the labels' boots any harder.
And she WAS wronged by Scott Borchetta and the label when they tried to sabotage her and prevent her from performing her own songs before. Let's not forget about that.

[Blue Rose]

Executives are so stupid. Their takeaway should’ve been “oh fans like when artists have more rights, so let’s give them more and work with them” which would result into more sales, therefore more money for them.

[babyboy1]

22 hours ago, KingWitch said:

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 .

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.

those artists are still earning in millions so no one gives a sh*t whether they own the masters or not. 

[adylovestaylorandjb]

If I m business man and investing my money on artist with no sure thing of success, paying for production, session etc. I will think about my future profit too. I don't support the labels, but then they are also investing their money. 

[Raphy23]

Taylor Swift should start her own label. Imagine being signed BY Taylor Swift!

[awesomepossum]

15 hours ago, Vespertine said:

You are free to think the label deserves to own the masters in exchange for their initial investment. In fact, Taylor has never once claimed otherwise. Her complaint all along is that she had the means to purchase them and asked to purchase them, but was never given the opportunity before private equity was brought in. Legally and financially, they did nothing wrong, but it’s not hard to understand why, on a basic artistic level, people think musicians should have right of first refusal for their own work. 

 

All of that is a moot point, though, because that’s not what the story in the OP is about. This is about trying to lock artists out of the right to revisit or re-record their own original intellectual property, which was previously never tied to the first master recordings outside of a reasonable window of time (in Taylor’s case, 5 years after the original recording). This has never been the standard in any creative industry, which is why there can be multiple movie adaptations of the same book, or why Joni Mitchell was able to re-record orchestral versions of her folk songs later in her career, or why Sam McKinniss can license out his painting to be reproduced on the Melodrama album cover even if someone else owns the original painting now, or why a writer can re-publish a 10th Anniversary edition of a book after their contract with the first publisher is over. Their original intellectual property remains their intellectual property. 

 

The contracts being described in the OP are effectively trying to control artists’ intellectual property in perpetuity in addition to the master recordings the labels already own. 

 

Who owns and controls what intellectual property is ultimately going to be one of the biggest/most important cultural issues of the 21st century. Between music labels and movie studios planning to use AI to produce

new content, and private equity firms (which are eroding nearly every aspect of society from housing to medicine to music) buying up all the original content they can, it’s going to get very dire and very dull if some artists don’t stand their ground.  

Yeah but according to the article, Taylor's re-recordings are prompting the labels to take these measures in order to ensure it doesn't happen again. If she is able to devalue their investment in her, than what would stop any other artist from doing the same thing? Before you say, "most artists aren't as successful as Taylor," okay sure, but if they aren't as successful as Taylor than their masters aren't worth as much. So in either scenario, there's a ceiling to how much they can profit off of their initial investment. Either the artist trails off as most do, or they become a gargantuan success and use turn the fan base the label paid to build against the label to undermine their investment. Which is what Taylor is doing now. Ultimately, if labels (and their shareholders/investors) can't make enough profit to continue existing, they will no longer exist. 

[awesomepossum]

3 hours ago, Raphy23 said:

Taylor Swift should start her own label. Imagine being signed BY Taylor Swift!

She will never do this because she would have to do all the same stuff she complains about other labels doing in order to make money. Maybe she could start some kind of grant or something. But she will not start a label unless she just truly does not GAF about the criticism she would get for her obvious hypocrisy.

Edited October 31, 2023 by awesomepossum

[awesomepossum]

9 hours ago, Rep2000 said:

Wait, so who is the corpo shill now, Ms. Thing? Labels using their resources to screw over artists under their roofs all the bloody times, you don't need to lick the labels' boots any harder.
And she WAS wronged by Scott Borchetta and the label when they tried to sabotage her and prevent her from performing her own songs before. Let's not forget about that.

Girl what? That was after she had already publicly lambasted Scott Borchetta and Scooter Braun for no reason but her own financial gain.

Edited October 31, 2023 by awesomepossum

[AMIT]

7 hours ago, Blue Rose said:

Executives are so stupid. Their takeaway should’ve been “oh fans like when artists have more rights, so let’s give them more and work with them” which would result into more sales, therefore more money for them.

It's not always just about the money. They need to keep people inside the system, so they can control them. Sometimes they need to sacrifice a sliver of profit so they can remain in control, otherwise the whole system will collapse. It's similar to how studies have shown that people are more productive working from home (and working fewer hours) but despite that corporations are demanding workers to come back to the office (and continue the 8h work-day/40h work-week).

Edited October 31, 2023 by AMIT

[Rep2000]

17 minutes ago, awesomepossum said:

Girl what? That was after she had already publicly lambasted Scott Borchetta and Scooter Braun for no reason but her own financial gain.

