Deleted
Deleted Member
Join Date: May 3, 2024 2:12:06 GMT
Posts: 0
Likes:
Last Online: May 3, 2024 2:12:06 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 1, 2019 16:06:37 GMT
Haha. Sorry, should have said Bieb. 😎
|
|
BogoGog24
Administrator
I'm off again in my world...
Join Date: Mar 14, 2015 12:38:58 GMT
Posts: 14,718
Likes: 39,102
Last Online: May 3, 2024 0:18:31 GMT
|
Post by BogoGog24 on Jul 2, 2019 0:42:14 GMT
My essay of thoughts on this matter in case anyone cares lol:
Many people are saying that she should have bought the label. Taylor Swift is rich but she isn't THAT rich. The label was valued at $300 million+ and her net worth is valued at something like $360 million. I am not sure she would have been able to afford it, to be honest. Not to mention that she doesn't want to be stuck with all of it, she just wants her own catalog. So she would have likely had to then find someone else to sell it to, someone that she trusted. Had she known all of this was going to happen, perhaps she would have taken that risk and done just that. At least she would have been able to sell everything to someone she trusted, even if she would or wouldn't have been able to get her own catalog back.
It is a very "complicated" situation. Most artists don't own the masters to their work. But Taylor Swift is not most artists. And her situation is unique from most artists. Most artists weren't the first one to sign with a brand new label and literally help build it from the ground up. She has extreme leverage in her case and more than enough credibility to ask for the rights to own her masters at this point of her career.
Scott knew if he sold Taylor her masters, Big Machine would not be nearly as valuable without her catalog. But he did not want her to be able to say she wasn't given the option to purchase her masters, so he created a deal he knew she would not take so that he could say technically he did offer her the option to obtain her masters. The issue is that the deal was so ludicrous no one in their right mind would take it. She even explained in her letter exactly what the terms would have been. She would have had to earn back each album one at a time on the condition that she released a new album for each one she wanted back. That would mean she would have to release 6 new albums, which would have taken her years to accomplish. She knew that if she signed this new deal that Scott was still planning to sell the label and she would have been stuck making music under someone else (thank God she didn't end up having to make 6 albums under Scooter, he would have ruined her). I read online that it was proposed under a "quickrelease" term or something like that, meaning that even if Taylor signed this deal, Scott still had the option to not give her her masters, even if she fulfilled exactly what the contract said. You don't have to be an industry expert to see how unfair, unrealistic, and plain shitty this deal is if she had taken it.
My boyfriend said maybe she could have just released a bunch of live and Greatest Hits albums to fulfill the 6 albums. I said it was likely the contract asked for studio albums.
Taylor wrote in her letter that she even eventually accepted the fact she was not going to be able to obtain her masters. She knew he was going to sell them to someone and she had accepted that. Had he sold her catalog to literally anyone else she would have been ok with that. But he sold them to a person who had tried to ruin, not only her, but several artists he has worked with. Scott prioritized making a profit over his friendship and loyalty to the person who literally made the company as valuable as it is so he could make that giant profit.
There's dispute over whether Taylor really knew about this ahead of time or not. Scott claims he texted Taylor at 9 PM the day before the news broke. Rumor is that Taylor was in London, where it was about 2 or 3 AM there. She likely wasn't available and it's highly plausible she really did wake up to the news with the rest of the world. Even so, telling her the day before when the deal was more than likely finalized weeks or even months ago is plain shitty. These deals take months to finalize. There's also claims about whether or not her dad or management/shareholders were in the know about this. Her father specifically did not get in on the call about this deal because it would have forced him to withhold news from her. He knew nothing. And like any decent father should, he prioritized his own daughter over business.
Scooter's wife's Instagram post is bullshit. She claims Taylor had the chance to own her masters and walked away. That doesn't even make sense. Why would Taylor pass up the chance to own her masters when that's the only thing she's ever wanted and the only reason she left Big Machine? They are trying to twist it to make it seem like Scott offered them to her and she said "nah fam, I'm good." What they're really referring to is that shitty deal he offered where she'd be stuck trying to earn back each album for the next 10 fucking years of her life. Yes, how dare she turn that down. It is so sick and disgusting what they are doing and how they are trying to manipulate their side of the story and gaslight her for rightfully taking a stand against this.
