Taylor Swift Says She Will Rerecord Her Old Music. Here’s How.

This is not really news. The band America re-recorded their greatest hits so they could own the masters and participate in licensing. Jeff Lynne re-recorded ELO's greatest hits so he could own the masters and participate in licensing. Other comments in this thread have mentioned many more acts that did the same. Taylor is free to frame her situation any way she wants, i.e. as a crusade against people she doesn't like, but it's a pretty simple matter of ownership. Recordings are a commodity, and can be bought. Period. As far as "fighting for artists to control their music", most artists DO control their music. They're unsigned, they used their own money to record, and they're working their tails off to get recognized on streaming platforms or in clubs. The acts who sign deals with major labels give up something to get something. If a label pays for the recording, they're invested in the artist and they own the recordings, barring some special arrangement with the artist. The artist benefits from the label's efforts to promote the recordings. If all goes well, it's win-win. I'm an artist, and major labels own about 10% of my recordings. I own the other 90%...because I paid for the recordings myself. Do I want to re-record the tracks I don't own? I could and I might. But I probably won't. Those old masters represent who I was as an artist at that time, no matter who owns them. I'd rather move forward.

“At the same time, any attention given to the rereleases could rub off on the old versions, helping the bottom line of Braun, Borchetta and Big Machine.“ An unasked question is whether Swift’s twisting of that figurative knife might include pricing the new versions of the old songs below the standard industry price that the current owners of her original masters charge. If Swift is truly less interested in money than a measure of payback — which is my hope — then she’ll forgo some profit to get the new recordings in the hands of her fans and keep new copies of the old ones out of their hands.

You go, girl.

This has quietly gone on for a very long time. Listen to Classic Rock radio... Discerning ears will discover "new" recordings of old songs by Joan Jett, Ted Nugent, etc. They're not labeled "new" or "20XX version" - they just quietly replace the old versions on the playlists at iHeart and the streaming services. Those "original" versions disappear and no one notices.

This is so obvious it’s painful. Moreover, the article’s examples highlighted and supported the purpose: negotiating tactic. Note how Prince and Def Lep settled with the record companies after threatening to re-record and taking baby-steps in that direction. Let’s see how well Scooter plays poker.

Artists have released re-recordings of their work at least since the early days of rock & roll, probably for all kinds of reasons. In the case of iconic hit singles, it is almost impossible to capture the "magic" of the original, and fans of the work can usually tell within a couple of bars that it's not the recording they know and love. Serious collectors of early rock turn up their noses at most re-recordings. Not being familiar with Swift's work, I don't know if this would apply here, but she could end up investing a lot of time and effort for little return.

"In an interesting twist, Swift’s current label and distributor, Universal, is also the distributor of Big Machine, which could leave the corporation competing against itself." Or making bank twice.

No matter how talented Taylor Swift may be, she was paid at the time according to the contractual terms to which she agreed. And given the continued success she has had since she got more control of her new music, one must wonder why she looks backwards instead of forward. She must be quite full of herself to really care about her old stuff. That said, she has every right to waste her time to re-record her old songs, rather than create new music, possibly because that's actually hard work (and will require her to rely on the talent of other people who must remain invisible). But, this may just be a sign that she's reached her peak and it's just downhill from here. Or not. The music business is fickle.

Talk to John Fogerty. There’s a cautionary tale for you. Springsteen too. In his book, Bruce says he basically signed away all rights to Greetings and The Wild, The Innocent on the hood of a car at the curb without even reading what he was signing because he just wanted to make music.

I’ve heard recreations from Sly Stone, Badfinger and others who must’ve been in bad deals and none of them hold a candle to the original versions. Most likely Swift will have a bigger recording budget than these artists but recreating old tunes, especially hits, is a daunting task. Besides that, what artist really wants to go backwards? She has many more years of songwriting ahead of her and given her history, many more years of making hits. I understand why she is talking about this but the reality of actually doing it seems pretty unlikely.

Ah, the arc of the "woke" diva continues. Act I: Do just about anything to become a star. Act II: Be a star, enjoying all of the fame and money and power that stardom brings. Act III: Become so full of yourself that you forget about all of the things you voluntarily (eagerly!) did in Act I, instead characterizing yourself as a victim of those that worked with you and made investments in your career. Act IV: TBD. Doesn't this dull play get repeated an awful lot?

I think it is great that she will do this, even if it is to make a point. If she manages to create enough buzz about this, which she just might, it will open up the conversation about artists owning their work, and about fairness in the music business. How is it possible that she is not at all involved in the decision of who will manage her masters? How is it possible that an artist doesn't get to participate in the conversation and decision making of who will own and manage his/her music? How is it ethic that the product of her life's work can be now owned by someone she doesn't like or agree with, whether she is right or not about her perception of that person?. Anyone who has ever created music or art in any shape or form knows how important that art is, it is a part of who you are, what you lived and how you processed it... It is extremely personal. From experience I can tell you, the conversation needs to happen. I hope she is successful with it as well, I think if anyone can pull off a real conversation starter success, is Taylor Swift.

She should be careful. Many artists have gotten bogged down in legal fights that effectively derailed their creative careers--often over onerous contracts they submitted to early in their careers. Kesha, George Michael and Olivia Newton-John come to mind. I'd say she should be forward looking and record new hit songs and maintain herself in the public eye--best way to control her destiny. Fame is fleeting even for the megastars, and there will be time after her days in the sun to fix back-catalog legal concerns.

A lot of people seem to be confused. What she is doing is a really good thing because she is fighting for the rights of the artist over the rights of the corporation buying everything in sight. For those who mistakenly think she had an opportunity to "buy" the recording rights back...she did not. Basically she was offered indentured servitude. Rights holders wanted to own her for years and make her do what they want in exchange for giving her back her own work little by little (think Jacob and Rachel from the Bible and you get an idea how this is a setup). She refused because (despite what some people might think) she's not stupid. Look, I'm a middle-aged guy who happens to really really REALLY enjoy Taylor's work (in my opinion the Ablum Red is downright genius), and I think everyone has a tendency to make themselves the hero of their own story and blame everyone else for things that go wrong. Taylor also obviously has an enormous target on her back because she's one of the top 20 musical artists IN THE WORLD. Personally I think when a musical artist does all the work they deserve the Lion's Share of the profits and ALL of the control. But that's just me. At any rate, what she is doing is a good thing because at the very least she's encouraging artists to stand up for their rights and not take abuse lying down.

Good for her. Take back the power!

Even for something as plastic and anodyne as Taylor Swift's music, there is something to be said about the irreproducable qualities of any given recording. Issues of empowerment or money aside, I've never thought very much of this practice and the uncanny valley, Stepfordish results it produces--that I've heard anyway, and it would be sort of depressing if there was no difference. Either way, from a purely artistic standpoint, it seems rather bankrupt. I hope that if she follows through, her fans do in fact have a clear way of knowing what they are getting and can choose accordingly.

She should. I've never been a fan, but I don't dislike her either. I'd buy her new recordings just to help her out. Creative artists should own the majority of the rights to their work, not a label or some mook with money. If she hadn't created it, nobody would have anything to sell. This system hasn't been fair to creatives in any field since its inception. Artists need to fight back.

The song "Back to the December" on strings and piano would be especial in Central Park in autumn.

I keep hoping TS will focus on her music. She might produce an extraordinary legacy that stands long after she's gone. Instead we get grievance after grievance after grievance. Girl, you have a gift. Focus on that; ignore the rest.

I think James Taylor did too with two tracks, from his first album, that appeared on his 1976 Greatest Hits album. I believe the story was Apple Corp., which released his debut album, refused permission to include them on the compilation, so JT just recorded new versions.