And? So they can just use the masters right to ban her from singing her own songs because of that?

That was always an abuse of power of the label, no matter what you think could justify it. "No reason" my ass.

[Vespertine]

2 hours ago, awesomepossum said:

If she is able to devalue their investment in her, than what would stop any other artist from doing the same thing? 

This is the risk any label takes whenever they sign any artist and continue to own the masters by any living artist. There are a million things that could devalue a label’s investment in any artist — they could go off the rails like Kanye, or become colossal flops

like Katy, or be exposed for sex crimes like R Kelly. 

 

This is a risk anyone has to accept with any asset in exchange for great rewards. 

 

FYI, She hasn’t even successfully devalued anyone’s investment. Everything Taylor has done post-Lover, including the re-recordings, has only made her discography insanely more successful, and that includes the original recordings. Speak Now OG (even after the TV release) is doing 1.2-1.4m streams on Spotify daily, when it was doing barely half that before all of this started. She has probably  made the OG versions more profitable for the current owners with the overall surge of interest in her discography

 

 

Quote

Ultimately, if labels (and their shareholders/investors) can't make enough profit to continue existing, they will no longer exist. 

Labels already make a huge return on their investment when they successfully launch an artist through single and album sales, streams, touring, etc. The music industry is supposed to keep moving forward, not only rely on old music making money in perpetuity. It is only recently that back catalogues have become SO much more lucrative, which is why we’re seeing so many artists sell the publishing rights to their entire catalogues. It’s also why labels are not investing in new artists at all, why we’re getting endless remakes of old songs, etc. The fact that you’re bootlicking for this as a “music fan” is disturbing tbh. 

[Life Savers]

This move worked for Taylor because of the singer-songwriter character of her music from the very start and the storyline with Scott/Scooter. For very few artists, maybe none, is rerecording in the scale Taylor did a profitable endeavor. 

[kyoshi]

On 10/30/2023 at 1:14 PM, awesomepossum said:

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. 

Big Machine label group was an indie record label and Taylor was one of their first artists on the roster, how can you say they invested "millions" when they had her packaging CDs and stuff on the floor? their asses didn't have tables or chairs her music made that label, it was her paying their bills not the other way around....

 

And girl you can't stop worrying about other men investments  braun assured the disney family the re-records would bump the BMLG catalog on streaming and so far he was right, even if the re-records end up outstreaming the OG, don't act like they have not been leeching off her for years

[BlackStar_93]

The thing is, though, the unprecedented success of the “Taylor’s Versions” will have an ongoing effect in the music industry for years in terms of contracts and ownership of masters. Before anyone says it, I know Taylor certainly wasn’t the first to re-record older music, but as I said, the success of the TV’s is an anomaly in popular music and will certainly go down in music history.

 

I just really hope labels start treating artists more fairly and young, up-and-coming artists will be more savvy in their negotiations. 

[Ampersand13]

Some of the takes in here 

 

The facts of the play:

 

- Labels have historically preyed on young, impressionable, and naive writers, singers, and artists and have manipulated them into signing contracts with promises they are not obligated to keep in order to retain ownership of the work these clients make. (Yes, labels provide a lot by way of offsetting production costs, distribution, licensing, etc. but even considering all of that you'd be surprised how twisted some of these 'artist agreements' can get.) If you think the current infrastructure is fair, why are more and more signed artists coming forward critiquing the system and highlighting its hypocrisy?

 

- Taylor Swift signs a contract, is aware that she does not own her masters, rightfully expects to have the chance to buy them, does not receive that chance despite accounting for the vast majority of her then label's revenue, is informed after the fact that her longtime affiliate sold her catalogue to a man who has routinely scrutinized her for years.

 

- Taylor Swift publicly brings attention to a longstanding label practice that, whether you like it or not, is often born from the manipulation of new talent. In the wake of these comments, more singers and writers speak about the work they either own or don't, in turn, raising awareness regarding labels' tendencies to exploit and take advantage of their artists. 

 

- Taylor Swift announces that she intends to re-record her albums, something she is explicitly entitled to do as an act of defiance against unjust label practices and to regain a version of the discography she built. Did she have a financial incentive as well? Sure, but I doubt even Taylor knew how massive these re-recordings would be (particularly after Fearless TV's *relatively* modest performance.) 

 

- Labels observe the monumental success of these re-recordings and realize that the value of the masters they own could, theoretically, be in jeopardy. Instead of course correcting, they look to enforce stricter rules preventing artists from re-recording their material for absurdly long periods of time to cover their 'investments.' 

