New topic
Printable| Author | Message |
master reversions? i won't mention who this is in association 2, but i read this 2day and must admit that i have never come across this term. What r 'master reversions' 4 certain? And if they were the artist's own, could they b put on a greatest hits package...so that then he or she would get a larger slice of the $$$ since they could somehow b owned by him or her, whereas the originals may have been the property of the company??? Hope this makes sense lol | |
- E-mail - orgNote -  Report post to moderator |
|
agentmonday said: i won't mention who this is in association 2, but i read this 2day and must admit that i have never come across this term. What r 'master reversions' 4 certain? And if they were the artist's own, could they b put on a greatest hits package...so that then he or she would get a larger slice of the $$$ since they could somehow b owned by him or her, whereas the originals may have been the property of the company??? Hope this makes sense lol 1. Musician writes an original piece of music. Copyright is created at that point in time and lies with the creator unless or until it is either assigned under agreement or copyright expires (generally, in the latter respect, a certain period of time e.g. 70 years after the original copyright holder's death).
2. Musician records (or seeks to record) the music. Often the musician will enter into a record contract with a company in connection with the specific recording, and / or for future recordings. Amongst other things, the record company will often, under the terms of the contract, be assigned the master recording of the music. This effectively means the musician that recorded that specific musical recording is not free to take that same recording and sell it elsewhere during the period determined by the contract. It could mean that the recording company is able to release the material as many times over as it wishes, perhaps release it in edited format, perhaps release it packaged in a format not in keeping with the artist's original vison (it would depend on the terms of the contract). The contract should also state when ownership of the master recording reverts to the original owner. 3. In relation to your specific question, if the recording artist has assigned ownership of a specific recording to a record company, then it is most unlikely that said musician will be free to release his / her own greatest hits album with the master recordings (unless they had reached a deal with the current owner of the masters. The options open to them are then either to re-record the material and seek to release the new version. Of course, in one sense, they are not selling a greatest hit, in the sense that they are not selling the original version that became a hit. Alternatively, they would have to wait until the master recording reverted to them. ALT+PLS+RTN: Pure as a pane of ice. It's a gift. |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
moderatorlangebleu said: agentmonday said: i won't mention who this is in association 2, but i read this 2day and must admit that i have never come across this term. What r 'master reversions' 4 certain? And if they were the artist's own, could they b put on a greatest hits package...so that then he or she would get a larger slice of the $$$ since they could somehow b owned by him or her, whereas the originals may have been the property of the company??? Hope this makes sense lol 1. Musician writes an original piece of music. Copyright is created at that point in time and lies with the creator unless or until it is either assigned under agreement or copyright expires (generally, in the latter respect, a certain period of time e.g. 70 years after the original copyright holder's death).
2. Musician records (or seeks to record) the music. Often the musician will enter into a record contract with a company in connection with the specific recording, and / or for future recordings. Amongst other things, the record company will often, under the terms of the contract, be assigned the master recording of the music. This effectively means the musician that recorded that specific musical recording is not free to take that same recording and sell it elsewhere during the period determined by the contract. It could mean that the recording company is able to release the material as many times over as it wishes, perhaps release it in edited format, perhaps release it packaged in a format not in keeping with the artist's original vison (it would depend on the terms of the contract). The contract should also state when ownership of the master recording reverts to the original owner. 3. In relation to your specific question, if the recording artist has assigned ownership of a specific recording to a record company, then it is most unlikely that said musician will be free to release his / her own greatest hits album with the master recordings (unless they had reached a deal with the current owner of the masters. The options open to them are then either to re-record the material and seek to release the new version. Of course, in one sense, they are not selling a greatest hit, in the sense that they are not selling the original version that became a hit. Alternatively, they would have to wait until the master recording reverted to them. I know BUT is the 'master reversion' simply what u state in #3? It is just another term 4 a 're-recording'? that is my main question because i am quite aware of the way the industry works and how the company can 'own' the material. Thanks in a large part 2 following P's career. Thanks. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
|
agentmonday said: langebleu said: agentmonday said: i won't mention who this is in association 2, but i read this 2day and must admit that i have never come across this term. What r 'master reversions' 4 certain? And if they were the artist's own, could they b put on a greatest hits package...so that then he or she would get a larger slice of the $$$ since they could somehow b owned by him or her, whereas the originals may have been the property of the company??? Hope this makes sense lol 1. Musician writes an original piece of music. Copyright is created at that point in time and lies with the creator unless or until it is either assigned under agreement or copyright expires (generally, in the latter respect, a certain period of time e.g. 70 years after the original copyright holder's death).
