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

[Diamond Blood 4,122]

41 minutes ago, Bronco said:

Damn. Thatcher & Reagan's love child is spitting nonsense. 

Workers should own the product of their labour. It's really that simple. 
Anyone with money could have invested in Taylor Swift.

And if it weren't for record labels making it so hard for individuals to forge their own path without multi-million pound investment to fund their excessive unearned lifestyles - the cost of producing music would be significantly cheaper for everyone, and the cost of buying that art at a level which allows the artist to live would equally be cheaper. 

Only Taylor Swift & her collaborators could create the music responsible for the success. Without that work, no label/manager etc would have produced **** no matter much money they had. 

This counts as history revision **** it

Welcome back 1917 revolution 

[Bronco 9,767]

5 minutes ago, Diamond Blood said:

This counts as history revision **** it

Welcome back 1917 revolution 

[Guillaume Hamon 6,378]

Agree with people saying the ones who made the art should own it but that's why artists should better be independent right away. Swift started at 16 I believe so she couldn't know better obviously ( and probably just listened to her parents ) but labels will always see you as an investment. Especially the big ones. 

They often lose money with most of their artists so when 1 pops they demand a big share of the benefits which will include masters benefits usually... And can go as far as fully scamming the artists in term of getting a lot of the royalties while letting the singer pay for a lot of the necessary spending of a career with what's left to them/ the advances they got. Courtney Love explained it well in a public letter back in the days.

That's the nature of the beast sadly so I wish audiences will turn to independent artists more to switch the rules a bit. That being said, we're all here for our love of an artist who popped after being signed to a big label who did give her the help a big label gives so... I guess we all play ( or played ) the big labels game to the art/ artists detriment. 

Edited May 31 by Guillaume Hamon

[LadyxGaGa 1,722]

at the end of the day the face image and name are the artist and if it’s their like hood that is being the vessels for the collaborators now if taylor in this case is unfairly paying her producers, directors and photographers that’s a whole another story but a board should not own the rights to art 

[AyeshaErotica 1,657]

43 minutes ago, Guillaume Hamon said:

They often lose money with most of their artists so when 1 pops they demand a big share of the benefits which will include masters benefits usually... And can go as far as fully scamming the artists in term of getting a lot of the royalties while letting the singer pay for a lot of the necessary spending of a career with what's left to them/ the advances they got. Courtney Love explained it well in a public letter back in the days.

I agree. There's a kind of "cross-subsidization": we don't notice most active or formerly active artists because most of them didn't achieve great commercial success, and those who did usually subsidize previous and future unsuccessful artists with their successes. They are all part of an ecosystem together. The system is always portrayed as "unfair to the artist," but the record companies then spend the money on recruiting successors, food, and hotel costs for staff, it depends. The record company also functions as an organizer: It connects the artist with producers, provides the space, organizes meetings, and schedules. How would then young unknown Taylor ever got in contact with a famous producer if there were no record label to connect them? The famous producers would rather not work with someone, who has not a powerful labels behind them, that ensures that their work has a realistic chance to become successful. They calculate the chances in advance. The artists often essentially just sing pre-delivered material, sometimes co-write them, and then we never know exactly the compositions because:

"I've seen this alot in music where sometimes the producer of a song will give him/herself a songwriting credit on a song that he/she had nothing to do with. The reason why they do this is because a songwriting credit means more royalities and so they'll get more money that way. Same thing can happen with the artist as well when an outside songwriter will come in and write a song for them and then the artist will give themselves a co-writing credit to get more royalties for themselves." (from another non-Gaga forum that it seems according to GagaDaily rules cannot be advertised, so it won't cite it)

So as long as there are financial benefits to being credited as a songwriter, we don't know how much of real input the artist actually has and in addition to that there is still producing and record label veto-ing decisions, which is imo even more important. The change from dance-pop music in 2008-2012 to EDM after/around 2013 can only be explained by primary influence of record labels and not by the artists themselves. If artists were really in power and controlled and made their work, why would the majority of them suddenly turn to the same EDM tune after 2013? Why did the artists not pursue their old styles? Because not the artists decide, but some very big global record labels. And artists are often complicite because they agree to go for mainstream-friendly songs because they want to be famous=successful=earn more money.

Now that Taylor inspired new upcoming artists to sign these full-control-contracts, there is less reason for the record labels to make big investments into them but rather limited ones and focus on the ones who give record labels greater control.  Taylor benefitted from the system from the start and it has helped her and she got a pre-investment in exchange for not claiming full rights, so that was their deal. And Taylor has become like a brand, like a company and the real reason why she obtained full rights was, is to maximize her money and the record company was in a worse position after Taylor re-recorded her songs.

There are by the way, also artists who sell their catalogue and go the opposite way as Taylor. They sell it to make a lot of money in the short term. It is debatable whether "their" work (a work that was produced in teamwork)  is "art" or a "commodity".

