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

[StrawberryBlond 14,718]

I agree that the concept of completely owning your work when said work required an entire team behind it is a bit overblown. Honestly, it wasn't until roughly 2017 that I even heard the phrase "owning your masters" Honestly, I heard it mentioned in the Remy Ma song, Shether and I thought it was a euphemism for being the best!  But then I found it what it was and full supported it. But then the whole Taylor fiasco started and I thought: "She doesn't have a leg to stand on here. She's already made money off these songs and everyone knows she wrote them so why does she need to OWN them?" I thought her re-releases were a cash grab and still do. To find out she could so easily have bought them back only cements that. Don't know what this means for the upcoming two re-releases but the idea seems redundant now. She was only able to be sad about the sale of her masters, have the public care about it, make these re-releases and make serious money off them because she is so successful thanks to her supposedly big bad label. The irony is totally lost on her.

Taylor has always believed that she is the architect of every bit of her success. When she did that Billboard Woman of the Year speech, she said how so many people assume that when a woman becomes successful: "It must have been a savvy record label...it wasn't." Clearly, that was self-referential and was one of her most pompous moments. Every artist on a major label has them to thank for where they are. Plenty of people much more talented than Taylor never make it because they don't get signed and don't have a team around them. To act like your songs are 100% yours that no one's else's fingerprints were ever on is ridiculous. 

12 minutes ago, AyeshaErotica said:

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.

Very good point. When a movie wins Best Picture at the Oscars, the entire cast and major crew get on stage. Same for the Grammys for AOTY. It's acknowledged this is a group effort. Taylor always had other people go on stage with her when she won her 4 AOTY awards and they get trophies because it isn't all her. 

[AyeshaErotica 1,657]

5 minutes ago, MOT said:

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 ?

There is no problem with the legal transfer of full rights. That's fine.

What is debatable is that Taylor spreads and noramlizes the view = artists should naturally own full rights of "their" work (work that is created by the record label with the involvement of producers and the artist). To me, it is not different than to movies where actors do not have full rights either. Both actors and singers just visualize persons necessary for making music or a film to make it sell to the audience, but the script and film/music effect/scenes, organizing, etc. is  made by the film studios and record labels.

[The Walrus 97]

3 minutes ago, StrawberryBlond said:

"She doesn't have a leg to stand on here. She's already made money off these songs and everyone knows she wrote them so why does she need to OWN them?" I thought her re-releases were a cash grab and still do.

I find it important to own your own work, not fully but to the extent that she made them. That should be the basics. The record company is earning money of their work, the should only receive money for the money they make the artist, not owning the music.

But the re-releases were cash grabs. She had the chance to buy them for an even lower amount before, but she waited and earned achievement after achievement and lots of money with little to no input other than recording songs. 

[MadArchitect 866]

7 hours ago, CautiousLurker said:

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

In a nightmare? that's exactly whats happening now lol industry titans like Taylor use their wealth to bypass it and buy ownership, while small artist are never granted the option to have any ownership... if i understand correctly what OP is sayings is that there should be regulations for big marketed artist and that smaller and more independent niche artists should be granted the option if they get to sign a deal

[AyeshaErotica 1,657]

56 minutes ago, StrawberryBlond said:

 I thought her re-releases were a cash grab and still do. To find out she could so easily have bought them back only cements that.

Of course, they are cash grabs!

Taylor Swift diminished and devalued the original songs by releasing Taylor versions and "forcing her fans"  to only listen to Taylor versions (and most real fans obey colonel Taylor). This diminished the value of the original recordings and lowered the price, allowing Taylor to buy them cheaper. The record label was in a bad negotiating position because the Taylor versions diminished the value and were in competition. They were original, but not exclusive and most favoured anymore. 

