TLDR - who cares anyway? Her music comprises "mildly hummable" songs, some a little better, but with MINDBOGGLING CGI videos - how about somebody gives some money and an award or 2 to the VFX and CGI people, stead of relentlessly talking about HER?? (which maybe, they have in fact got - wouldn't know )

You had me at "Taylor Swift sad and grossed out".

Kinda made me smile.

Taylor Swift Says She'll Re-Record Her Catalog After Scooter Braun Deal

Taylor Swift has revealed she intends to re-record her old songs to offset Scooter Braun's purchase of her former label, Big Machine.

In an interview for an upcoming CBS Sunday Morning episode, host Tracy Smith asks Swift if she has a "plan" to create new masters of her classic songs to regain control of the music on her early albums. "Yeah, absolutely," Swift replies.

Swift's recordings became a point of contention earlier this summer, when star manager Braun's Ithaca Holdings acquired Scott Borchetta's Big Machine Label Group in a deal reportedly worth $300 million. In a now-famous Tumblr post, Swift called the deal -- which gives Braun control over her first six albums.

https://www.billboard.com/articles/business/8527959/taylor-swift-re-record-old-songs-regain-control-scooter-braun

Good idea!!

I don't think that many people care about re-recorded songs. I used to see compilations with oldies artists sold for cheap in gas stations or on Pickwick Records. Pickwick didn't always have the original singer either, but a soundalike. Some like James Brown has re-recorded songs for later albums. Most people want the version they heard on the radio and companies are likely to license hit songs from the original label.

BlaqueKnight said:

You had me at "Taylor Swift sad and grossed out".

Kinda made me smile.

Still can't tell ya one song I can think of...

MickyDolenz said:

I don't think that many people care about re-recorded songs. I used to see compilations with oldies artists sold for cheap in gas stations or on Pickwick Records. Pickwick didn't always have the original singer either, but a soundalike. Some like James Brown has re-recorded songs for later albums. Most people want the version they heard on the radio and companies are likely to license hit songs from the original label.

The point is that if someone wants to license "Love Story" or "Our Song", they can deal directly with Taylor Swift. Her version will be just as good as the original - probably better, because she's a much better singer now. And licensees will undoubtedly get a better price than they can from this Braun guy. He's probably screwed.

My hat's off to Taylor Swift. She is awesome in every way.

In a press release for an upcoming CBS Sunday Morning episode, it is revealed that host Tracy Smith asks Swift if she had a "plan" to create new masters of her older songs in order to regain control after the Big Machine Label Group sale, to which the "Me!" singer responds, "Yeah, absolutely." (Billboard has reached out to Swift's rep for confirmation and further comment.)

RodeoSchro said:

The point is that if someone wants to license "Love Story" or "Our Song", they can deal directly with Taylor Swift. Her version will be just as good as the original - probably better, because she's a much better singer now. And licensees will undoubtedly get a better price than they can from this Braun guy. He's probably screwed.

My hat's off to Taylor Swift. She is awesome in every way.

Like all of the businesses licensing 1999 New Master, Wham!'s I'm Your Man 96, Roxanne 97 by Sting/Pras/Puff Daddy or the Commodores New Jack Swing verison of Brick House over the original release versions. Sting has also released several other re-recordings of Roxanne over the years, yet I only hear The Police's version on TV and the radio. I don't hear the 1986 version of Don't Stand So Close To Me either that The Police did for their Greatest Hits album. Tiffany recently put out a new version of I Think We're Alone Now.

RodeoSchro said:

nextedition said:

RodeoSchro said:

The point is that if someone wants to license "Love Story" or "Our Song", they can deal directly with Taylor Swift. Her version will be just as good as the original - probably better, because she's a much better singer now. And licensees will undoubtedly get a better price than they can from this Braun guy. He's probably screwed.

My hat's off to Taylor Swift. She is awesome in every way.

People want original versions. Doesnt matter if her voice got better, they want to hear the version the know.

Maybe, but there's one giant exception to that: KISS's "Rock and Roll All Nite".

