Taylor Swift – Lover

[Deleted]

[daddy]

Jul 11, 2019 0:42:10 GMT -5 @pma2015 said:

But like... she’s the one down about it. Idgher??

[Au$tin]

I just now got around to watching her tour on Netflix and I thoroughly enjoyed it. I couldn't help but notice there was a quip in there about musicians owning their own work and, well... if that's not proof this has been brewing for awhile...

Anyway, IMO, owning your masters isn't that big of a deal when you're also the songwriter on 99% of the material. She's still going to be receiving checks for life off of her old material whether she owns the recordings or not. The only problem is she now doesn't have any control in how they're released from this point forward. If she ever decides again to remove her material from streaming again, for example, she would only be able to remove everything from "ME!" onward. And now Big Machine can release her material in anyway they see fit without her approval, such as all of these random vinyl releases and whatnot. That's the only s**tty thing, but at least she's still getting coin from all of them since she's also the songwriter and the royalty checks are always the biggest checks out of everything. In the end, it's all business and the queen of business manipulations got played by somebody who was able to play the game just slightly better than her. (I mean, Michael Jackson owned the masters to The Beatles for the longest time. This whole situation is far from new.)

But really, she still owns her music, just not the recordings. She still gets to perform them and she still gets royalties whenever they are used. In the grand scheme of things, she's not missing out on a whole lot as I'm sure Big Machine isn't going to do much that she wouldn't do. The absolute worst they're likely to do is release a greatest hits album she doesn't want. (The absolute worst they could do is remove her music from all retailers and streaming services a la JoJo's situation, but that's never happening. Big Machine wants the tracks available to rake in money and they're not petty assholes like Blackground.)

[Deleted]

[tryexp]

A couple of questions I have about this situation that I would love to get answers to:

1- Can whoever owns the masters release previously unreleased stuff? I am thinking artists always record 15-20 songs per album normally, so they are bound to have unreleased material from previous eras that they could use and this is what I think would upset Taylor the most, especially if they release lesser quality stuff.

2 - I thought most contracts would have no re-recording clauses on them to prevent artists from leaving and immediately self release new versions to cut their losses? I assumed artists like Kelly Clarkson would know about this?

[SHOOTER]

Jul 14, 2019 4:11:51 GMT -5 tryexp said:

A couple of questions I have about this situation that I would love to get answers to:

1- Can whoever owns the masters release previously unreleased stuff? I am thinking artists always record 15-20 songs per album normally, so they are bound to have unreleased material from previous eras that they could use and this is what I think would upset Taylor the most, especially if they release lesser quality stuff.

2 - I thought most contracts would have no re-recording clauses on them to prevent artists from leaving and immediately self release new versions to cut their losses? I assumed artists like Kelly Clarkson would know about this?

Typically, the label owns everything you record, not just release, while under contract. As for re-recording, there may have been a clause in her contract that prohibits such from happening for a certain period of time (not sure if it’s standard for all contracts); I recall reading an article where JoJo stated her lawyers told her the statue of limitations on hers had expired and left her free to re-record.

[Deleted]

Scooter is going to want to cash in on his purchase and start making money back, so surely along with a Greatest Hits album, they might release Super Deluxe versions of each album with tons of album demos and unreleased tracks.

[schnetzka]

I personally don't want her to re-record her songs because of multiple reasons. One, is that it would take a lot of time and effort. Two, is we need to focus on future content. Re-recording past music would take away time from the new.

Also, why was it sold to Scooter out of all people? When has he ever done anything for Taylor's career in the past?

[YourFaveIsAFlop]

Jul 14, 2019 4:11:51 GMT -5 tryexp said:

A couple of questions I have about this situation that I would love to get answers to:

2 - I thought most contracts would have no re-recording clauses on them to prevent artists from leaving and immediately self release new versions to cut their losses? I assumed artists like Kelly Clarkson would know about this?

This assumes there is a market for these re-recorded tracks that can actually recoup the costs of the rerecording. Who is actually going to buy a rerecorded version of Tim McGraw in 2019?