 

Now, let's use some critical thinking skills. If a successful and powerful person promises you, at a young age, your dream under the condition that you have to work very hard for a very long time before giving it to you and then ultimately doesn't fulfill their promise to the extent they said they would, should the blame be on the exploitable person who agreed to the deal or the liar? You can all spin the 'they should have known better' 'labels are entitled because they give so much support' 'no one forced them to sign that contract' rhetorics that blame the person wronged, but it doesn't change the fact that many of these companies are wracked with corruption. Some members here seem more comfortable blaming an industry's wrongdoings on a woman rather than holding the people in positions of power accountable. Taylor demonstrated resilience yet many of you want to punish her for 'consequences' that are being created and implemented by greedy perpetrators who would rather take even worse advantage of artists than dismantle an antiquated system. So I guess my question is, why? 

[awesomepossum]

On 10/31/2023 at 6:19 PM, Vespertine said:

This is the risk any label takes whenever they sign any artist and continue to own the masters by any living artist. There are a million things that could devalue a label’s investment in any artist — they could go off the rails like Kanye, or become colossal flops

like Katy, or be exposed for sex crimes like R Kelly. 

 

This is a risk anyone has to accept with any asset in exchange for great rewards. 

 

FYI, She hasn’t even successfully devalued anyone’s investment. Everything Taylor has done post-Lover, including the re-recordings, has only made her discography insanely more successful, and that includes the original recordings. Speak Now OG (even after the TV release) is doing 1.2-1.4m streams on Spotify daily, when it was doing barely half that before all of this started. She has probably  made the OG versions more profitable for the current owners with the overall surge of interest in her discography

 

Labels already make a huge return on their investment when they successfully launch an artist through single and album sales, streams, touring, etc. The music industry is supposed to keep moving forward, not only rely on old music making money in perpetuity. It is only recently that back catalogues have become SO much more lucrative, which is why we’re seeing so many artists sell the publishing rights to their entire catalogues. It’s also why labels are not investing in new artists at all, why we’re getting endless remakes of old songs, etc. The fact that you’re bootlicking for this as a “music fan” is disturbing tbh. 

Yes, they make money despite the risk because they own the masters and structure the deal in such a way that the very, very few successes cover the lost costs of the many, many failures.

[awesomepossum]

On 11/1/2023 at 1:35 AM, kyoshi said:

Big Machine label group was an indie record label and Taylor was one of their first artists on the roster, how can you say they invested "millions" when they had her packaging CDs and stuff on the floor? their asses didn't have tables or chairs her music made that label, it was her paying their bills not the other way around....

 

And girl you can't stop worrying about other men investments  braun assured the disney family the re-records would bump the BMLG catalog on streaming and so far he was right, even if the re-records end up outstreaming the OG, don't act like they have not been leeching off her for years

They had multiple employees and several investors. She speaks often of the 6-month radio tour she went on to promote her first single. That alone would cost at least $100,000 with no revenue generated. Plus recording, mixing, mastering, promoting to radio. Borchetta was a music industry executive starting his own label. He had investors and financial backing.

[awesomepossum]

On 11/1/2023 at 5:29 PM, Ampersand13 said:

- Labels observe the monumental success of these re-recordings and realize that the value of the masters they own could, theoretically, be in jeopardy. Instead of course correcting, they look to enforce stricter rules preventing artists from re-recording their material for absurdly long periods of time to cover their 'investments.' 

What would 'course correcting' look like in this case? 

Edited November 2, 2023 by awesomepossum

[Ampersand13]

3 minutes ago, awesomepossum said:

What would 'course correcting' look like in this case? 

Exercising transparency, committing to their artists without subjecting them to years of contractual stifling, and implementing standardized methods for artists to either retain ownership of their masters or provide feasible ways for them to buy them later in their career. Those are just some that come to mind. 

[Strawberry Bubble]

These small to mid-size artists would lose A LOT of money by rerecording their music. Her intention with the re-recordings wasn't to kick off a whole trend of copy and paste music, but rather to emphasize to emerging artists the importance of owning their own music. 

 

 

[brazil]

On 10/30/2023 at 11:31 AM, 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.

Yall act like Taylor invented writing her own aongs, literally countless artists have done and do that 

[applestar]

The only reason back catalogs matter is because pop stars haven't released good pop music in like 5 years

 

yall killed pop music and good pop artists, and replaced it with pop punk (horrible) & indie pop (horrible) & hyperpop (awful). Now the charts are just that and rnb, country, and hip hop

yall rewarded singer-songwriters even though most of them cant come up with decent melodies

now every gen z on tiktok just explores old af songs and speeds it up by 5% bass boosted

 

the only good pop music now is from britney tribute acts (slayyyter & kim). taylor did not mess up the industry, and masters dont matter if you release good music in the present or future