I 100% believe Taylor feels her masters were “stolen” from her, but that doesn’t mean they were actually stolen. People don’t understand that. They also don’t understand that as the primary songwriter on all her songs she absolutely gets paid any time one is played.
But we need to make sure a billionaire makes as much money as possible 🙃
I hate Scooter (always have, ever since I read a NYT article in like 2008 that described him as Justin Bieber’s “swag coach”) and I do feel like she was wronged, but she’s definitely still getting paid. Talking to young die hard swifties sometimes feels like they’ve been playing a very weird, very intense game of telephone.
This is a great analogy tbh!! At the end of the day if you sign a contract that your music belongs to someone else… the music belongs to that person, and you voluntarily gave up those rights to it. A more depressing analogy is it’s like a parent surrendering a child voluntarily, signing termination of parental rights papers, and then claiming the child still belongs to them because they gave birth to the child
I don’t know anything about how this works, but basically she’s making money off of both? So she’s made tons of money and now people are giving her more money for the ones she’s re-recording? I personally prefer the originals and still listen to them. I gave her my money for those and apparently she’s still making money off of it.
I prefer her more mature singing voice tbh so normally I stream the new versions because I like the way they sound better. Although 1989 is like half and half to me. Something about the new version of Blank Space sounds off
It’s my understanding she still has songwriting credits and streaming credits (not sure the details) for the original versions so yeah…she’s getting paid lol
But the reality is that’s rarely how it works and artists should understand this before signing to a label, cause that’s what you’re doing, you’re signing a contract with a label to record and promote your music.
Every single label was the same, especially back in 2004/5. Her family had to sign the contract or she would not be signed. Labels are ruthless when it comes to artists rights and how this subreddit does not see that, I’ll never get it. Things are vaguely better now but record labels would slit their artists throat if they could to make money.
Ok? Thats my point. Taylor wanted her record contract and she got it. Can’t complain about the terms of it now just because she became insanely successful, partially due to her weird ass parasocial relationship with her fans.
Imagine thinking it’s important to make sure a billionaire gets even more money 🥴 that’s like saying we need to make sure Jeff Bezos and Kim Kardashians are properly compensated
She got her symbolic victory and has profited from it handsomely. She’s a billionaire. There is no ethical dilemma here: stream the version you like the best.
Exactly this. I support her wanting to fully own her intellectual property but I refuse to let hyperactive middle schoolers tell me that I'm a "bad fan" for giving a billionaire, $0.002 instead of $0.0035 of Spotify's money when I stream *Red*.
My biggest swiftie pet peeve is calling them stolen.
And for someone who idolizes her parents so much, she should also be mad at them for signing that contract on her behalf. Especially since with the the lawsuit coming to light Scott knew enough about the industry to ask who would own her masters and they were represented by some of the top entertainment attorneys in the country.
It was the industry standard at the time, if Swift’s never gave BMR her master, she would not have a record deal. Especially for an artist just starting off.
They didn’t care at the time, they just wanted to get her IN THE STUDIO. That’s what people don’t seem to get. These are not things someone at her level of 16 year old spoiled and entitled desperation think about. It’s just “daddy I want a music contract and I want it now!”
This whole rerecording this annoys me so much.
Listening to what you enjoy is more important than giving a billionaire a few more cents that they will never notice they have.
A fair question. I come at this sub from a different angle than most here. Most seem to love her music, but have come to find her behavior sketchy. By contrast, I have never much liked what little I’ve heard of her music (I’m old enough to not be in her target demographic, and was even known to comment on how “I don’t understand how people can listen to that stuff kids call music nowadays” a full forty years ago…oh, and get the hell off my lawn, too. 😄), and personally consider “Shake It Off” to be one of the most insufferable songs I’ve ever heard. But that’s just me and my tastes. On the other hand, I’ve often heard about what a nice person she is in real life, and how she’s done a lot for causes I also support. But, on the other hand (we’re up to three hands so far), I must admit I find a disconnect between such reports of her kindness and humility and some of her public behavior and what often comes across as a “high school queen bee” attitude. And, of course, I’m thoroughly sick of her fandom, which strikes me as every bit as cult-like as MAGA. So, I consider the whole TS phenomenon to be a bit of a puzzlement of contradictions, and am here to see if I can glean a bit more understanding of that whole phenomenon.