[mackattack]

Jul 15, 2019 10:09:50 GMT -5 schnetzka said:

Also, why was it sold to Scooter out of all people? When has he ever done anything for Taylor's career in the past?

Why does it matter what he's done for Taylor? He was the highest bidder so it was sold to him...it's just business lol.

[matty005]

Jul 15, 2019 12:55:00 GMT -5 mackattack said:

Jul 15, 2019 10:09:50 GMT -5 schnetzka said:

Also, why was it sold to Scooter out of all people? When has he ever done anything for Taylor's career in the past?

Why does it matter what he's done for Taylor? He was the highest bidder so it was sold to him...it's just business lol.

Were there bids though? That's the whole point of Taylor's argument. That she wasn't given the chance to simply "buy" for an amount like he was.

[mackattack]

Jul 15, 2019 12:58:30 GMT -5 matty005 said:

Jul 15, 2019 12:55:00 GMT -5 mackattack said:

Why does it matter what he's done for Taylor? He was the highest bidder so it was sold to him...it's just business lol.

Were there bids though? That's the whole point of Taylor's argument. That she wasn't given the chance to simply "buy" for an amount like he was.

I hope you didn't misinterpret what I said and think that I'm "team Scooter" or whatever lol, I have no dog in this fight. I'm just saying that if it wasn't Braun, it could have easily been somebody else. Like I said, it's business. 

[YourFaveIsAFlop]

Jul 15, 2019 12:58:30 GMT -5 matty005 said:

Jul 15, 2019 12:55:00 GMT -5 mackattack said:

Why does it matter what he's done for Taylor? He was the highest bidder so it was sold to him...it's just business lol.

Were there bids though? That's the whole point of Taylor's argument. That she wasn't given the chance to simply "buy" for an amount like he was.

The point was he offered them an amount of money to buy the label and its holdings, and they accepted it. They're not under any obligation to try to sell to anybody else if the board found his offer to be satisfactory. What did Taylor do to try to buy back her stuff when she had the chance? Nothing. She just wants to be the victim again, that's where she thrives

[matty005]

Jul 15, 2019 13:50:18 GMT -5 YourFaveIsAFlop said:

Jul 15, 2019 12:58:30 GMT -5 matty005 said:

Were there bids though? That's the whole point of Taylor's argument. That she wasn't given the chance to simply "buy" for an amount like he was.

The point was he offered them an amount of money to buy the label and its holdings, and they accepted it. They're not under any obligation to try to sell to anybody else if the board found his offer to be satisfactory. What did Taylor do to try to buy back her stuff when she had the chance? Nothing. She just wants to be the victim again, that's where she thrives

I was addressing OP who said they were sold to the highest bidder. Which even by your statement above is showing it’s not the case.

I agree that she should have done more. But we have no idea she did, “nothing.” And all I was saying was it wasn’t a bidding contest.

[kanimal]

Jul 15, 2019 12:58:30 GMT -5 matty005 said:

Jul 15, 2019 12:55:00 GMT -5 mackattack said:

Why does it matter what he's done for Taylor? He was the highest bidder so it was sold to him...it's just business lol.

Were there bids though? That's the whole point of Taylor's argument. That she wasn't given the chance to simply "buy" for an amount like he was.

There are reports dating back to 2015 of Evan Spiegel wanting to buy Big Machine; a recent Hits Daily Double article says Taylor blocked it. It stands to reason that there were other offers as well, as the label has clearly been on the block for a while.

With regard to her claim about not being able to bid, the key is whether she was looking to buy the label or just her masters. Like, if she can show that Scott wouldn't sell the entire label to her for $300,000,001 - then his selling to Scooter is absolutely messed up. But him refusing to JUST sell the masters is understandable, since they were going to be a key draw for anyone bidding on the label.

[nickd]

Jul 15, 2019 10:22:03 GMT -5 YourFaveIsAFlop said:

Jul 14, 2019 4:11:51 GMT -5 tryexp said:

A couple of questions I have about this situation that I would love to get answers to:

2 - I thought most contracts would have no re-recording clauses on them to prevent artists from leaving and immediately self release new versions to cut their losses? I assumed artists like Kelly Clarkson would know about this?

