In yoiu all Opinions, Will the Music Industry Black Ball Taylor Swift now that she is getting her Masters back liked they did Prince?

Astasheiks said:

In yoiu all Opinions, Will the Music Industry Black Ball Taylor Swift now that she is getting her Masters back liked they did Prince?

Is she getting them back? I only seen she has been re-recording her albums from scratch including her outtakes with great results and reviews.

Oh, Thanks for the info. Maybe I heard wrong that she won a Settlement to get them back.

Anyone else know? Or I guess I can Google it and find out.

We'll see with the upcoming grammys.

Taylor is on her way to being better than Stevie Wonder when she wins AOTY at the upcoming awards, and since she always wins there's no doubt.

But IF she looses...

CynicKill said:

Astasheiks said:

Oh, Thanks for the info. Maybe I heard wrong that she won a Settlement to get them back.

Anyone else know? Or I guess I can Google it and find out.

she is re recording the music she did this way there is no value to the catalog/masters that were sold that she wasn't allowed to bid on. So far she has proven to be the smarter one on this, the purchase of her old masters was dumb by the guy who did it, her re-recordings are superior and so close to the originals she gave the best of both worlds to her fans.

Astasheiks said:

In yoiu all Opinions, Will the Music Industry Black Ball Taylor Swift now that she is getting her Masters back liked they did Prince?

Nothing in this post is true.

TrivialPursuit said:

Astasheiks said:

In yoiu all Opinions, Will the Music Industry Black Ball Taylor Swift now that she is getting her Masters back liked they did Prince?

Nothing in this post is true.

That being said they still might be mad at her chess move, to the point that I hear they want to put stipulations on artists re-recording their material.

Free2BMe said:

CynicKill said:

We'll see with the upcoming grammys.

Taylor is on her way to being better than Stevie Wonder when she wins AOTY at the upcoming awards, and since she always wins there's no doubt.

But IF she looses...

Being better than Stevie Wonder? 🤔🤔

You know what I mean.

CynicKill said:

TrivialPursuit said:

Nothing in this post is true.

That being said they still might be mad at her chess move, to the point that I hear they want to put stipulations on artists re-recording their material.

They. Who are they? And why do they matter? Who are these people that she's allgedly pissing off?

She's selling records. She's making deals with Target and other vendors to rack her music. And fans are buying the shit out of it. She has a right to do whatever she wants. People can be mad at her for that, but she doesn't care. She has enough money to live on the rest of her life if she wants. And the moulah she's making from the re-records are an even bigger lion's share.

Prince was independent for twenty years, and sold records. He made the money. Hell, even a shit album like NewPower Soul bought him a house if Spain of all places. He was never black balled from selling records. (Look at the Musicology stunt that he got away with.)

There is no they in people recording their own music. The law and rules are clearly defined. If an artist is under a contract, then what they record and release is owned by the record company. Prince talked about that clearly, as did other artists. If an artist is not under a contract and re-records one of their songs, they own the new master. Why? Because there is no larger entity that they're tied to and must reliquish ownership to - other than themselves. They are their own godhead, as it were, not Warner, or anyone else. They are their own record company in that way. That's the whole of the stipulation.

If an artist is no longer under a contract, then any stipulations or whatever aren't in effect anymore. They can't write a contract that says, "you can't ever record this music again for yourself," because that dictates the artist's life and freedom as an artist. That leaves them under a binding contract for live, and that is slavery. We done away with that (mostly) years ago. Clearly, Swift's (and Prince's) contracts had expired in full, so they were truly free agents to do what they wanted.

Prince started to own his music in 1993, when NPG Records was formed. He owned everything from there on out, although it was still part of his requirements for records to WB. That's why Paisley Park was dissolved. That company agreed to give up ownership of "Raspberry Beret" or "Forever In My Life," etc. Everything. But NPG was his own stuff. That's why NPG Records was never dissolved after his WB and publishing contracts had expired. NPG was wholly independent of WB in those ways.

It's also why there one is business handling 1993 onward, and another business handling everything before that.

CynicKill said:

TrivialPursuit said:

Nothing in this post is true.