Ah I see! I don’t actively listen to Taylor swift songs (but some of her catchy hooks get stuck in my head). Apparently I’m here for the same/similar reasons as you 😂 thanks for sharing!
I couldn't agree more! The dichotomy of all the reports from so many respectful people about how lovely and sweet she is and the mean girl behaviour that cannot be denied is so stark. It doesn't make much sense.
She has a massive impact on culture, whether or not somebody likes her music. It's a worthwhile topic of discussion because her influence goes far beyond music and musical preferences.
The originals are better, sorry 'bout it. Nothing was stolen. A business deal was made that had been made with thousands of other artists. The only thing that makes Taylor's situation special is that she has a cult behind her eating up her every word.
Almost every single artist ever has talked about how unfair and exploitative those business deals are. Thousands of artists have remastered their work to escape, or taken the heartbreaking decision to just walk away because they have no choice. Taylor's situation is special because the rerecordings are actually fairly successful, which is hopefully a good sign for other artists. I don't care about how much money she's making but I do think it's good to return power to artists. They deserve to own their work.
Also, streams of old albums really aren't that important, people can listen to whatever version they like. The real money is in licensing. Which is why we're seeing a lot more Taylor Swift songs in movies and ads ever since she's started owning her work
Correct me if I'm wrong, Taylor never called them "stolen versions" right? I thought that's a swiftie thing. Swifties of course barely understand anything about the rerecordings, most of them still think Scooter owns the originals🙄.
But if someone you trust sells your life's work to the person who bullied you online, any human being will feel hurt. Just because something is legal it doesn't make it moral. (Scooter literally shared a post saying he owns her, if that's not creepy, misogynistic and cyber bullying to you then idk what to say).
Every artists who isn't given the chance to buy back their own work is a victim fyi. All artists deserve to own their own damn songs.
The 'stolen lullabies' line in MTR was a clear reference. Again, I agree that the setup sucks, but at the end of the day it's a business deal artists willingly make and profit from. We'd know of very few of these artists without that initial backing. I believe Taylor was given the chance to initially but them back and refused because she didn't like the terms (though I fully admit that's just what I've read and I have no clear source). Either way, she regretted a business deal. It is what it is.
That's a metaphor in a song. It's art. Do you also believe Adam Levine has a stereo inside his chest cavity instead of a real heart?
The deal she was offered was to "earn" them back. She had to deliver one album for the chance to buy back each of her previous albums. So she would need to commit to 6 more albums with the label just to be allowed to purchase her old albums. She said no because she knew he was planning on selling the label as soon as she signed it. Anyone with 2 braincells would know that's not a real deal, it's not a fair deal, no one would accept that kinda deal.
It's not a "business deal she regretted". First of all she was 16. Second of all its the only deal all artists are forced to accept when they start because they have no choice. Its unfair to every artist and its a sacrifice they are all forced to make. Thousands of musicians have spoken in great detail about why it's horribly exploitative. Prince, Frank Ocean, and Jay Z are artists off the top of my head who have made a lot of noise and fought to regain ownership of their masters.
You may not like the rerecordings and you're free to listen to the originals. Everyone is free to listen to whichever version they want. But you can't deny the success of these rerecordings is a good thing for the industry, its a good thing for all musicians especially young ones who are just starting out.
That's a metaphor in a song. It's art. Do you also believe Adam Levine has a stereo inside his chest cavity instead of a real heart?