If Taylor had never released her versions, she would have had to pay much, much more money to buy them. This is, by the way, a Donald Trump strategy that Taylor Swift used. Donald Trump wanted to buy Mar-a-Lago at one point, but he thought the price was too high, as were Taylor's original songs. Then Trump decided to buy the land in front of Mar-a-Lago and threatened to build a high-rise that would block the ocean view from Mar-a-Lago. Interested buyers shied away from purchasing Mar-A-Lago, fearing Trump would make good on his threat. For years, no one bought Mar-a-Lago, and the price plummeted and devalued. When Mar-a-Lago became cheaper, Trump finally bought it. Taylor Swift ultimately used this Donald Trump strategy herself: she devalued the object of interest in order to buy it herself. Taylor Swift is a pure capitalist just as Donald Trump is just like her record labels were.

Morally questionable but perfectly legal in America.

Edited Sunday at 12:11 AM by AyeshaErotica

[AyeshaErotica 1,657]

18 minutes ago, MadArchitect said:

if i understand correctly what OP is sayings is that there should be regulations for big marketed artist and that smaller and more independent niche artists should be granted the option if they get to sign a deal

33% ownership of the full music rights for the big mainstream artist because he/she received promotion and pre-investment and others are involved in the work, too,

33% ownership for the record label,

and a further 34% ownership for other persons involved, if they happen to work for the record label, then 67% in total for it [record label has to distribute the 34% among them].

A small artist who does not get promotion, who makes the work really by him/herself majority-wise and often the small artists really do the work on their own or with two to five friends in a group, is creator of his/her work and deserves full rights (or the artists as a band). The mainstream artists often just confirm pre-made songs, borrow vocals and approve album styles that the record labels "recommend" to them.

Edited Saturday at 11:42 PM by AyeshaErotica

[AyeshaErotica 1,657]

56 minutes ago, StrawberryBlond said:

 She was only able to be sad about the sale of her masters, have the public care about it, make these re-releases and make serious money off them because she is so successful thanks to her supposedly big bad label. The irony is totally lost on her.

 

Yeah, her "big bad label" allowed her to milk her fans twice; once through royalties of the originals and a second time through her version's "that every true and loyal fan had to buy and stream". And now the Taylor Versions have stopped becoming the most favoured version because it does not belong anymore "to the cruel record label that enslaved Taylor Swift and destroyed her dreams" but is now in the hands of lovely, sweet, innocent, charity woman Taylor.

You know, I am curious how Taylor fans will re-act now. I must confess I am not a big Taylor fan, casually know her songs and have not compared original and Taylor Versions (TV), from what I know there are only minor differences but many fans tricked themselves into believing that the TVs are superior and better because Taylor made them believe this way, even though she did not phrase it that way. I wonder how many fans will now convert back to the original songs and suddenly stop liking the most the TVs.

I must admit Taylor is a business genius. (although her team probably advised her and told her to act this way)

Edited Sunday at 12:12 AM by AyeshaErotica

[AyeshaErotica 1,657]

That being said, I have nothing against Taylor. I acknowledge she currently is the biggest popstar of the world and that she puts mega-effort in her shows and fans can be lucky to get pop extravaganza shows (if they are close in the stadium stands next to her) and that they are long. She is pop pinnacle right now and that's alright, out of all the pop stars she qualifies for it well as others already had their time in the prime light like Gaga, Katy, Rihanna, Britney already had, so she can have her turn now. She has a big catalogue and qualifies for it. Even a very represantative and typical person of American pop culture all in all, considering the emphasis on stadiums and mixing sports with pop culture. I just think she is ungrateful to her record label without which she wouldn't be pop pinnacle. They have believed and invested into her, they gave her a chance. She somehow takes all of this for granted.

Spoiler

@StrawberryBlond I actually wrote "pop pinneaple" first and thought...wait, a pinneaple is a fruit and cannot be a peak.  But don't we say it like that... So I looked it up in the dictionnary and...it's pinnacle. Pop pinnacle.

 

Edited Sunday at 12:43 AM by AyeshaErotica