That being said they still might be mad at her chess move, to the point that I hear they want to put stipulations on artists re-recording their material.

they will also do something like that once someone finds a loop hole, but it's always existed and others have gotten around it, way back in the mid 90s when the band Styx regrouped their label wanted to put out a greatest hits package, they wanted their first hit from 1972 lady that was on another label that old label wouldn't give it up, but their contract stated it could be re-recorded and used elsewhere so they did a new version which sounded light years better, and the best of sold a million or so copies. It would have to be written specifically into contracts they can't do certain things or how different it has to be etc...but it won't work, they did the same thing with the selling an album in a ticket bundle like prince did, they changed it and it was still done multiple times after.

lastdecember said:

CynicKill said:

That being said they still might be mad at her chess move, to the point that I hear they want to put stipulations on artists re-recording their material.

they will also do something like that once someone finds a loop hole, but it's always existed and others have gotten around it, way back in the mid 90s when the band Styx regrouped their label wanted to put out a greatest hits package, they wanted their first hit from 1972 lady that was on another label that old label wouldn't give it up, but their contract stated it could be re-recorded and used elsewhere so they did a new version which sounded light years better, and the best of sold a million or so copies. It would have to be written specifically into contracts they can't do certain things or how different it has to be etc...but it won't work, they did the same thing with the selling an album in a ticket bundle like prince did, they changed it and it was still done multiple times after.

ELO, Journey, Robbie Dupree, Ace, and others have done the same thing. Re-recorded their music. When I play the Yacht Rock station on Amazon, their newer verisons come up all the time (eg: Dupree's "Steal Away" and Ace's "How Long").

Journey's re-recordings sound great. Yes, it's not Steve Perry, and those versions will always be classic. But for any act that wants to regain some control, they have ever human right to do so. People have a right to maintain a living, despite what any contract says. There are decent contracts, then there are those that take advantage of folks.

It's partly why George Michael fought for his freedom. It wasn't about masters or ownership (and I wonder if he owned his music or not ultimately). His was about the contract he signed at a very young age which kept him in virtual slavery. He said he'd be making records until he was 80 under that contract. (I had recently found an interview where he talked about that.)

I think about Berry Gordy writing contracts that purposely put the artist in debt to the record company. (I think it was Michael Jackson who wrote about this in Moonwalker.) The Jackson 5 could have a major hit album, sell millions, but because of the money the record label put toward studio time, promotion, etc., the artist came out with a balance due rather than royalty payments. So how do they pay that off? Make another album. But the cycle continues. It's perpetual servitude. It's why there were so many Motown albums. Not because the artists were prolific. The business of records was.

The contract doesn't state what an artist can do after. It's just the law of the land, not a stipulation in a contract. The record label can always say, "they re-recorded a classic hit, but why? We have the original, and here it is for just $14.99." So there are ways to twist it for either side. And although I'm no Swifty fan, I do root for her in all this.

MotownSubdivision said:

I'm not a Swift fan, I think she's overrated musically but if she does get blackballed by the industry (which I doubt) then why should she care? She's plenty rich and basically owns all her own music and 100% of the profits that come from doing so if I understand this correctly. She's above the record industry in that she can punch her own card and sign her own checks since she's a made name and wholly independent now. Good on her for seeing this through. I'm sure having to re-record your own discography was a tedious process but it certainly seems to be paying off.

At this point she really doesnt need the industry as it is now. Its far different then when she broke in which was 15 years ago, that industry was still on a roll with selling products, cds, even full digital content. The industry now has really been nothing more than a singles selling non artist driven industry for the most part. She doesnt fit that mold because she releases albums now, that are about the album not a few singles and some filler, she has very little airplay at all on whatever radio is still out there. She clearly has the control of every single aspect of what she is putting out there, she does a lot of it through her own site, she had some singles on her last studio album where she was doing all new versions and selling them exclusively there, so she has the smarts and clearly has the loyal fan base. People often compare the whole redoing her catalog to what Prince wanted to do. There is no way Prince could have redone his catalog, one reason it made no sense to do it because the time span between the actual product came out and his issues with the label, also PRINCE didnt have the sales that swift has or the loyal base, Prince was out of his prime, he had his huge sales and he was "out of fashion" to try to do something like this, the name change sealed that fate, and when he did the 1999 track and the old one outsold it and was getting more play the writing was on the wall there was no way he could re create those records that people loved, he was going to mess this up. So for swift there is no blackballing her, her base loves her and will support all these re dos because she has not gone off the deep end, she played it straight down the line and tweaked some detials in songs and now tops charts with re dos and has a hit song with a song that was never. a hit, Prince never could have done this.

I've heard some re-recordings like SHeila E. trying to re-do Glamorus Life and Ready For The World redoing "Oh Sheila" with less than stellar results. We see it all over streaming. If you dont have the same equipment as the original and mastering techniques it will not sound right, especially being 35 years removed from the technology.

Luckily for Swift, she still has all of that, plus the musicians to re-create her works the way they did.

paisleypark4 said:

I've heard some re-recordings like SHeila E. trying to re-do Glamorus Life and Ready For The World redoing "Oh Sheila" with less than stellar results. We see it all over streaming. If you dont have the same equipment as the original and mastering techniques it will not sound right, especially being 35 years removed from the technology.