A fan has created a petition for her to re-release her first 6 albums. I have mixed feelings on this. An artist named JoJo that was popular back in the early 2000s did exactly this when she was stuck in a contract for 10 years but couldn't actually release any music. Her first 2 albums were deleted from all streaming platforms. She re-recorded and re-released them this year. It is entirely possible to do this. But 6 albums is a lot of work. There are many reasons why I wouldn't want her to do this. The songs just wouldn't sound the same as they did back when she originally wrote and recorded them. She's not in that emotional space anymore. Some of the songs I don't think she'd want to record again, for example Innocence given the drama that happened with Kanye and Kim since then. Bad Blood would be a mistake because she and Katy have made up now. She's always gotten criticism for writing songs like Better Than Revenge and Girl at Home. I also think it would take her a really long time to re-record that many songs. It sucks what happened but she should look towards the future and just focus on creating new music under a label that will allow her to keep the masters, rather than focus on re-recording music from her past.
It takes years for artists to own their own catalog. I read that it took Metallica 27 years to get theirs. There's the infamous Paul McCartney/Michael Jackson case. Taylor is not the first victim of a situation like this, though maybe hopefully people will learn enough from this that she could be the last. I do think there is a possibility for her in the future to one day get her catalog back. But it will take years and a lot of lawyers. I'm sure she's got the best lawyers in the biz and they will be able to find a solution. It won't be easy and it will take a long time, but I think they'll be able to do it someday.
More than anything, this comes down to an issue of loyalty. Taylor had come to terms with the fact she'd never own her masters. But it was who ended up buying them that made her upset. It was the fact she was quite literally sold out by someone she had trusted for over a decade. It's shameful. As I said, I don't know what she can really do in this situation but I think it's best to just keep moving forward and in the meantime get her lawyers to try to find a way for her to buy back her catalog. I would not waste time re-recording her past albums. I think it would be counterproductive.
Unfortunately there wasn't much that could have been done to prevent this from happening way back when she first signed. Everyone's saying she signed a bad deal and that she was too young. You cannot expect a 15-year-old to fully understand a legal contract. Surely the Swifts had a lawyer look at it. But the problem is no one knew how successful she was going to be. All she cared about was that she had a record deal and that she was going to be able to write her own music and that was good enough for her. The Swifts knew very little about the music industry and would have never thought to question what terms were in that contract. Of course, it is pretty standard for new artists to sign deals like the one she did. No artist gets the right to their masters in their initial contract. But over the years she had been asking for them and by then she had enough leverage to deserve the right to ask. Scott knew he planned to sell the label eventually and he knew it would be less valuable without her catalog. That's all it comes down to. He knew what he was doing.
The good thing that comes out of this is that it hopefully raises important questions and conversations regarding the matter of artists being able to own their work. As she wrote in her letter, it is a fair warning to young artists to know what they are signing. Taylor has consistently fought for artist rights and has helped make changes to the way artists are compensated. It may take some time, but knowing her, she will not only be able to get her catalog back, but I think she will be able to help instate a law that helps prevent issues like this from happening. Just as she convinced Apple to change its policies for compensating artists and just as she was able to convince Republic to compensate all of its artists more fairly with Spotify streams, I expect her to do likewise in this situation. An artist of Taylor's caliber and legacy does not deserve to have her catalog stolen out from underneath her, especially by someone who has no respect for her. Taylor has experienced many unfair situations and she always wins. As I said, this may take years to accomplish, but I am confident she will one day be able to own the masters to her original 6 albums.
An additional thought that makes this whole situation even more heartbreaking and sickening:
The mother of Ronan, who Taylor wrote that song about, has tweeted on this matter and she is upset that someone else owns the rights to the song about her son. She only trusts it in the hands of Taylor and no one else. It is so sad and it broke my heart to read that. That song is now owned by a sick, disgusting piece of shit with no respect for anyone.
|
|
BogoGog24
Administrator
I'm off again in my world...
