Unpopular opinion: Mainstream Artists don't deserve full rights of "their" music work

[AyeshaErotica 1,657]

If we listen to Taylor Swift's opinion, we might think it's the most natural thing in the world for an artist to own full rights to his/her works.

Taylor Swift is very confident in herself, in her abilities, in her talent. She reminds me so much of born millionaires who inherit wealth and believe they are solely responsible for their own wealth, totally convinced to deserve all of it because they worked hard to maximize their millions - neglecting external factors and chances.

Now Taylor is not a born millionaire, but she had the help of millionaires, strong and influential people who helped her to fame.

Let's be honest, no matter how talented or how good a singer like Taylor is, we, the majority of the world, wouldn't even know her if she wasn't promoted by a record label that had invested large sums of money in advertising, promotion, commercial appearances, and making her famous.

Taylor and the likes think she is famous because she worked hard for it and deserves all credits for it. But this is wrong. She is famous because of her record labels. They made her famous and allowed her to have some royalties and Taylor became rich thanks to them. But Taylor, typically American, wants more and more. 

So many people are involved in her success: producers, songwriters, music video directors, make-up assistants, people who assist music video directors, background dancers, etc. But above all, the record label that signed her and invested into her.

It may sound bitter, but Taylor, like everyone else, is interchangeable and could be replaced by another artist, who would then be served by the same producers, etc. Many people in the world can sing well and are talented. Most never get the chance to perform on the big stage and get famous.

Don't get me wrong, I think it's disproportionate if a record label owns all the rights and the artist 15% or less, but I do think that the record label deserves at least 33% of the profits, the artist 33% and the remaining 33% is distributed among other contributing actors who can be subsumed under the record label depending on whether they are independent or not. So I suggest co-sharing instead of owning "your" music works as a fair solution.

Because "your" music works, are honestly not really entirely yours but you were assisted with them. I only support owning full music rights for smaller less commercial artists, who do not rely on the big business infrastructure promotion.

Spoiler

Taylor also boasts that, thanks to her, many new artists are signing contracts that secure their full rights. It's also worth considering that in such cases, a record label is less inclined to invest heavily in an artist, and the chances of someone becoming famous are reduced. So who knows, Taylor Swift could be doing a big disservice to these artists. Perhaps Taylor Swift would never have become so big and famous if she had owned full music rights from the start, because the record labels would have invested less in her. Taylor is criticizing a system that has benefited her and made her big, and I don't like that.

What do you think about it?

 

 

 

[Railing 2,790]

Did a record label exec write this?  Disagree. If artists want to own the music that they created, then they should be given that opportunity. Taylor's music is valuable because it's hers, not because of investors or managers. In fact, she was basically Big Machine Records' only successful popstar, which is why it was obvious that she was the target of the Scooter Braun sale back in 2019.

[Windowlicker 3,470]

Couldn't disagree more. Taylor's stance isn't new. Prince was a huge advocate for artists owning their masters in the 90s, along with him exploring the concept of re-recording his catalog (JoJo also did this for her albums before Taylor, and I believe she's the one who inspired Taylor to do the same). As long as an artist is involved in writing and/or composing their material, there is no reason why they shouldn't be the primary owners of that work. It doesn't stop anyone else except for the label from profiting and controlling the catalog once the artist has fullfilled their contractual obligations.

[Teletubby 146,078]

I need Buno Mars to give more rights to Atlantic so they have money for Ava Max to release new songs

[BoomBig 285]

Yes, revenue should be shared fairly, and labels do deserve a cut — but owning your own work isn’t about greed. It’s about having control over how your art is used. In any other creative field, we’d expect the person who made something to own it. Music should be no different.

She wasn’t handed fame — she started young, faced rejections, and built her career through talent, hard work, and some opportunity. But let’s be real… opportunities alone don’t keep you on top for 15+ years.

Her staying power isn’t just about the music — it’s how she connects with fans. She’s done secret listening sessions at her place, crashed weddings, sent personal notes, even mailed out Christmas gifts for “Swiftmas.” That kind of bond is earned.

[LadyxGaGa 1,720]

im sorry why should a board of members whose sole purpose is to just make money off of art better owners than the artists themselves 

[nATAH 47,416]

but if taylor hadn't made that music, there would be nothing for them to promote and make profit from

they don't care about the music, they just care about the money made from music hence why they choose to invest in these artists in the first place... both parties sign a legal agreement that if A chooses to fund the promotion of material created by B, A will receive x% of profits and so will B (hopefully, in a world that's fair)

there's no reason why a label should legally OWN the work created by the artist just because they choose to invest in it. they get their coin and the artist retains the right to do whatever with their own creations (as long as it honours any contract they've signed)

[AyeshaErotica 1,657]

13 minutes ago, Railing said:

Disagree. If artists want to own the music that they created, then they should be given that opportunity.

Imo, the artist hasn't created his/her music entirely her/himself; I'd even say less than 25% input. There are producers who make the electronic or pop beats. Very crucial to the songs. Taylor doesn't do that herself. A song doesn't become a song from lyrics alone; it needs hooks, something hit-worthy, and that's exactly what Taylor Swift didn't create herself and others do not either, but outsourced to external producers or producers belonging to the record label. Her role is that of vocalist and sometimes (co-)songwriter (I'm not a Taylor expert, so I don't know hoch much she songwrites, but the lyrics alone are not everything).

There are also discussion groups where leading music labels are insiders and they assess, evaluate, and select songs. Yes, the artist can have a say on some songs, but not completely. The record labels also dictate the direction, the theme, etc. There are also business psychologists who influence music videos and songs to ensure their success. Taylor and others don't do this alone, often not at all.

For marketing reasons, record labels like to let fans believe that this is the work of their artist and the artist often claims it is "their work" for marketing reasons, because then more fans will buy these works and prefer them and they would like to believe artists are in control, yet often they are not. We fans would like to hear and believe that the works are mostly or entirely created by the artists, but the mainstream artist's input is only one of several inputs and not the majority. So, that's why imo the mainstream artists do not deserve full rights over "their" music because it is not "their" music. The importance of producers, song themes and promotion is so big that it is co-shared.

 

 

Edited Saturday at 04:03 PM by AyeshaErotica

[Gagaism 11,421]

Imagine not having control over your own art aka the one you created yourself. 

[CautiousLurker 19,242]

In an nightmare where something like this were to be imposed and enforced - it would absolutely ONLY be used against smaller artists and not the titans of their respective industries, because those would have the means to bypass those enforements

All artists deserve the right to fully own the work that they produce, period

[NemoMyName 612]

[Diamond Blood 4,121]

Put the phone DOWN babe 

[AyeshaErotica 1,657]

10 minutes ago, BoomBig said:

It’s about having control over how your art is used. In any other creative field, we’d expect the person who made something to own it. Music should be no different.

 

Imo, "her" art is not entirely her art, but also the co-product of producer's input, who have given her successful hooks and mainstream popular melodies. Also, of people who create the artworks for her CDs because Taylow doesn not make the artworks herself. So I think that producers and others also should have control over how their work is used, and if the producers belong to a record label and often they do, sometimes they are independent, then the record label earns co-control over the work. Taylor is the vocalist and (co-)songwriter but not the one who gave the beats to ther music, produced the music electronically, and the beats made her famous in addition to being promoted, which required an investment from the record labels.

[AyeshaErotica 1,657]

6 minutes ago, CautiousLurker said:

All artists deserve the right to fully own the work that they produce, period

But they don't produce it, the producers [often and in most cases] produce it. The artists sing it and sometimes (co-)songwrite it.  The song is not the product of the artist but of various people involved, with the artist being one of them.

[nATAH 47,416]

2 minutes ago, AyeshaErotica said:

Imo, "her" art is not entirely her art, but also the co-product of producer's input, who have given her successful hooks and mainstream popular melodies. Also, of people who create the artworks for her CDs because Taylow doesn not make the artworks herself. So I think that producers and others also should have control over how their work is used, and if the producers belong to a record label and often they do, sometimes they are independent, then the record label earns co-control over the work. Taylor is the vocalist and (co-)songwriter but not the one who gave the beats to ther music, produced the music electronically, and the beats made her famous in addition to being promoted, which required an investment from the record labels.

this reach... what even is your point anymore?