I know next to nothing about Taylor Swift or her music. But as a regular reader, news stories about her come up, and I read some of them. I frankly don't understand why her plan won't work. In fact, it seems ingenious. And if the public fully understands the implications of choosing the new version over the original, I strongly suspect her fans will do the right thing. As I said, I know nothing about Swift. But I strongly support artists of all sorts in retaining rights over their own work, and she was placed in an untenable situation. So what I would say to her in this context is "Go girl go! Show 'em who's really boss!"

I confess I don’t understand how deep Swift’s dilemma may be here. Mostly I don’t understand why someone like her, in this day and age, with her resources, needs a label at all to produce new work (or re-record old, provided she can get around rights restrictions she may have sold away earlier in her career). Why wouldn’t she just produce and own her own masters, and then license them to distribution channels as she sees fit? For her, its a sellers market. Distribution channels will always purchase her content. Collaborators will always gather under her umbrella. Selling the master rights up front seems like madness to me. Today she can direct distribute, or sell a song to a show or movie or ad campaign directly. She doesn’t need a label. If her agent/management team doesn’t get this, there are plenty of smart industry veterans who do.

Prince and other artists have fought to own their own work. Having someone who has treated you noxiously must be extra galling. I love the idea of artists re-recording their records and owning the masters. And fans will know which to buy. You go girl!

I think this is an even more widespread practice than the article suggests. I know Squeeze recorded an album called “Spot The Difference” that was an attempt to reproduce their greatest hits note-for-note, but with the band owning the master of the new versions. And when I recently went to purchase 1990s rockers Firehouse’s big hit “Don’t Treat Me Bad” from iTunes, the track I bought turned out to be a recently re-recorded note-for-note version, again presumably so that the band would own the master.

Up until and including the rock era this was a common practice in the music business and in the visual art business too. Re-record to overcome onerous contracts or terms endemic to the music business.

Good for her. I look forward to the rereleased versions, and I love that Taylor is using her power to push back.

Full disclosure: I am a Taylor Fan, though I don't think I have achieved my full-bird Swiftie status. More relevantly, I'm in the camp of 'Artists should have the right own their work.' I realize this is a business transaction; however, in the music industry, isn't business is based on relationships of artists that you want to promote? Therefore, I'm not sure why someone like Scooter, who clearly doesn't care for Swift, would move to own her catalog--aside from the fact that it is a gold mine and/or he means it as a 'checkmate' move. Either way, there's something sinister here, especially when you account for his relationship with Taylor's adversaries. Moving forward, I would question anyone who chose to sign with him or his organization. This is a talented young lady in an industry where females are at risk to be exploited. How fortunate is it that she is able to use her success for the good of not only herself but also for other artists to challenge the status quo and have a future where owning their art is possible.

I don't get it. She sold her rights to Big Machine. Big Machine sold to Ithaca Holdings. Now she wants her rights back. Unless she sold her rights to Big Machine subject to a right of first refusal on resale of those rights, I don't think she has much to complain about. She made her bed; now lie in it. Should she do something to intentionally diminish the value of these rights which she sold, she may be committing a tort, violating her original contract, or otherwise exposing her fortune to civil judgment. My advice: drop it.

First,some facts: Taylor Swift's father owned a percentage of Big Machines, which is how Taylor Swift got a recording contract to start with. second, according to most unbiased sources, both her lawyer, and her dad's lawyers were in on the sales negotiations with Scooter Braun: thus her claims of being "blindsided" are false. Finally, this is all prior to the drop of her new album on her new label, and she just finished a tour which had problems selling out. Taking off a year with minimal touring could help to sell more tickets on her next tour. At best, this is a publicity stunt to sell new product; at worst it feels like a temper tantrum being thrown by a small child. Her fans will no doubt keep buying whatever her story is being put out, but the rest of the public should take anything she or her camp says with a grain of salt.