Luckily for Swift, she still has all of that, plus the musicians to re-create her works the way they did.

It is done quite alot and alot of times it just pops up on streaming its not even known the track is redone, but its a quick thing simple mainly there done by the artist that has no hold on their catalog and just goes in a redoes something. Bands have done this like Styx Foreigner and Journey but they did it professionally and attached it too a best of package or new cd as they all had new frontmen or bandmembers that were going to be part of the band now full time. I think with Prince he burned too many bridges he was well past out albums and even swore off older music at points for him to go and reunite the Revolution and think that would sound like the 80's stuff almost two decades later, we know he couldnt pull that off, i mean just songs from that time never sounded that way again when he was doing them in concert he could never make those records again.

lastdecember said:

paisleypark4 said:

I've heard some re-recordings like SHeila E. trying to re-do Glamorus Life and Ready For The World redoing "Oh Sheila" with less than stellar results. We see it all over streaming. If you dont have the same equipment as the original and mastering techniques it will not sound right, especially being 35 years removed from the technology.

Luckily for Swift, she still has all of that, plus the musicians to re-create her works the way they did.

It is done quite alot and alot of times it just pops up on streaming its not even known the track is redone, but its a quick thing simple mainly there done by the artist that has no hold on their catalog and just goes in a redoes something. Bands have done this like Styx Foreigner and Journey but they did it professionally and attached it too a best of package or new cd as they all had new frontmen or bandmembers that were going to be part of the band now full time. I think with Prince he burned too many bridges he was well past out albums and even swore off older music at points for him to go and reunite the Revolution and think that would sound like the 80's stuff almost two decades later, we know he couldnt pull that off, i mean just songs from that time never sounded that way again when he was doing them in concert he could never make those records again.

Correct. It's one thing to try to get some coins from your music, which is understandable. Prince did not even let his own artists have all the rights to their hits. However only someone who is not that familiar will really play a re-make that doesnt sound the same.

paisleypark4 said:

lastdecember said:

It is done quite alot and alot of times it just pops up on streaming its not even known the track is redone, but its a quick thing simple mainly there done by the artist that has no hold on their catalog and just goes in a redoes something. Bands have done this like Styx Foreigner and Journey but they did it professionally and attached it too a best of package or new cd as they all had new frontmen or bandmembers that were going to be part of the band now full time. I think with Prince he burned too many bridges he was well past out albums and even swore off older music at points for him to go and reunite the Revolution and think that would sound like the 80's stuff almost two decades later, we know he couldnt pull that off, i mean just songs from that time never sounded that way again when he was doing them in concert he could never make those records again.

Correct. It's one thing to try to get some coins from your music, which is understandable. Prince did not even let his own artists have all the rights to their hits. However only someone who is not that familiar will really play a re-make that doesnt sound the same.

Yeah alot of those streaming ones I have just listened too just out of curiousity and I believe for many they can do this as long as they are not selling it OR they can sell it but not advertise it, its probably different for each artist, I mean I saw Debbie Gibson on their re-doing her early hits and others but I dont see it being sold as full new cds etc..I think the limit may by she cant repackage the stuff and sell it but can record it, who knows because in her case she wrote and arranged all her first album in her house, youd think she owned it by now.

lastdecember said:

paisleypark4 said:

I've heard some re-recordings like SHeila E. trying to re-do Glamorus Life and Ready For The World redoing "Oh Sheila" with less than stellar results. We see it all over streaming. If you dont have the same equipment as the original and mastering techniques it will not sound right, especially being 35 years removed from the technology.

Luckily for Swift, she still has all of that, plus the musicians to re-create her works the way they did.

It is done quite alot and alot of times it just pops up on streaming its not even known the track is redone, but its a quick thing simple mainly there done by the artist that has no hold on their catalog and just goes in a redoes something. Bands have done this like Styx Foreigner and Journey but they did it professionally and attached it too a best of package or new cd as they all had new frontmen or bandmembers that were going to be part of the band now full time. I think with Prince he burned too many bridges he was well past out albums and even swore off older music at points for him to go and reunite the Revolution and think that would sound like the 80's stuff almost two decades later, we know he couldnt pull that off, i mean just songs from that time never sounded that way again when he was doing them in concert he could never make those records again.

Like I said before Prince could've owned the year 1999 by getting the band back together, redoing the album with unreleased tracks and going on tour. But he's much too unfocused for that and burned too many bridges besides.

