Labels will enforce new rules prohibiting artists to re-record their albums

[Tinnitus15 51,592]

I know they are shaking rn 

[Ladle Ghoulash 26,469]

Yikes. Scumbags.

[PartySick 161,365]

As a Taylor hater, I do adore how she's got the executives shaking

[StarstruckIllusion 52,916]

Ooop- 

[LaLa 19,663]

Yeah, this makes complete sense honestly, though think it would be very rare for any other artist to ever have the success Taylor is having with a re-record project 

[Red 98,168]

I hope one day being independent is viable for every artist cause labels ain't it

[nATAH 50,131]

GAGA PLEASE GO INDEPENDENT 

[PartySick 161,365]

Just now, NATAH said:

GAGA PLEASE GO INDEPENDENT 

Sis she's never re-recording a project

[Maxine Puth 9,053]

5 minutes ago, PartySick said:

Sis she's never recording a project

Tea

[RAMROD 109,800]

 

While Taylor Swift has been racking up billions of streams with updated “Taylor’s Version” re-recordings of her original hits over the past couple years, making cultural moments out of old material and simultaneously driving down the value of those original recordings that were sold away from her, record companies have been working to prohibit this sort of thing from happening again.

The major labels, Universal Music Group, Sony Music Entertainment and Warner Music Group, have recently overhauled contracts for new signees, according to top music attorneys, some demanding artists wait an unprecedented 10, 15 or even 30 years to re-record releases after departing their record companies. “The first time I saw it, I tried to get rid of it entirely,” says Josh Karp, a veteran attorney, who has viewed the new restrictions in UMG contracts. “I was just like, ‘What is this? This is strange. Why would we agree to further restrictions than we’ve agreed to in the past with the same label?'”

For decades, standard major-label recording contracts stated artists had to wait for the latter of two periods to expire before they could put out re-recorded versions, Swift-style: It could have been five to seven years from the release date of the original, or two years after the contract expired. Today, attorneys are receiving label contracts that expand that period to 10 or 15 years or more — and the attorneys are pushing back. “It becomes one of a multitude of items you’re fighting,” Karp says.

“I recently did a deal with a very big indie that had a 30-year re-record restriction in it. Which obviously is much longer than I’m used to seeing,” adds Gandhar Savur, attorney for Cigarettes After Sex, Built to Spill and Jeff Rosenstock. “I think the majors are also trying to expand their re-record restrictions but in a more measured way — they are generally not yet able to get away with making such extreme changes.”

Until June 2019, when Swift announced she would re-record her first six albums, the concept of drawing fans to new versions of old songs was a music-business niche. 

But after venture capitalist and longtime Justin Biebermanager Scooter Braun purchased Swift’s original label, Big Machine Music Group, she failed to re-obtain her original master recordings. The business transaction was personal to Swift — she has accused Braun of “incessant, manipulative bullying” — and she encouraged her huge fanbase and sympathetic radio programmers to exclusively play new Taylor’s Versions of Fearless, Red and others.

Suddenly, the concept of re-recording masters has evolved from archaic fine print buried in record deals to a widely scrutinized cause celebre. “Obviously, this is a big headline topic — the Taylor Swift thing,” Savur says. “Labels, of course, are going to want to do whatever they can to address that and to prevent it. But there’s only so much they can do. Artist representatives are going to push back against that, and a certain standard is ingrained in our industry that is not easy to move away from.”

Once artists get past the weeds of re-recording restrictions, Binder says, the bigger issue is controlling their master recordings — that was Swift’s primary concern in putting out her new versions, after Braun purchased her catalog from Big Machine. Artists and their attorneys have recently moved towards licensing deals — retaining ownership of their masters and signing with labels to distribute music for a limited period — rather than traditional recording contracts where the label owns everything.

https://www.billboard.com/pro/taylor-swift-re-recordings-labels-change-contracts/

[nATAH 50,131]

10 minutes ago, PartySick said:

Sis she's never re-recording a project

i've been wanting her to go independent for years, not for re-recordings 

[Hyperobject 66,771]

1 minute ago, NATAH said:

i've been wanting her to go independent for years, not for re-recordings 

but she’s a big popstar, why would she go independent? 

[LateToCult 40,916]

1 minute ago, NATAH said:

i've been wanting her to go independent for years, not for re-recordings 

Chile, the label is the only thing ensuring we get any LPs 

[nATAH 50,131]

4 minutes ago, Ororo Munroe said:

but she’s a big popstar, why would she go independent? 

cus she can afford to and finally do whatever she wants 

[nATAH 50,131]

4 minutes ago, LateToCult said:

Chile, the label is the only thing ensuring we get any LPs 

idgaf they ruined ARTPOP