This assumes there is a market for these re-recorded tracks that can actually recoup the costs of the rerecording. Who is actually going to buy a rerecorded version of Tim McGraw in 2019?

Maybe not buy but stream, sure. Her re-current stats are still pretty good, especially for Fearless to reputation. Not sure what the costs of re-recording would be but they might not be that high. Keep in mind she recorded You Belong With Me the afternoon after she recorded three other Fearless songs (according to a presentation from Nathan Chapman), and she could do that a lot faster now since back then there was a feedback process between her, Nathan and the session musicians on how they wanted to put the tracks together. According to Imogen Heap the vocals for Clean were recorded in two takes.

That being said, it will be difficult for the re-recordings of her back-catalog to replace the originals in terms of prominence on Spotify playlists and stuff, so I'm not sure how much she'd profit compared to just adding a couple extra dates to her upcoming tour. If she makes the originals different it might work though (ex acoustic recordings, 1989 tour remixes of WANEGBT/IKYWT/Love Story, etc). A lot of it comes down to what BMR's cut is from the streams of her back catalog, but if it's big enough that it's such a huge part of the labels current value, then maybe it is worth it after all if she can pull a significant portion of the streams to her re-recordings.

I do wonder about all these random Big Machine releases though. It would seem to me only her hardcore fans would consider buying them (prior to the label drama) and I'm sure all of them know of the drama and that Taylor probably doesn't want them to buy those.

[gbaby]

Finally watched her interview with Ellen. I missed seeing her like that! It's nice to see her be silly and even self-deprecating. We all know she's very careful about the image she and her team craft - but still, it's nice to see what so many of us fell in love with years ago.

[kmbgs]

I’ve always wanted her to release pop versions of her more country earlier material that, due to the production, for me is unlistenable. That would kill two birds with one stone here, potentially.

[Ivy Leegue™]

Did anyone see her Amazon Prime Day concert?? Why is no one talking about it??

[kimberly]

Jul 16, 2019 12:14:52 GMT -5 Ivy Leegue™ said:

Did anyone see her Amazon Prime Day concert?? Why is no one talking about it??

What's there to talk about? Sis got her coin, performed like 4 songs with no soul, took a passive-aggressive jab at Scooter Braun, and left.

[Taylor.]

Trailer for Cats is coming Friday.

[deepston]

It would be a good idea to release a promo single on Friday as well!

[Taylor.]

Maybe Catnip is a song she wrote for the movie lol

[kimberly]

Jul 16, 2019 14:15:44 GMT -5 deepston said:

It would be a good idea to release a promo single on Friday as well!

I truly thought April 26 was going to be a countdown for Cats related announcement.

I listened to "ME!" audio and still thought "There's no way this is the lead single for TS7"

Even the opening dialogue with the cats seemed appropriate for a Cats OST single

So I'm hoping there are actual songs she wrote/sang for Cats in that vein to fulfill my purr dreams

[Taylor.]

[Ivy Leegue™]

Cool.

[born]

This looks much better than I expected. Can't wait for the trailer.

[deepston]

Apparently, Taylor's Cats song is coming out tomorrow.

We’ll have our first good look at the film in earnest this Friday when the studio releases the first trailer, along with a new song from star Taylor Swift, but right now, you can get a peek behind the scenes of the production.

SOURCE

[Mylo13 💜]

Jul 18, 2019 4:46:33 GMT -5 deepston said:

Apparently, Taylor's Cats song is coming out tomorrow.

We’ll have our first good look at the film in earnest this Friday when the studio releases the first trailer, along with a new song from star Taylor Swift, but right now, you can get a peek behind the scenes of the production.

SOURCE

Will be interesting to see not only what the song is & how good it is, but also what the promotion is. Unless it's an immediate smash I very much doubt they'll replace YNTCD but is it likely to not be pushed to radio/promoted whatsoever? From memory this is the first time she's done a soundtrack single since I Don't Wanna Live Forever, but that one was in between eras and was co-lead by ZAYN.

Hyped anyway! Hoping it's up to "Safe and Sound" quality, still my favourite non-album single she's put out.

[Taylor.]