The live version is the one that everyone is familiar with and loves but for some reason, you almost always hear the album version on radio. That includes FM radio and satellite radio. I have no idea why that is, especially considering the live version is from their biggest-selling/star-making album, and it is the only version with a guitar solo.

So there is precedent.

What I imagine Taylor Swift will do is record her version as close to original as possible. I don't know how much you have to change to get your own copyright but if it's something really small - like one note - she can record versions that are indistinguishable from the original.

Then she's going to go to iHeart, Clear Channel and SiriusXM and say, "You've been good to me, and I've been good to you. So here's what I'm going to propose: You play only my versions of all my songs, and I'll charge you half the royalty rate that Braun will charge. And, I'll record promos for you. And, I'll make in-station appearances. And, I'll record station-specific intros to my versions of the songs, thanking you individually for supporting the artist that your fans love. And, I'll do a whole lot of other artist-specific things for you that Braun cannot do, like exclusive interviews, early previews of new songs, and meet-and-greets for your listeners. In act, give me an artist channel like Springsteen has on SiriusXM and play only my songs, and I'll give you content that no one else can get anywere else. Deal?"

I predict she can and will do these things; in fact, I bet the wheels are in motion on some of them already.

Taylor Swift is awesome.

READ THE CONTRACT TAYLOR BEFORE YOU SIGN! READ THE CONTRACT THEN FIRE YOUR LAWYER!

Boo hoo Taylor! Always playing the victim.... smh

MotownSubdivision said:

Taylor Swift and "awesome" don't belong in the same sentence.

Taylor Swift is incredibly awesome. Is that better?

I'm not a follower or fan of Taylor Swift, she's much too young for my generation, but I've always liked her and don't know why it seems that many don't......can someone please tell me why that is? Why do so many people seem to dislike her so much, what did she ever do to cause them to feel that way about her? I guess it bugs me, because I don't like when others seem to gang up on one person, hating them for whatever reason, that just doesn't sit right with me. Anyway, why do some people dislike this young woman so much?

looby said:

I'm not a follower or fan of Taylor Swift, she's much too young for my generation, but I've always liked her and don't know why it seems that many don't......can someone please tell me why that is? Why do so many people seem to dislike her so much, what did she ever do to cause them to feel that way about her? I guess it bugs me, because I don't like when others seem to gang up on one person, hating them for whatever reason, that just doesn't sit right with me. Anyway, why do some people dislike this young woman so much?

here is why.... IMO

• she seems fakes and always plays the victim (she got caught in her lies with Kanye)
• For someone who is "wholesome" she goes through men like i changed socks (not a good look)
• Not owning her masters is a business move. Nothing personal, again playing the victim (people laughed at Prince about this)
• Saw her on tv lipsynching away (real artists don't do that..IMO)

Again, I don't "hate" for anyone liking her music...it's innocent for a young teenager. But as an adult, this schtick has been worn out for many adults can see right through it... again IMO.

looby said:

I'm not a follower or fan of Taylor Swift, she's much too young for my generation, but I've always liked her and don't know why it seems that many don't......can someone please tell me why that is? Why do so many people seem to dislike her so much, what did she ever do to cause them to feel that way about her? I guess it bugs me, because I don't like when others seem to gang up on one person, hating them for whatever reason, that just doesn't sit right with me. Anyway, why do some people dislike this young woman so much?

Jealousy. She had the balls to stand up to Kanye West, and all the West fans went apeshit.

Taylor Swift is the most generous, fan-friendly, down-to-earth music superstar since Bruce Springsteen.

Okay, thank you macaylasdad and RodeoSchro for your answers.

RodeoSchro said:

RodeoSchro said:

She was great on Good Morning America today & it looks like she is going to open the VMA's on Monday.

MotownSubdivision said:

RodeoSchro said:

Jealousy. She had the balls to stand up to Kanye West, and all the West fans went apeshit.

Taylor Swift is the most generous, fan-friendly, down-to-earth music superstar since Bruce Springsteen.