Join Date: Mar 14, 2015 12:38:58 GMT
Posts: 14,718
Likes: 39,102
Last Online: May 3, 2024 0:18:31 GMT
|
Post by BogoGog24 on Jul 2, 2019 0:58:15 GMT
From searching on Instagram, some fans have found out some very shady things going on right now:
Some people are claiming that their iTunes purchases of her albums have been deleted from their library, forcing them to repurchase so Scooter can get a profit from it. This appears to be because the albums have been reuploaded with slight changes. For example, the genre of Fearless has been changed from country to pop. reputation is now spelled Reputation. This... seems illegal. You can't just delete music that people have paid for and then make them buy it again...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Join Date: May 3, 2024 2:12:06 GMT
Posts: 0
Likes:
Last Online: May 3, 2024 2:12:06 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 2, 2019 3:54:38 GMT
Bogo, that is an incredibly well thought out synopsis of the situation and you’ve covered all the bases. Totally agree and Bravo for taking the time to post. 👏🏽👏🏽
|
|
BogoGog24
Administrator
I'm off again in my world...
Join Date: Mar 14, 2015 12:38:58 GMT
Posts: 14,718
Likes: 39,102
Last Online: May 3, 2024 0:18:31 GMT
|
Post by BogoGog24 on Jul 2, 2019 10:06:35 GMT
Ok so I just went to my iTunes and Apple Music and I don’t see Fearless changed to pop. Reputation does have a capital R now though. It’s very strange why some are seeing it differently.
I really wish someone would make a statement about exactly what all this means for Taylor because I see a lot of her younger fans online spreading misinformation. They think she doesn’t own the rights to her music anymore which isn’t the case. Literally nothing has changed regarding her rights. She didn’t own the masters before and she doesn’t own them now. However she’ll still get royalties from sales and streams and she can still perform her old stuff live. The only thing she doesn’t own is the original physical recordings of the songs. I am on her side on this but people are blowing this out of proportion and reporting false information because they don’t understand what this means.
|
|
Jinkxx
Member
20 June 2008 & 04 May 2023 - The days I met Avril <3
Join Date: Mar 13, 2015 20:51:25 GMT
Posts: 6,030
Likes: 9,862
Location: The Netherlands
Last Online: Apr 30, 2024 16:32:24 GMT
|
Post by Jinkxx on Jul 2, 2019 11:36:54 GMT
Yeah when I was younger I didn't really "get" her either. Thought she was way overhyped and all her songs sounded the same. But then I watched Journey to Fearless and I got to know her more as a person. The first album I think I heard in full was RED and it was the album that made me a fan. I think if I had only tried listening to her earlier music I wouldn't have been into her as much, it's all good but it's definitely more teen-oriented. RED was a more mature album and more musically diverse. The writing is fantastic. That was what made me a fan enough to check out her previous records and then follow her into 1989. Same, I didn't get her either back in the day, wasn't hyped about her, also listened to RED first and then the earlier stuff but really got into her with 1989 and also REP. On the case mentioned above. I wanna read in simple English what this means for her because since I'm not in the music industry I don't have a clue if this will have huge concequenses..?
|
|
BogoGog24
Administrator
I'm off again in my world...
Join Date: Mar 14, 2015 12:38:58 GMT
Posts: 14,718
Likes: 39,102
Last Online: May 3, 2024 0:18:31 GMT
|
Post by BogoGog24 on Jul 2, 2019 15:14:11 GMT
Yeah when I was younger I didn't really "get" her either. Thought she was way overhyped and all her songs sounded the same. But then I watched Journey to Fearless and I got to know her more as a person. The first album I think I heard in full was RED and it was the album that made me a fan. I think if I had only tried listening to her earlier music I wouldn't have been into her as much, it's all good but it's definitely more teen-oriented. RED was a more mature album and more musically diverse. The writing is fantastic. That was what made me a fan enough to check out her previous records and then follow her into 1989. Same, I didn't get her either back in the day, wasn't hyped about her, also listened to RED first and then the earlier stuff but really got into her with 1989 and also REP. On the case mentioned above. I wanna read in simple English what this means for her because since I'm not in the music industry I don't have a clue if this will have huge concequenses..? A master recording is a physical copy of the recording. The large majority of artists don’t own their masters. Owning the master rights is a different thing from owning the copyrights, publishing rights, and performing rights to that same song. Taylor can still earn money from sales and streams of her first 6 albums and can still perform those songs live. She just doesn’t own the physical files of the recordings. In theory she could even re-record all those songs and she would own them because they are different recordings.
|
|
Dillon
Retired Staff
MOTM Sept '15; SOTY '15 Winner; BA Donator
"He's probably a circus freak!"
Join Date: Mar 13, 2015 20:08:37 GMT
Posts: 1,920
Likes: 2,268
Location: United States
Last Online: Apr 30, 2024 1:01:59 GMT
|
Post by Dillon on Jul 2, 2019 21:33:51 GMT
It would really interesting and cool to hear a re-recording if her entire back catalog. But they would be amazing alongside the original releases. I wouldn’t want her to have to re-record everything as a replacement because she doesn’t own the original recordings.
As mentioned above as an example of someone who has done such a thing, I don’t think we’ll have to worry about Taylor’s back catalog being taken off streaming services and the like. Taylor’s master recordings weren’t parted with by the label so they could continue making a profit from them. Removing them from streaming services would cause them to not collect royalties for the master recordings. I’m this case, they’d be solely holding on to them just so that Taylor cannot own them. That would be a very low blow.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Join Date: May 3, 2024 2:12:06 GMT
Posts: 0
Likes:
Last Online: May 3, 2024 2:12:06 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 7, 2019 3:41:59 GMT
Coincidence this surfaced on July 2nd?
|
|
Dillon
Retired Staff
MOTM Sept '15; SOTY '15 Winner; BA Donator
"He's probably a circus freak!"
Join Date: Mar 13, 2015 20:08:37 GMT
Posts: 1,920
Likes: 2,268
Location: United States
Last Online: Apr 30, 2024 1:01:59 GMT
|
Post by Dillon on Jul 7, 2019 5:08:00 GMT
It has actually been leaked for a while, but not widespread like a lot of her other unreleased songs.
Why would July 2nd be significant though?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Join Date: May 3, 2024 2:12:06 GMT
Posts: 0
Likes:
Last Online: May 3, 2024 2:12:06 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 7, 2019 10:53:51 GMT
The words to the song seem to line up with her current dispute even though this feels like a Fearless era song. If you know of other leaked TS songs I’d love some links.
|
|
BogoGog24
Administrator
I'm off again in my world...
Join Date: Mar 14, 2015 12:38:58 GMT
Posts: 14,718
Likes: 39,102
Last Online: May 3, 2024 0:18:31 GMT
|
Post by BogoGog24 on Jul 7, 2019 13:01:35 GMT
If you go on SoundCloud and type Taylor Swift Lucky You you can hear the demo of the first song she ever wrote at age 12. It is SO catchy!!!!! It may be my favorite unreleased song.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Join Date: May 3, 2024 2:12:06 GMT
Posts: 0
Likes:
Last Online: May 3, 2024 2:12:06 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 7, 2019 13:34:27 GMT
I like you’re new signature pic! ^
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Join Date: May 3, 2024 2:12:06 GMT
Posts: 0
Likes:
Last Online: May 3, 2024 2:12:06 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 14, 2019 19:48:59 GMT
I think if Taylor ever attempted to do what Kelly Clarkson suggested the outcome couldn’t match her headspace when she originally recorded her catalogue and therefore I don’t think that’s a great idea.
|
|
BogoGog24
Administrator
I'm off again in my world...
Join Date: Mar 14, 2015 12:38:58 GMT
Posts: 14,718
Likes: 39,102
Last Online: May 3, 2024 0:18:31 GMT
|
Post by BogoGog24 on Jul 15, 2019 12:28:07 GMT
This is what I think as well and it would also take her ages to record 6 albums worth of songs (RED alone has a whopping 16 tracks!) I think she should focus on Lover and in the meantime get her lawyers to try to get the catalog back. Other artists have done it. It will take a long time for her to get it back, regardless of how she chooses to go about it though.
However, I think if Taylor did re-record all her stuff it not only would make the old masters worth a lot less but it might actually make the new masters worth more. Because at the time of the original recordings she wasn’t as famous (especially her first 2 albums). Although I wonder how things like awards factor into that. Fearless and 1989 are both Grammy AOTY winners for the original recordings. I don’t think awards are transferable to new recordings and it’d be a shame to lose that notoriety. Awards aren’t everything of course but winning a Grammy is a pretty big deal and it’s a part of music history. As far as the Recording Academy is concerned, the original recordings will always be considered as the winners.
It is a tough situation no matter how you slice it. If she were to re-record anything at all, I think it’d make the most sense for her to record just her biggest singles and maybe release a Greatest Hits type thing with these updated versions. The singles are what she makes the most money from and those are her most popular songs. It would also take a lot less time to record than 6 full albums.
|
|