As far as Taylor she's an anomaly. And even though it doesn't matter if she pisses off the industry it doesn't mean that she won't (I mean look at what we're looking at here). The most I can think of is that 4th AOTY grammy that I know she's coveting. They love her but they're petty like that.

lastdecember said:

MotownSubdivision said:

I'm not a Swift fan, I think she's overrated musically but if she does get blackballed by the industry (which I doubt) then why should she care? She's plenty rich and basically owns all her own music and 100% of the profits that come from doing so if I understand this correctly. She's above the record industry in that she can punch her own card and sign her own checks since she's a made name and wholly independent now. Good on her for seeing this through. I'm sure having to re-record your own discography was a tedious process but it certainly seems to be paying off.

At this point she really doesnt need the industry as it is now. Its far different then when she broke in which was 15 years ago, that industry was still on a roll with selling products, cds, even full digital content. The industry now has really been nothing more than a singles selling non artist driven industry for the most part. She doesnt fit that mold because she releases albums now, that are about the album not a few singles and some filler, she has very little airplay at all on whatever radio is still out there. She clearly has the control of every single aspect of what she is putting out there, she does a lot of it through her own site, she had some singles on her last studio album where she was doing all new versions and selling them exclusively there, so she has the smarts and clearly has the loyal fan base. People often compare the whole redoing her catalog to what Prince wanted to do. There is no way Prince could have redone his catalog, one reason it made no sense to do it because the time span between the actual product came out and his issues with the label, also PRINCE didnt have the sales that swift has or the loyal base, Prince was out of his prime, he had his huge sales and he was "out of fashion" to try to do something like this, the name change sealed that fate, and when he did the 1999 track and the old one outsold it and was getting more play the writing was on the wall there was no way he could re create those records that people loved, he was going to mess this up. So for swift there is no blackballing her, her base loves her and will support all these re dos because she has not gone off the deep end, she played it straight down the line and tweaked some detials in songs and now tops charts with re dos and has a hit song with a song that was never. a hit, Prince never could have done this.

Like Adele lamented about the music industry in the streaming era: "I can't see my 11 year old self looking at the industry the way it is now and saying 'Yeah I want to get into that'".

CynicKill said:

lastdecember said:

MotownSubdivision said:

CynicKill said:

Like Adele lamented about the music industry in the streaming era: "I can't see my 11 year old self looking at the industry the way it is now and saying 'Yeah I want to get into that'".

That's that old school mindset. Idk if her being the best-selling artist since the not-so-distant past when people BOUGHT music emboldens or somewhat underscores her point though.

Probably a little of both.

From what I gather from that interview it's just way different now. It's not how she envisioned it so it's not to her liking, as opposed to Taylor, who saw the writing on the wall and embraced the changes.

For Adele maybe it's just not as fun and glamourous anymore and is way more of a hustle. Granted it's always been a hustle but even moreso now and for what, for a product that no one even buys with arbitray statistics to support that fact.

Maybe that's why radio is still important to chart compilers.

Because those millions of radio listeners are definitely not streaming so they know those ears are there listening and requesting still.

CynicKill said:

lastdecember said:

It is done quite alot and alot of times it just pops up on streaming its not even known the track is redone, but its a quick thing simple mainly there done by the artist that has no hold on their catalog and just goes in a redoes something. Bands have done this like Styx Foreigner and Journey but they did it professionally and attached it too a best of package or new cd as they all had new frontmen or bandmembers that were going to be part of the band now full time. I think with Prince he burned too many bridges he was well past out albums and even swore off older music at points for him to go and reunite the Revolution and think that would sound like the 80's stuff almost two decades later, we know he couldnt pull that off, i mean just songs from that time never sounded that way again when he was doing them in concert he could never make those records again.

Like I said before Prince could've owned the year 1999 by getting the band back together, redoing the album with unreleased tracks and going on tour. But he's much too unfocused for that and burned too many bridges besides.

As far as Taylor she's an anomaly. And even though it doesn't matter if she pisses off the industry it doesn't mean that she won't (I mean look at what we're looking at here). The most I can think of is that 4th AOTY grammy that I know she's coveting. They love her but they're petty like that.

