Taylor to Re-record Her Discography

[SHALLOW 14,815]

6 minutes ago, Miel said:

My guess is that both will be available. I think that's the case with Jojo, also?

Jojo didn’t have them available on streaming platforms, that’s why she re recorded them 

[Teal Ambition 47,805]

5 minutes ago, Miel said:

My guess is that both will be available. I think that's the case with Jojo, also?

Nope, JoJo's older albums were not available

 

[Miel 15,009]

Just now, SHALLOW said:

Jojo didn’t have them available on streaming platforms, that’s why she re recorded them 

 

Just now, Teal Ambition said:

Nope, JoJo's older albums were not available

 

Thank you for the clarification!

[A Hybrid 10,959]

Inb4 everything’s feat. Brendon Urie now

[ChromeAngel 3,230]

I’m actually excited for this!! I really love a lot of her past songs. It brings me back to my childhood even if I didn’t really like them at the time 

[Taylucifer 4,811]

Honestly I see this as more of a way to get Scooter to sell her masters to her. She will do it if he doesn't accept her terms. BUT IM VERY EXCITED TO SEE HOW IT GOES

Imagine 1989 or Fearless winning album of the year once again. Or RED might not be snubbed

[Gagaplayer315 12,025]

What a queen 

[S0436 10,215]

How does that work exactly?  She has to get permission from Scooter to re-record them?  The re-recorded albums will have to be re-named and have different catalogue numbers?  So would they actually count as adding sales to the original albums or seen as new standalone albums?

[sillynate 6,170]

I am confusion 

wouldn’t this just count as covering songs owned by someone else?  therefore scooter still gets the royalties??

[HermesGr 669]

Omg she so ambitious. Life goes on n after 10 years (in pop albums this is 2-3 new releases) maybe she will have no the front seat that she has now. She need to focus on new things now that she s on top. I know she’s right about her royalties but it’s business n contracts n shes acting like a bank. I never liked her personality tbh.. 

[Lazz Monster 19,353]

1 hour ago, sillynate said:

I am confusion 

wouldn’t this just count as covering songs owned by someone else?  therefore scooter still gets the royalties??

interesting thought, now i have the same question 

[joesuda 798]

5 hours ago, Lazz Monster said:

interesting thought, now i have the same question 

 

6 hours ago, sillynate said:

I am confusion 

wouldn’t this just count as covering songs owned by someone else?  therefore scooter still gets the royalties??

This is different, covering means that you have to pay the songs authors (and probably the label) as it is their intellectual property. Taylor Swift wrote or co-wrote all of these tracks so the song in some way belong to her. The recordings a.k.a the disc she burned in the studio so to speak belongs to Scooter.

Usually music contracts have sunset clauses that prohibit artists from rerecording old songs for a certain time, but if Taylor's contract was that she cannot re-record them for 10 years, then she could re-record Fearless and Self-Titled and next year she could re-record speak now. If the sunset clause was for 5 years, then she could re-record everything except reputation. Also to re-record you need the authors permission, but as miss Swift is a co-author on all of her songs, then there shouldn't be a problem to get those rights.  If she re-records the songs, then these are new masters and belong to her. 

Also I read somewhere, that Taylor owns the licensing rights to all of her old songs, which means that she can block the songs being used in commercials, movies and so on, so that would diminish the income and revenue for Scooter and if she re-records, she could present the new masters for these purposes and cut Scooter out of the picture.  I think that the only thing Taylor cannot control is whether the old track will stay on streaming sites and on which sites they will remain. 

[HookerOnAChurch 6,637]

Taylor's fan are so lucky 

[sillynate 6,170]

5 minutes ago, Joesuda said:

 

This is different, covering means that you have to pay the songs authors (and probably the label) as it is their intellectual property. Taylor Swift wrote or co-wrote all of these tracks so the song in some way belong to her. The recordings a.k.a the disc she burned in the studio so to speak belongs to Scooter.

Usually music contracts have sunset clauses that prohibit artists from rerecording old songs for a certain time, but if Taylor's contract was that she cannot re-record them for 10 years, then she could re-record Fearless and Self-Titled and next year she could re-record speak now. If the sunset clause was for 5 years, then she could re-record everything except reputation. Also to re-record you need the authors permission, but as miss Swift is a co-author on all of her songs, then there shouldn't be a problem to get those rights.  If she re-records the songs, then these are new masters and belong to her. 

Also I read somewhere, that Taylor owns the licensing rights to all of her old songs, which means that she can block the songs being used in commercials, movies and so on, so that would diminish the income and revenue for Scooter and if she re-records, she could present the new masters for these purposes and cut Scooter out of the picture.  I think that the only thing Taylor cannot control is whether the old track will stay on streaming sites and on which sites they will remain. 

Thanks for all this, it makes sense now 

[gag 22,449]

I'd be more interested in reworks of her old songs, something as gorgeous as the LOVE STORY played at the 1989 Tour  Imagine an orchestral-choir Don't Blame Me   A synth-pop Sparks Fly  An acoustic I Knew You Were Trouble  A rock-leaning Wildest Dreams  A dance-pop Our Song