2. Musician records (or seeks to record) the music. Often the musician will enter into a record contract with a company in connection with the specific recording, and / or for future recordings. Amongst other things, the record company will often, under the terms of the contract, be assigned the master recording of the music. This effectively means the musician that recorded that specific musical recording is not free to take that same recording and sell it elsewhere during the period determined by the contract. It could mean that the recording company is able to release the material as many times over as it wishes, perhaps release it in edited format, perhaps release it packaged in a format not in keeping with the artist's original vison (it would depend on the terms of the contract). The contract should also state when ownership of the master recording reverts to the original owner. 3. In relation to your specific question, if the recording artist has assigned ownership of a specific recording to a record company, then it is most unlikely that said musician will be free to release his / her own greatest hits album with the master recordings (unless they had reached a deal with the current owner of the masters. The options open to them are then either to re-record the material and seek to release the new version. Of course, in one sense, they are not selling a greatest hit, in the sense that they are not selling the original version that became a hit. Alternatively, they would have to wait until the master recording reverted to them. I know BUT is the 'master reversion' simply what u state in #3? It is just another term 4 a 're-recording'? that is my main question because i am quite aware of the way the industry works and how the company can 'own' the material. Thanks in a large part 2 following P's career. Thanks. I do not believe the word 'reversion ' is being used to describe a 'reworked version' (i.e. rerecording) of a master recording. ALT+PLS+RTN: Pure as a pane of ice. It's a gift. |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
langebleu said: agentmonday said: langebleu said: agentmonday said: i won't mention who this is in association 2, but i read this 2day and must admit that i have never come across this term. What r 'master reversions' 4 certain? And if they were the artist's own, could they b put on a greatest hits package...so that then he or she would get a larger slice of the $$$ since they could somehow b owned by him or her, whereas the originals may have been the property of the company??? Hope this makes sense lol 1. Musician writes an original piece of music. Copyright is created at that point in time and lies with the creator unless or until it is either assigned under agreement or copyright expires (generally, in the latter respect, a certain period of time e.g. 70 years after the original copyright holder's death).
2. Musician records (or seeks to record) the music. Often the musician will enter into a record contract with a company in connection with the specific recording, and / or for future recordings. Amongst other things, the record company will often, under the terms of the contract, be assigned the master recording of the music. This effectively means the musician that recorded that specific musical recording is not free to take that same recording and sell it elsewhere during the period determined by the contract. It could mean that the recording company is able to release the material as many times over as it wishes, perhaps release it in edited format, perhaps release it packaged in a format not in keeping with the artist's original vison (it would depend on the terms of the contract). The contract should also state when ownership of the master recording reverts to the original owner. 3. In relation to your specific question, if the recording artist has assigned ownership of a specific recording to a record company, then it is most unlikely that said musician will be free to release his / her own greatest hits album with the master recordings (unless they had reached a deal with the current owner of the masters. The options open to them are then either to re-record the material and seek to release the new version. Of course, in one sense, they are not selling a greatest hit, in the sense that they are not selling the original version that became a hit. Alternatively, they would have to wait until the master recording reverted to them. I know BUT is the 'master reversion' simply what u state in #3? It is just another term 4 a 're-recording'? that is my main question because i am quite aware of the way the industry works and how the company can 'own' the material. Thanks in a large part 2 following P's career. Thanks. I do not believe the word 'reversion ' is being used to describe a 'reworked version' (i.e. rerecording) of a master recording. Ok.Thanx dude. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
agentmonday said:[quote]i won't mention who this is in association 2, but i read this 2day and must admit that i have never come across this term
Why not mention that it was in an article about Michael Jackson? I read the same article (he's broke, but he's got 50% Sony/ATV, Mijac Music, and forthcoming master reversions) Why the secret? | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |