Could 'Taylor's Version' lead to...

[OMonster 14,675]

Other artists doing the same and revising past eras?

I think it could be quite likely.

I mean, Taylor is only winning here. 

- Her level of fame is arguably 're-peaking'

- She's raking in millions on the back of vinyls, merchandise and streaming numbers 

- She's also taking back control of her music and profiting on that, too, in licensing deals etc 

Not only that, she's having fun and keeping her fans extremely happy.

While I'm not saying that any major artist is likely to re-record their entire back catalogue like Taylor is doing, I do think her moves might inspire other artists (and record labels) to realise the untapped commercial potential of their back catalogues. 

If you really think about it, it's kind of bizarre that so many songs are forgotten and no longer monetised after a specific album cycle. If songs are commercial assets - why are so many of them left untapped? And why is an artist always confined to their most recent 'era' in terms of promotion? 

Let's take ARTPOP, as an example. That's an era that still has the potential to make a lot of money. If Gaga released new ARTPOP merch, a music video for Venus, Act II or anything in relation to that album, it would be guaranteed to make money. 

I find it interesting that what Taylor is doing is essentially redefining how and what artists can promote. It's fascinating to see her create a music video for All Too Well and bring the entire Red era to life again - and I'd love it if other artists did the same. Commercially, it makes sense... so why not?

What are your thoughts?

[Dojo 19,365]

i'm here for ARTPOP GV.

[MaryJaneHolland 77,348]

No, that would be a waste of time for literally every artist.

[thierryrreiht 20,982]

If other artists are already the owners of their original song masters, making a "rerecording" will be simply viewed as a money grab and motivated by a trend. 

I wonder what is the case with Gaga and Interscope, but I believe they love her enough to respect her that way. She renegotiated with them in late 2015, and since then she seems much freer than before. She must have set a lot of boundaries and conditions to have more control over her career, and it shows since Joanne. 

[River 116,423]

I hope no, the reissues with 3 new songs after the album cycle are already a cash grab we don't need another one.

Taylor had a specific unfair situation, so it's understandable why she did that, I just think that the Taylor's Version shouldn't chart and block new and fresh albums from the top 5.

[Retron 2,605]

I think it only works this big for Taylor. She's mega star, and has a narrative that she's taking back what was stolen by an enemy. Fans support that, giving it a tidal wave of momentum.

Could others find success revisiting previous works? Sure. But not to Taylor's industry-moving extent.

[vpez 1,250]

I'd honestly love it, especially from artists I love and know every song of like Gaga. It would bring back those memories and commercially speaking it might be a good move too, at least in terms of extra income.
But I'd prefer those revisited albums to be like Taylors, with previously scrapped songs etc - not like the BTW thing we got this year.

[oheyitso 2,785]

15 minutes ago, OMonster said:

I find it interesting that what Taylor is doing is essentially redefining how and what artists can promote. It's fascinating to see her create a music video for All Too Well and bring the entire Red era to life again - and I'd love it if other artists did the same. Commercially, it makes sense... so why not?

 

This is a really interesting point! Maybe not re-records to Taylor's extent, but the success of 'Taylor's Versions'' could definitely have created interest from artists and labels on how they can return to previous eras and create more material around them. I'm unsure if Ga would, she seems like she doesn't like to return to the emotions/traumas of previous albums and look forward, but maybe one day she may realise how much fans would love new old-album content 

[spector 1,918]

you’re only considering the financial aspect of music in your argumentation. in taylor’s case, however, the songs are not just “commercial assets”—they are her literal body of work. i think you missed to factor in that her case—her catalogue—is unique in that (1) every single song was penned by taylor and (2) her worth ethic is unmatched. for taylor, it’s about reinstating artistic/personal integrity and regaining creative control—financial gain and fan service are only after-the-fact considerations. more sentimentally put, it’s not math—it’s love. taylor’s love for her work, artistic self, and fans. they are the only ones that have always been, still are, and will forever(more) be there for her: her songs, herself, and her fans. that’s all—and that’s too well to replicate on a profit-only level. ✨🧣 

[Monster7 5,697]

It would only work for other artists if their songs' rights had been literally sold to other people without her consent or knowledge. This narrative would apply to very few artists

[Hades 27,980]

It could work for Britney since most of her stuff post Blackout were not completely approved by her. 

[Lucas 26,831]

Don't think it will have a huge impact but I always dream of a music industry where artists are free to do whatever they fxcking want at any time.

release singles and music videos from their old albums
music videos for non-singles
give us covers for album tracks (all the songs from an album would have their own cover on spotify for example)
drop a song/ep/album when they want
give us more insight of the creation process
like Gaga wanted to do with ARTPOP, an app to play the songs with exlusive content etc... imagine if every album out there had its own little app where you can see the booklet, have exclusive visuals, little games etc. If the ARTPOP app project wasn't scrapped, it could've been really a revolutionary way for artists to release albums

like really the music industry could be a billion times more interesting and entertaining than it is now 

[OMonster 14,675]

Just to reiterate - I'm not saying any other artist will do what Taylor has because - obviously - there are some very unique circumstances that surround her. Nor am I saying that Taylor is only doing what she's doing for money. She obviously isn't. But what I am saying is... since revisiting past eras does make a lot of money, why wouldn't other artists do the same? It doesn't only apply if the artist has had their masters sold, either. My point is that any artist - and record label - might be inspired to follow in Taylor's footsteps for money, fun, fan-service... or a combination of all three!

[Versace 7,959]

I agree 100%

If movies get director cuts, extended cuts, sequels, reboots or even remasters 

Why can’t the same be done with music?

Nostalgia is powerful and sells like crazy 

Who here wouldn’t want a repackaged ARTPOP with ACT 2 tracks included. That’s like Gold for Gaga, the fans and her label.

[elijahfan 26,106]

1 hour ago, MaryJaneHolland said:

No, that would be a waste of time for literally every artist.

I agree. Taylor had a very specific reason for doing this, and I think she's the only one in the business right now who can realistically expect those re-recordings to be smashes.

Nothing wrong with anniversary editions with additional material, tho (looking at you, ARTPOP 2023).