 

Edited May 31 by AyeshaErotica

[PartySick 157,298]

3 hours ago, nATAH said:

king, you are looking so good in your profile picture 

Gays stop being horny challenge 

[Guillaume Hamon 6,378]

34 minutes ago, AyeshaErotica said:

I agree. There's a kind of "cross-subsidization": we don't notice most active or formerly active artists because most of them didn't achieve great commercial success, and those who did usually subsidize previous and future unsuccessful artists with their successes. They are all part of an ecosystem together. The system is always portrayed as "unfair to the artist," but the record companies then spend the money on recruiting successors, food, and hotel costs for staff, it depends. The record company also functions as an organizer: It connects the artist with producers, provides the space, organizes meetings, and schedules. How would then young unknown Taylor ever got in contact with a famous producer if there were no record label to connect them? The famous producers would rather not work with someone, who has not a powerful labels behind them, that ensures that their work has a realistic chance to become successful. They calculate the chances in advance. The artists often essentially just sing pre-delivered material, sometimes co-write them, and then we never know exactly the compositions because:

"I've seen this alot in music where sometimes the producer of a song will give him/herself a songwriting credit on a song that he/she had nothing to do with. The reason why they do this is because a songwriting credit means more royalities and so they'll get more money that way. Same thing can happen with the artist as well when an outside songwriter will come in and write a song for them and then the artist will give themselves a co-writing credit to get more royalties for themselves." (from another non-Gaga forum that it seems according to GagaDaily rules cannot be advertised, so it won't cite it)

So as long as there are financial benefits to being credited as a songwriter, we don't know how much of real input the artist actually has and in addition to that there is still producing and record label veto-ing decisions, which is imo even more important. The change from dance-pop music in 2008-2012 to EDM after/around 2013 can only be explained by primary influence of record labels and not by the artists themselves. If artists were really in power and controlled and made their work, why would the majority of them suddenly turn to the same EDM tune after 2013? Why did the artists not pursue their old styles? Because not the artists decide, but some very big global record labels. And artists are often complicite because they agree to go for mainstream-friendly songs because they want to be famous=successful=earn more money.

Now that Taylor inspired new upcoming artists to sign these full-control-contracts, there is less reason for the record labels to make big investments into them but rather limited ones and focus on the ones who give record labels greater control.  Taylor benefitted from the system from the start and it has helped her and she got a pre-investment in exchange for not claiming full rights, so that was their deal. And Taylor has become like a brand, like a company and the real reason why she obtained full rights was, is to maximize her money and the record company was in a worse position after Taylor re-recorded her songs.

There are by the way, also artists who sell their catalogue and go the opposite way as Taylor. They sell it to make a lot of money in the short term. It is debatable whether "their" work (a work that was produced in teamwork)  is "art" or a "commodity".

 

Indeed, the scamming level from Labels highly depend of the label you're in, artists can be cynical as well, labels can be boosters but the price to pay is high so are folks really aware enough to do these choices?...

A lot of questions and a few exceptions cause some artists end up better through label circuits but these circuits are generally negative in themselves.

[mightyriverz 2,570]

capitalism is rotting some people's brains so HARRRRRRD

[nATAH 47,458]

23 minutes ago, PartySick said:

Gays stop being horny challenge 

he's my friend

[PartySick 157,298]

Just now, nATAH said:

he's my friend

Horny with friends?!  

[nATAH 47,458]

9 minutes ago, PartySick said:

Horny with friends?!  

[Wolf Boy 3,206]

What a load of garbage lol

[Diamond Blood 4,122]

1 hour ago, PartySick said:

Horny with friends?!  

With benefits 

[AyeshaErotica 1,657]

2 hours ago, LadyxGaGa said:

at the end of the day the face image and name are the artist

That's how they are presented to the public indeed, under the face and the name of the artist.

Their faces and names are chosen for marketing reasons precisely because of their good-looking face, their body, their sexiness, and if they can also sing and dance, they're a perfect choice. If people have the choice between a 25-year-old, young, pretty woman and a 53-year-old male producer who is so mediocre in appearance and no longer sexy and his talent is producing and not singing, they'd rather spend their money on concerts for the young person. Besides, producers might not necessarily want to tour because they wouldn't be able to produce at the same time. It's much more practical to outsource the singing to a singer, the producing to a producer, the songwriting to a songwriter, and advertising campaigns to other professionals. For the sake of simplicity, all of this is reduced to the name of one artist and presented under that name to the public, and the many other names are relegated to the fine print in the credits. But actually, the real reason the singer was hired was her/his looks, singing talent, and perhaps dancing. The record label prepares and prefabricates everything else, and the singer only has to deliver the vocals, (s)he can additionally participate in co-songwriting. For me, that's not enough to have full rights.

I'd rather compare it to a movie.

In a movie, there are movie directors, actors, and people who write the script. Essentially, the actors just read the script and perform their roles, lending their bodies to the scenes, and having to look good. Just like the singers. In a film, actors share in the profits, but they don't have full rights to the film. The studio/film label owns this. Likewise, I don't think artists should have full rights to their albums. Just like in movie studios, actors are just actors, and artists are just artists in the recording studio; one of many involved. Just because you see the actors or singers the most doesn't mean they should have the most credits and rights, because they simply fulfill a role to visualize the music and film as a person on behalf of the record label or film studio. If you want to grant the artist full rights, by the same logics you would have to grant actors full rights. Where is the difference? Both fulfill just roles they were assigned to.

 

 

[MOT 2,960]

The OP seems to have been written from the point of view that Taylor has taken something that doesn't belong to her, but she hasn't.

She hasn't taken anything, she hasn't demanded anything (as far as I know). She has bought something. What's the problem ?