You got it the wrong the way. Also, jealousy? Really? You're gonna use a cop out like that? [Edited 8/22/19 15:43pm]

Taylor is a fraud... Kim Kardashian exposed that of her....she lied about Kanye.

looby said:

I'm not a follower or fan of Taylor Swift, she's much too young for my generation, but I've always liked her and don't know why it seems that many don't......can someone please tell me why that is? Why do so many people seem to dislike her so much, what did she ever do to cause them to feel that way about her? I guess it bugs me, because I don't like when others seem to gang up on one person, hating them for whatever reason, that just doesn't sit right with me. Anyway, why do some people dislike this young woman so much?

Young white attractive female who happens to be talented and successful. They've always been a bugbear on the Org.

macaylasdad said:

Taylor is a fraud... Kim Kardashian exposed that of her....she lied about Kanye.

Kanye is a wacko, I'm surprised KK has been married to him for this long.

PennyPurple said:

Turns out it won't be very hard for her to do this, and she'll probably put Braun out of business with respect to Taylor Swift songs. She may control which version is licensed - hers or Braun's - and could instigate a bidding war for rights, resulting in forcing Braun to keep lowering his price if he wants his version licensed.

Keep in mind that if that happens, Swift is the clear winner. Any songs that Braun wins the low bid to license means he's getting far less than he normally would, while any re-recorded songs licensed from Swift is just found money for her.

Braun's best move is to try to license as much as he possibly can in the next year, before Swift can offer her re-recorded stuff.

https://www.chron.com/ent...374580.php


Experts said most standard music contracts have a clause disallowing an artist from re-recording their own songs for a set period of time. According to Swift, that period will end next fall for her first five albums.

“My contract says that starting November 2020, so next year, I can record albums one through five all over again. I’m very excited about it,” Swift said Thursday on “Good Morning America.” “I just think that artists deserve to own their work. I just feel very passionately about that.” <snip>

There are two different copyrights in play here: that of the song composition (the musical arrangement and lyrics), and that of the recording itself. And “the copyright for the song is compensated completely separately from the compensation for the song recording,” said David Israelite, president of the National Music Publishers Association. And “because Taylor writes her own songs, she can do this without much trouble. If there was someone else writing her songs, you’d have to go through a different process.” <snip>

On one hand, Swift’s team should be able to exert some control over her original songs. Remember the Dylan example: A licensee would need to license the song from him (for the song) and the Hendrix estate (for the actual recording). In that scenario, Swift could effectively control which version of the song is licensed, the old or the new.

On the other hand, it could potentially devalue each song by creating inverse bidding wars. If, for example, Toyota wanted to use “Shake It Off” in a commercial and there are two versions of the song, the company might attempt to license both, choosing the cheaper version. “If there are two different versions, a (movie studio) could actually negotiate with both versions over which price they want to pay,” Israelite said. “Whichever one they agree to, that’s the version they’ll use, and that’s the only one that makes any money.”

RodeoSchro said:

Turns out it won't be very hard for her to do this, and she'll probably put Braun out of business with respect to Taylor Swift songs. She may control which version is licensed - hers or Braun's - and could instigate a bidding war for rights, resulting in forcing Braun to keep lowering his price if he wants his version licensed.

Keep in mind that if that happens, Swift is the clear winner. Any songs that Braun wins the low bid to license means he's getting far less than he normally would, while any re-recorded songs licensed from Swift is just found money for her.

Braun's best move is to try to license as much as he possibly can in the next year, before Swift can offer her re-recorded stuff.

https://www.chron.com/ent...374580.php


Experts said most standard music contracts have a clause disallowing an artist from re-recording their own songs for a set period of time. According to Swift, that period will end next fall for her first five albums.

“My contract says that starting November 2020, so next year, I can record albums one through five all over again. I’m very excited about it,” Swift said Thursday on “Good Morning America.” “I just think that artists deserve to own their work. I just feel very passionately about that.” <snip>

There are two different copyrights in play here: that of the song composition (the musical arrangement and lyrics), and that of the recording itself. And “the copyright for the song is compensated completely separately from the compensation for the song recording,” said David Israelite, president of the National Music Publishers Association. And “because Taylor writes her own songs, she can do this without much trouble. If there was someone else writing her songs, you’d have to go through a different process.” <snip>

On one hand, Swift’s team should be able to exert some control over her original songs. Remember the Dylan example: A licensee would need to license the song from him (for the song) and the Hendrix estate (for the actual recording). In that scenario, Swift could effectively control which version of the song is licensed, the old or the new.

On the other hand, it could potentially devalue each song by creating inverse bidding wars. If, for example, Toyota wanted to use “Shake It Off” in a commercial and there are two versions of the song, the company might attempt to license both, choosing the cheaper version. “If there are two different versions, a (movie studio) could actually negotiate with both versions over which price they want to pay,” Israelite said. “Whichever one they agree to, that’s the version they’ll use, and that’s the only one that makes any money.”

all true... but not every fan is going to buy re-recorded music... It's never the same. Also, how long do you think it's going to take to record 5 albums? 3 to 5 years?

[Edited 8/25/19 7:56am]

Nothing against Taylor Swift for her success or Beyonce, etc. Their music just doesn't grip my soul.

macaylasdad said:

RodeoSchro said:

Turns out it won't be very hard for her to do this, and she'll probably put Braun out of business with respect to Taylor Swift songs. She may control which version is licensed - hers or Braun's - and could instigate a bidding war for rights, resulting in forcing Braun to keep lowering his price if he wants his version licensed.

Keep in mind that if that happens, Swift is the clear winner. Any songs that Braun wins the low bid to license means he's getting far less than he normally would, while any re-recorded songs licensed from Swift is just found money for her.

Braun's best move is to try to license as much as he possibly can in the next year, before Swift can offer her re-recorded stuff.

https://www.chron.com/ent...374580.php


Experts said most standard music contracts have a clause disallowing an artist from re-recording their own songs for a set period of time. According to Swift, that period will end next fall for her first five albums.

“My contract says that starting November 2020, so next year, I can record albums one through five all over again. I’m very excited about it,” Swift said Thursday on “Good Morning America.” “I just think that artists deserve to own their work. I just feel very passionately about that.” <snip>

There are two different copyrights in play here: that of the song composition (the musical arrangement and lyrics), and that of the recording itself. And “the copyright for the song is compensated completely separately from the compensation for the song recording,” said David Israelite, president of the National Music Publishers Association. And “because Taylor writes her own songs, she can do this without much trouble. If there was someone else writing her songs, you’d have to go through a different process.” <snip>

On one hand, Swift’s team should be able to exert some control over her original songs. Remember the Dylan example: A licensee would need to license the song from him (for the song) and the Hendrix estate (for the actual recording). In that scenario, Swift could effectively control which version of the song is licensed, the old or the new.

On the other hand, it could potentially devalue each song by creating inverse bidding wars. If, for example, Toyota wanted to use “Shake It Off” in a commercial and there are two versions of the song, the company might attempt to license both, choosing the cheaper version. “If there are two different versions, a (movie studio) could actually negotiate with both versions over which price they want to pay,” Israelite said. “Whichever one they agree to, that’s the version they’ll use, and that’s the only one that makes any money.”

all true... but not every fan is going to buy re-recorded music... It's never the same. Also, how long do you think it's going to take to record 5 albums? 3 to 5 years?

[Edited 8/25/19 7:56am]

She can knock this out in a couple months of her time; maybe 6 months of the bands' time. This isn't like Prince, who planned to re-record and play every single instrument on every song he'd ever written.

I'm not familiar with Swift's band but I'll assume she's had the same core musicians for her career. They can lay down all the tracks they've layed down many times before - that will be easy, and Swift doesn't need to be there. All she has to do is sing. I think the only thing that will drag that out is how much singing her voice can accomplish each day.

And re-recording them isn't about selling them to fans. It's about licensing. Many of her songs are holding up very well, and have years of licensing life left in them. She wants to control that process and be paid for it. So that's why she's re-recording her catalogue.

She'll either make money; cause Braun to take a giant bath on his investment; or probably both. There's no downside for her. The worst thing that happens is that she stays in the same position she's in now, after spending a very, very small portion of her money on this.

dumb question....how can there be 2 sets of masters?