With Prince he just didnt have it at that point, that year was an odd one for me because he could have focused heavy on 1999 and doing that but here he had RAVE and so he was already confusing the public, hes still a symbol wait he went to back Prince wait Prince produced RAVE , but wait hes doing this new master of 1999 and a pay per view show, it was a poor planned thing, and then when Rave didnt go anywhere he lost interest in that project so I dont even think he could have gotten through re doing one of his albums. AS for Swift it is a rare thing to see an artist in the era where physical product stop being the selling point to still sell consistently and not lose her base I mean she has a lot of music in the last 15 years. I think also is because her focus is music, shes not an actress, she is not out there in the spotlight despite all of us knowing all her breakups, she has oddly used it to her advantage even if she was the wrong doer in them. She isnt selling perfume and lingerie and this and that so this is her world, I mean if she wanted to she obviously could sell any product she wanted too but I think she is smart to not to do that stuff in a way. But she is only 32 and has had 9 studio albums and 2 redos last year and the rumor is two coming this year and a new album too, and I am far from a huge fan, but I also own her stuff, and I kind of started later with her and went back and I see the growth as a writer and I see where she is interesting in what she chooses to do. But again I get why people dont like her, the tall leggy goofy blonde who can do wrong it seems I get that, and thats why I think she needs to stay doing music, dont start doing films and dramas and comedies, I mean its funny when she shows up on a show like SNL but she did that as a music guest and did some sketches, thats different then going and doing a dramatic film and selling clothes perfurm and lingerie or whatever she chooses. As for black balling her, I think its safe to say that she kind of is beyond that, and untouchable.

CynicKill said:

lastdecember said:

MotownSubdivision said:

CynicKill said:

Probably a little of both.

From what I gather from that interview it's just way different now. It's not how she envisioned it so it's not to her liking, as opposed to Taylor, who saw the writing on the wall and embraced the changes.

For Adele maybe it's just not as fun and glamourous anymore and is way more of a hustle. Granted it's always been a hustle but even moreso now and for what, for a product that no one even buys with arbitray statistics to support that fact.

Maybe that's why radio is still important to chart compilers.

Because those millions of radio listeners are definitely not streaming so they know those ears are there listening and requesting still.

Right. With technology at this stage of advancement, it's made it easier for people to become "stars". It's still generally an exceedingly difficult thing but with the avenues that have been opened today that simply weren't even laid last century, aspiring artists today have a more convenient launching pad to a the prime time even if the vast majority (like yesteryear but likely even moreso now) are flameouts who's claim to fame is greater than their actual talent level and/or connections. As a pure music listener, there's probably no better time to be alive solely for how much music is available to us and how easily accessible it all is. It's certainly not as glamorous or as fun though and for the artists and so-called artists of today, while it is easier to get your name out there than before, it's harder because you have far more people vying for the same opportunities as you. The main difference now, what makes things "easier" is that because of the internet, ANYONE can do it from ANYWHERE. I remember someone saying in the I Want My MTV about how they much prefer the modern era of music because in this time where only a small fragment of the population actually purchases music, that only attracts the tried and true talent who are willing to endure that climate to create. However, on a mainstream level, we have yet to see that natural otherworldly talent n a consistent scale. Even during the height of MTV when music was shifting more to the corporate style over substance model that's more evident than ever now, the most popular was usually the most talented in their fields. Whether it was the artist upfront or the band members or session players or writers in the back or behind the curtain, we were treated to someone who at least, at their absolute peak could be considered the most talented at what they did. Back then till about the mid-90s to mid-2000s, the biggest names were usually the best. It's quite different now where people who try to cape for modern music insist that you have to "dig for the good stuff." They're not necessarily wrong when they say that but it is truly an indication of how much things have changed and IMO, it mostly has not been for the better for anyone but especially the music makers. [Edited 1/7/22 13:14pm]

Yeah i think its also a double edged sword with it being "easier" and everyone is doing it. Spotify on average uplooads 66,000 new songs a day 22 million a year, so we can easily see an issue there because its just a mentality of "throw something at the wall and see what sticks" Spotify is not a label or store so it really could care less if 90% of this was garbage or one time releases by Instagram models who all of a sudden sing for a week. So I do feel bad for anyone trying to find a way in that as an artist because you really are just fighitng a losing battle, plus you barely get paid for anything there either.

For myself I still consume a lot of music, but i find I have tracks that i dont even go back to on streaming at all unless its artists where i see they have a desire in furthering what they do, some are just putting out a single for some quick clikcs and revenue, some are actual musicians and artists. SO i still find myself buying music now, I got more into vinyl the last two years again i still will search out cds, ironically its reported last year was the first rise in cd sales in 17 years, they attribute this too a new adele and a redo Taylor cd, but i also think its because alot of older acts spent 2020 creating albums that were released this year and all that added up.

are wypipo really in such denial about how whiteness actually works in the world? SIGH. the answer is a resounding NO. reason #1 just stated, reason #2 she has a bazillion young fans (mostly also white) and 3# she is too "acclaimed"

datdude said: