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

[AyeshaErotica 1,657]

2 minutes ago, nATAH said:

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

so you deny that producers produce the music and insist the artist produce it, really?

[CautiousLurker 19,250]

5 minutes ago, AyeshaErotica said:

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.

Yeeeeaaaah, and they got paid for their work and presumably are or at the very least should earn royalties

8 minutes ago, AyeshaErotica said:

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

And they did have that control, until Taylor bought the work back... same way the company before her bought said work, I don't see what your problem is here - she wasn't handed the rights to her masters for free so far as I understand it, so what's the problem?

Edited May 31 by CautiousLurker

[Ladle Ghoulash 21,593]

27 minutes ago, Teletubby said:

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

Can’t imagine music of that quality would cost that much to release 

[BoomBig 287]

11 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.

That’s a reach.

Taylor has written the lyrics and melodies of many of her biggest songs entirely on her own — like Love Story, Our Song, All Too Well, Begin Again and This Love. That’s not “co-creating,” that’s full authorship.

Yes, producers add beats, and designers create album covers, but those are contributions to her work, not ownership of it. A sound engineer adding a hook doesn’t mean they should control the whole song — just like a book cover designer doesn’t own the novel.

Taylor’s the one creating the “product” here — stories, emotions, lyrics, melodies. Without that foundation, there’d be nothing to produce or promote. No one’s disputing that everyone involved deserves fair pay and credit. But that’s very different from owning the work.

Edited May 31 by BoomBig

[AyeshaErotica 1,657]

7 minutes ago, CautiousLurker said:

And they did have that control, until Taylor bought the work back... same way the company before her bought said work, I don't see what your problem is here - she wasn't handed the rights to her masters for free so far as I understand it, so what's the problem?

There is no problem with the legal transfer of rights. Totally fine. 

There is a problem with Taylor's attitude that she totally deserves it, neglecting the input and investments of her Record Label and producers and other people involved. Accoding to Taylor she and every vocalist should by default have full rights over music - her attitude is subject to debate.

As I've wrote, maybe Taylor would have never become ultra-famous if no big investments were made in first place because of the contract. The label had full rights and liked to invest into Taylor.

Edited May 31 by AyeshaErotica

[RAMROD 108,173]

Baby, what is this? Is this a troll thread? 

 

[Gagaism 11,431]

There’s some bigger values when it comes to that, it’s not only about the art you create and your control over it but also the main artist is the one who’s gonna be in the public eye, for the applause and the criticism which comes with ALL good and bad that includes even their personal lives and we have seen it all over the years in the industry. 

Like, talking about her exclusively here: who’s gonna be performing as the main character in front of 60k ppl? Taylor Swift; who’s gonna be the face of any advertising campaign that will eventually bring that money? Taylor Swift; who’s gonna be targeted for any event that might happen in her life including ppl she date, her family, fans (including the crazy ones, stalkers and etc)? Taylor Swift; who’s gonna be followed by paparazzi everywhere? Taylor Swift; who’s gonna be criticized if the music comes out as bad? Taylor Swift; who’s gonna be in charge of picking up the producers she wants to work with? Taylor Swift. And there goes many other questions. When it comes to an artist of her caliber, even tho there’s management, record companies and everything else, she’s probably the one who’s gonna be making the bigger decisions.

Of course it’s her choice to be involved with all that and it’s such a commitment when you decide that your life is not gonna be so yours anymore.

The label, producers, managers are barely mentioned; and for short period of times and when some of them gets more highlights in public knowledge usually it’s because of a bigger involvement with the main artist or when some drama happens backstage. 
 

Thing is way bigger than just owning your art, it gets really big when your art is basically the wheel that controls your life. 

[Ilia Malinin 1,533]

girl, i love you, but this is not it.

i think all artists, mainstream or otherwise, deserve to fully own their music.  you're also an artist, you should get to own everything just as much as any other artist out there.  personally, as one myself, if someone tried to take ownership of something i worked extremely hard on and only give me a portion of the cut from it, i would be devastated.  i've been there before.

i worked on music as a teenager, poured hours into it, spent time with adults that were more seasoned in the industry than i was.  performed said music on television (locally, though) and what did i get to show for it?  barely any screen time and a fifty dollar cheque.  the adults around me got hundreds of dollars for this particular gig and mentioned in the news.  but little old me, the teenage boy that had a dream of being a famous singer, got five minutes of screen time, no mention, and no credit.  i deserved at least some ownership of that, as i wasn't the only one to work on the song, but i got nothing.  wanting full ownership of something you solely created isn't too far of a stretch.

i know i may not be able to change your mind, but i do hope i can show you another perspective.

Edited May 31 by Ilia Malinin

[CautiousLurker 19,250]

21 minutes ago, AyeshaErotica said:

There is no problem with the legal transfer of rights. Totally fine. 

There is a problem with Taylor's attitude that she totally deserves it, neglecting the input and investments of her Record Label and producers and other people involved. Accoding to Taylor she and everyone should by default have full rights over music - her attitude is the problem.

So even tho legally everything checks out, some people in your opinion should be prohibited from owning their work flat out... because of their attitude? As a kind of punishment almost?

Yeah no

You conveniently lump producers and other artists as targets of her 'entitlement' as if she claimed the work they put into her records is her work - no - I'm pretty sure if you came up to her and asked 'who took the photo for your album cover', she'd name the artist, not say something along the lines of 'this is all my work'. 

She's not gonna blare the fact of the rooftops every day because... who on earth does that - you wanna know who made the beat/cover/whatever - google. Also she does give credit - I'm not a swiftie but I remember watching interviews with her, she credits people when opportunity arises - her collaborators are very well know...


Collaborators tho, are not the same as people who front money for production - that's an important distinction between artists and labels here - labels should and do make profit, sure - I disagree with the notion that they get to immutably make that profit in perpetuity regardless of... anything. That's like if a bank gave you a loan but then even after paying off your loan AND interest you had to keep paying more, forever - that would f*cking suck... and it's a travesty that artists are kinda in that position actually...
 

Edited May 31 by CautiousLurker

[AyeshaErotica 1,657]

5 minutes ago, BoomBig said:

That’s a reach.

Taylor has written the lyrics and melodies of many of her biggest songs entirely on her own — like Love Story, Our Song, All Too Well, Begin Again and This Love. That’s not “co-creating,” that’s full authorship.

She has made many albums, input varies album by album. Indeed, on for example Speak Now she is the sole writer, so here full songwriting credits go to her. On other albums she usually is a co-writer. Again, I think she deserves about 33% ownership of her works in general on average [but of course to varying degress for each album], more than under her old contract, but co-writing, co-producing = co-sharing, imo, and ownership should be divided/co-shared.

Do you really think that Taylor Swift who is collaborting in songwriting with often Max Martin, one of the Top 3 songwriters in the entire world, that Taylor Swift is the main input of the songwriting in these cases?

It is clear to me that Max Martin is the main input and that Taylor is the minor input for these cases and that Max Martin is turning the songwriting into "diamonds" , same for producing. Fans would like and love to believe that their favorite artists have major input in songwriting and producing, if they are co-credited. Usually and this is the truth, the famous songwriter and producer has the major input in co-producing, they turn songs into "diamonds", this is their job.  Some songwriters and producers are worldwide famous and known to make hits and they are hired for a reason.

I would also like to remark that at some point that Swift reached such a high level of fame, that whatever she would release, even without major input of others, it would become famous nevertheless. Nevertheless she often chooses to work with successful producers to maximize her fame. Yet, her debut fame and mid-fame was enabled by her record label. She is now famous, so famous, that she theoretically does not need "debut fame investments" anymore, so record label input becomes less important, yet the record label helped her to reach this position.

Instead of being thankful to her record label(s), Taylor thinks she could and would have achieved all of this on her own.

 

 

 

[HelloHangoverz 17,270]

31 minutes ago, Ladle Ghoulash said:

Can’t imagine music of that quality would cost that much to release 

Financially? No. Morally? Yes.

[AyeshaErotica 1,657]

27 minutes ago, RAMROD said:

Baby, what is this? Is this a troll thread? 

 

Can't you realize that when multiple people are involved in albums and a record label invested hundred thousand of dollars or millions in promotion over the years, that not the artist should have full rights of "their" work, because it is not entirely "their" work but rather co-shared?

Edited May 31 by AyeshaErotica

[River 114,523]

She signed a contract, her father owned a part of Big Machine to keep her art safe, the narrative that her masters were "sold" is false. Big Machine was sold, the record company, Scooter, through Itcha Holdings, legally acquired Big Machine.

[PartySick 157,300]

Not even reading the OP 'cause any level of "an artist shouldn't own their art" is nonsense

[Killa 17,339]

Having the copyright of the music belong tò her alone might be a bit tò uniliteral according tò your theory. I sort of understand. Not very Easy tò get this poi t though. The producers et. Already have the credits, She's the image First and foresmost. Even Britney should have a Say in how her songs are used and when, don't know if She has any Say. 

More than all this, owning the masters Is a sort of heredity. And music industry already have so much Power why would you want them tò have more. 

If an artist owns the rights tò the music they are less likely tò be come canon fodder tò the label that can Just milk they're old music  and dish the artist