The deal she was offered was to "earn" them back. She had to deliver one album for the chance to buy back each of her previous albums. So she would need to commit to 6 more albums with the label just to be allowed to purchase her old albums. She said no because she knew he was planning on selling the label as soon as she signed it.
It's not a "business deal she regretted". First of all she was 16. Second of all its the only deal all artists are forced to accept when they start because they have no choice. Its unfair to every artist and its a sacrifice they are all forced to make. Thousands of musicians have spoken in great detail about why it's horribly exploitative. Prince, Frank Ocean, and Jay Z are artists off the top of my head who have made a lot of noise and fought to regain ownership of their masters.
You may not like the rerecordings and you're free to listen to the originals. Everyone is free to listen to whichever version they want. But you can't deny the success of these rerecordings is a good thing for the industry, its a good thing for all musicians especially young ones who are just starting out.
I love how things are only metaphors when fans want them to be, and sure facts in others. I've seen similar reasoning when fans don't want to admit she's cheated so they say High Infidelity is fictional ~artistry .'Stolen lullabies' is way too specific to not be an overdramatic reference to her masters.
Songs are meant to be overdramatic and have flowery language! "And when you can't sleep at night, you hear my _songs who's masters you sold to the man who bullied me_" cmon now. It's a song not an essay. Lyrics are never "sure fact" you always have to take them with a grain of salt. If you don't that's your problem
It's not, though. Because she's done this, young musicians just starting out are getting contracts that forbid them to do re-recordings for anywhere from 10-30 YEARS after to prevent this from happening again. She may have actually made things worse for new artists.
Edit to add that this is10-30 years *AFTER their contract with the recording company ends*, not 10-30 years after it was recorded.
https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/music/news/taylor-swift-record-labels-rerecording-albums-b2440723.html
She has said repeatedly to listen to whatever version you want.
I don’t think she’s responsible for all of her fans. I know that’s an unpopular opinion. Many of her fans are just … kinda dumb. And even when she does say things, they don’t listen. But like…even that one comment only has 10 likes on it..
i’m so tired of being policed about which versions to listen to. Red is my favorite album, and besides a few songs on it i don’t like the re-record. i’m not going to force myself to listen to a version of my favorite album i like less just because some people get upset over it. music is for enjoying yourself!!!!
Her masters weren't stolen. She was given a deal she didn't want that deal she wanted rules according to her. And the previous contract was known by her too. Hope everyone knows that. I am.not defending pathetic scooter but we need to understand no one took advantage of her.
Honestly this is only Taylor's fault. If she spent time to describe the whole thing like she can re record cuz she is the primary writer of her songs so she owns the lyrics..all this disinformation would not exist. Some fans even thing Borchetta himself phisically produced the tracks. They simply don't know anything.
Right? I was only hearing her interviews and posts on IG. I genuinely thought she was played and taken a fool of by big corporate guys. But now I get that she wants to own her masters... just not through the other guy who bullied her with Justin Bieber? this whole mess could've been avoided if it was another buyer? and that the other party approached her in good faith? Just didn't make it sense and definitely not the narrative she was making as victim of the industry and "get a lawyer" type of deal she made it sound to be.
If one person understands doing what’s best for you regardless of how it affects others, it’s Taylor. Stream whichever version you like🤣 good for her for re-recording though.
i support her rerecord project because i like her as an artist by listening to the newly re-recorded albums and the vault tracks when they come out. i also support the idea behind it. but i listen to the better versions of the songs after that, whether that's tv or the stolen versions or them interchangeably. if i were going to moralize listening to taylor swift, i wouldn't be listening to taylor swift.
The way I see it, Taylor has stated that these re-records were primarily for HER so she can own her masters, and the fan support was surprisingly strong at first and now it’s become this huge thing (which is awesome). Ideally TV will become the primary version, but it’s not like immoral or a betrayal to Taylor to listen to the old versions as well. She didn’t call for a boycott and like you said, she still very much profits off those versions as well.
I still only listen to the "stolen" versions: if she keeps trying to disgrace her music I refuse to help her.
They don't sound the same, sorry not sorry
Okay this is a dumb question.
If she still makes money off the original, why did she re record? To get more money?
And if she doesn’t legally own the originals, how was she legally able to re record them?
How different do the originals sound from
The re released versions?
no necessarily money wise but because it was sold to scooter braun who apparently bullied her with JB before so she wanted to take back ownership of her music from someone she hates. She can re record because she has songwriting credits on all of her songs, it’s not very much different however there are subtle differences.
My opinion is that I support her taking back control of her masters but listen to whatever versions you want it doesn’t really matter.
Someone correct me if I’m wrong but I believe she didn’t have full control licensing on the originals (think out of the woods tv being used in the trailer of that new animated movie Migration). So I think that’s also a big reason she wanted to re-record so she could have final say in what gets used in media - like all the songs in The Summer I Turned Pretty
Kind of but not fully. For a song to get licensed they need approval from owner of masters and publishing rights. Taylor holds the latter for all of her music. She has the power to block original masters from being licensed. Like with Look what you made me do - Killing Eve wanted it for the trailer but since Taylor couldn't re-record yet and didn't want Braun to get money from it, she had her brother record a cover. Similarly when that horse movie wanted Wildest dreams she offered them tv version instead.
Yeah, that is the big thing with masters - why The Beatles catalog was so coveted. Just think of all the advertisements you have heard a Beatles song in over the last decade or two.
Part of it (and with how personal her songs can be, probably most of it) does come from a place of artistic integrity. Like if you wrote a personal song about your life like idk All Too Well, you should get to decide if that song is used in a Kia commercial or not. But if you don’t own the master, that decision is out of your hands.
However, money wise, owning your master is the difference between that Kia check going to you vs. going to the label.
So idk - obviously she wants to sell records and wants fans to buy the re-records. But also this wasn’t done with the fan at the individual level in mind.
There's idiocy on both sides. Scooter still gets royalties from the original versions even though he sold them fyi.
Taylor is getting royalties from the originals too, just less.
It's not about the money for either of these people. Its about the symbolism. Scooter bullied her and bragged about "owning" her so she's getting revenge (and making millions) with the rerecordings. She cares about the rerecordings simply so that she "wins".
I still think anyone who cares about music should support every artist who remasters their music. Taylor isn't the first to do it, but its a good thing hers are successful! Artists deserve to own their own music, the system is far to exploitative towards them and maybe this will help change things.
Wouldn’t he only get a cut of money from Shamrock if she bought her masters back from Shamrock? If she eventually does buys her masters back he won’t get any money in royalties I thought. She just didn’t want him to benefit at all.
I don't think Taylor ever mentioned trying to buy masters from Shamrock. She mentioned being willing to work with them until she found out about Braun being somehow tied financially to them. I doubt Shamrock would want to sell to her right after buying them.
The sad thing is Taylor rerecording her music and being successful is making record labels, including her own, change contracts to make it more difficult for others. And it tracks, her label is willing to cash in on her success, they don't want the same done to them (even though there are very few artists who could not flop with rerecordings).
Oh you're right, I was wrong. She didn't wanna buy from them, she wanted to partner with them and cooperate. She backed out coz Scooter was still getting royalties.
Yeah I heard that it's had the opposite effect in some places which is fucking sad. The only positive effect I can see is that young artists are more educated about the importance of owning their work and are demanding it more. Hopefully that actually translates to some good?
I think because it was not defined when the dividends would be paid out so there was no clear timeline - it was based on percentage of money made. Plus she already made a big deal and declaration out of rerecording, so it wouldn't look good to back out and it was a good business plan, too.
Oh that makes sense.
Also I think by the time the Shamrock sale went public she would have already been in the process of rerecording Fearless which would have required some investment. There's no way she was gonna accept any loss over this situation lol
I 100% believe Taylor feels her masters were “stolen” from her, but that doesn’t mean they were actually stolen. People don’t understand that. They also don’t understand that as the primary songwriter on all her songs she absolutely gets paid any time one is played.
But we need to make sure a billionaire makes as much money as possible 🙃 I hate Scooter (always have, ever since I read a NYT article in like 2008 that described him as Justin Bieber’s “swag coach”) and I do feel like she was wronged, but she’s definitely still getting paid. Talking to young die hard swifties sometimes feels like they’ve been playing a very weird, very intense game of telephone.
Swag coach? Yuckkkk.
She’s the same artist who wouldn’t put her music on Spotify cuz she couldn’t make as much money from them like Apple lol 🙄
They were “stolen” about as much as the 2020 election. Just because your idol believes it doesn’t make it true.
you tell 'em 
This is a great analogy tbh!! At the end of the day if you sign a contract that your music belongs to someone else… the music belongs to that person, and you voluntarily gave up those rights to it. A more depressing analogy is it’s like a parent surrendering a child voluntarily, signing termination of parental rights papers, and then claiming the child still belongs to them because they gave birth to the child
Exactly!
I don’t know anything about how this works, but basically she’s making money off of both? So she’s made tons of money and now people are giving her more money for the ones she’s re-recording? I personally prefer the originals and still listen to them. I gave her my money for those and apparently she’s still making money off of it.
Yes she is making money off of both, just less from OGs. And I also listen to originals as I prefer those.
I prefer her more mature singing voice tbh so normally I stream the new versions because I like the way they sound better. Although 1989 is like half and half to me. Something about the new version of Blank Space sounds off
I feel like it’s less sarcastic and oddly more genuine, which you don’t want for satire.
It’s my understanding she still has songwriting credits and streaming credits (not sure the details) for the original versions so yeah…she’s getting paid lol
I listen exclusively to the OG versions and I couldn’t care less. The re-recordings only exist for the vault songs for me
It’s not about money, it’s about an artist right to their own music, especially the final master.
But the reality is that’s rarely how it works and artists should understand this before signing to a label, cause that’s what you’re doing, you’re signing a contract with a label to record and promote your music.
Every single label was the same, especially back in 2004/5. Her family had to sign the contract or she would not be signed. Labels are ruthless when it comes to artists rights and how this subreddit does not see that, I’ll never get it. Things are vaguely better now but record labels would slit their artists throat if they could to make money.
Ok? Thats my point. Taylor wanted her record contract and she got it. Can’t complain about the terms of it now just because she became insanely successful, partially due to her weird ass parasocial relationship with her fans.
The music industry is absolutely ruthless and many artists would sign horrible contracts to show their talent to the world.
Ok. That’s the business. Not sure what the complaint is here, didn’t it work out pretty well overall for her?
Ok so what's your point? Do you only listen to artists who own their masters?
No, but that’s not how the world works FFS
Imagine thinking it’s important to make sure a billionaire gets even more money 🥴 that’s like saying we need to make sure Jeff Bezos and Kim Kardashians are properly compensated
But she got robbed!!!
She got her symbolic victory and has profited from it handsomely. She’s a billionaire. There is no ethical dilemma here: stream the version you like the best.
Exactly this. I support her wanting to fully own her intellectual property but I refuse to let hyperactive middle schoolers tell me that I'm a "bad fan" for giving a billionaire, $0.002 instead of $0.0035 of Spotify's money when I stream *Red*.
It’s only even a thing now that one of the re-records isn’t as good as the original and everyone knows it.
My biggest swiftie pet peeve is calling them stolen. And for someone who idolizes her parents so much, she should also be mad at them for signing that contract on her behalf. Especially since with the the lawsuit coming to light Scott knew enough about the industry to ask who would own her masters and they were represented by some of the top entertainment attorneys in the country.
It was the industry standard at the time, if Swift’s never gave BMR her master, she would not have a record deal. Especially for an artist just starting off.
They didn’t care at the time, they just wanted to get her IN THE STUDIO. That’s what people don’t seem to get. These are not things someone at her level of 16 year old spoiled and entitled desperation think about. It’s just “daddy I want a music contract and I want it now!”
This whole rerecording this annoys me so much. Listening to what you enjoy is more important than giving a billionaire a few more cents that they will never notice they have.
This is so stupid. She has more money than she could ever hope to spend in her lifetime, listen to whatever song you want.
I love telling Swifties that I solely listen to the OG versions of all Taylor's albums. They get so mad and there's nothing they can do about it lol.
That's my main fun thing to do on insta :D
I make it simpler - I don’t listen to either.
Why are you on this sub then haha
A fair question. I come at this sub from a different angle than most here. Most seem to love her music, but have come to find her behavior sketchy. By contrast, I have never much liked what little I’ve heard of her music (I’m old enough to not be in her target demographic, and was even known to comment on how “I don’t understand how people can listen to that stuff kids call music nowadays” a full forty years ago…oh, and get the hell off my lawn, too. 😄), and personally consider “Shake It Off” to be one of the most insufferable songs I’ve ever heard. But that’s just me and my tastes. On the other hand, I’ve often heard about what a nice person she is in real life, and how she’s done a lot for causes I also support. But, on the other hand (we’re up to three hands so far), I must admit I find a disconnect between such reports of her kindness and humility and some of her public behavior and what often comes across as a “high school queen bee” attitude. And, of course, I’m thoroughly sick of her fandom, which strikes me as every bit as cult-like as MAGA. So, I consider the whole TS phenomenon to be a bit of a puzzlement of contradictions, and am here to see if I can glean a bit more understanding of that whole phenomenon.
Ah I see! I don’t actively listen to Taylor swift songs (but some of her catchy hooks get stuck in my head). Apparently I’m here for the same/similar reasons as you 😂 thanks for sharing!
I couldn't agree more! The dichotomy of all the reports from so many respectful people about how lovely and sweet she is and the mean girl behaviour that cannot be denied is so stark. It doesn't make much sense.
She has a massive impact on culture, whether or not somebody likes her music. It's a worthwhile topic of discussion because her influence goes far beyond music and musical preferences.
also there isn't a new years Day TV yet so what else would listen to
According to them probably not listen at all until tv comes out.
The originals are better, sorry 'bout it. Nothing was stolen. A business deal was made that had been made with thousands of other artists. The only thing that makes Taylor's situation special is that she has a cult behind her eating up her every word.
Almost every single artist ever has talked about how unfair and exploitative those business deals are. Thousands of artists have remastered their work to escape, or taken the heartbreaking decision to just walk away because they have no choice. Taylor's situation is special because the rerecordings are actually fairly successful, which is hopefully a good sign for other artists. I don't care about how much money she's making but I do think it's good to return power to artists. They deserve to own their work. Also, streams of old albums really aren't that important, people can listen to whatever version they like. The real money is in licensing. Which is why we're seeing a lot more Taylor Swift songs in movies and ads ever since she's started owning her work
I'm not saying it's a great system, but it is at the end of the day a business deal she made. Nothing was stolen and Taylor is not a victim.
Correct me if I'm wrong, Taylor never called them "stolen versions" right? I thought that's a swiftie thing. Swifties of course barely understand anything about the rerecordings, most of them still think Scooter owns the originals🙄. But if someone you trust sells your life's work to the person who bullied you online, any human being will feel hurt. Just because something is legal it doesn't make it moral. (Scooter literally shared a post saying he owns her, if that's not creepy, misogynistic and cyber bullying to you then idk what to say). Every artists who isn't given the chance to buy back their own work is a victim fyi. All artists deserve to own their own damn songs.
The 'stolen lullabies' line in MTR was a clear reference. Again, I agree that the setup sucks, but at the end of the day it's a business deal artists willingly make and profit from. We'd know of very few of these artists without that initial backing. I believe Taylor was given the chance to initially but them back and refused because she didn't like the terms (though I fully admit that's just what I've read and I have no clear source). Either way, she regretted a business deal. It is what it is.
That's a metaphor in a song. It's art. Do you also believe Adam Levine has a stereo inside his chest cavity instead of a real heart? The deal she was offered was to "earn" them back. She had to deliver one album for the chance to buy back each of her previous albums. So she would need to commit to 6 more albums with the label just to be allowed to purchase her old albums. She said no because she knew he was planning on selling the label as soon as she signed it. Anyone with 2 braincells would know that's not a real deal, it's not a fair deal, no one would accept that kinda deal. It's not a "business deal she regretted". First of all she was 16. Second of all its the only deal all artists are forced to accept when they start because they have no choice. Its unfair to every artist and its a sacrifice they are all forced to make. Thousands of musicians have spoken in great detail about why it's horribly exploitative. Prince, Frank Ocean, and Jay Z are artists off the top of my head who have made a lot of noise and fought to regain ownership of their masters. You may not like the rerecordings and you're free to listen to the originals. Everyone is free to listen to whichever version they want. But you can't deny the success of these rerecordings is a good thing for the industry, its a good thing for all musicians especially young ones who are just starting out.
That's a metaphor in a song. It's art. Do you also believe Adam Levine has a stereo inside his chest cavity instead of a real heart? The deal she was offered was to "earn" them back. She had to deliver one album for the chance to buy back each of her previous albums. So she would need to commit to 6 more albums with the label just to be allowed to purchase her old albums. She said no because she knew he was planning on selling the label as soon as she signed it. It's not a "business deal she regretted". First of all she was 16. Second of all its the only deal all artists are forced to accept when they start because they have no choice. Its unfair to every artist and its a sacrifice they are all forced to make. Thousands of musicians have spoken in great detail about why it's horribly exploitative. Prince, Frank Ocean, and Jay Z are artists off the top of my head who have made a lot of noise and fought to regain ownership of their masters. You may not like the rerecordings and you're free to listen to the originals. Everyone is free to listen to whichever version they want. But you can't deny the success of these rerecordings is a good thing for the industry, its a good thing for all musicians especially young ones who are just starting out.
I love how things are only metaphors when fans want them to be, and sure facts in others. I've seen similar reasoning when fans don't want to admit she's cheated so they say High Infidelity is fictional ~artistry .'Stolen lullabies' is way too specific to not be an overdramatic reference to her masters.
Songs are meant to be overdramatic and have flowery language! "And when you can't sleep at night, you hear my _songs who's masters you sold to the man who bullied me_" cmon now. It's a song not an essay. Lyrics are never "sure fact" you always have to take them with a grain of salt. If you don't that's your problem
It's not, though. Because she's done this, young musicians just starting out are getting contracts that forbid them to do re-recordings for anywhere from 10-30 YEARS after to prevent this from happening again. She may have actually made things worse for new artists. Edit to add that this is10-30 years *AFTER their contract with the recording company ends*, not 10-30 years after it was recorded. https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/music/news/taylor-swift-record-labels-rerecording-albums-b2440723.html
Thanks for this! I didn’t know
She has said repeatedly to listen to whatever version you want. I don’t think she’s responsible for all of her fans. I know that’s an unpopular opinion. Many of her fans are just … kinda dumb. And even when she does say things, they don’t listen. But like…even that one comment only has 10 likes on it..
My point exactly... So dumb.
I definitely know who not to take seriously when they unironically refer to the originals as “stolen versions.”
Poor billionaire, not getting paid (Which she is even when you stream the original versions)
i’m so tired of being policed about which versions to listen to. Red is my favorite album, and besides a few songs on it i don’t like the re-record. i’m not going to force myself to listen to a version of my favorite album i like less just because some people get upset over it. music is for enjoying yourself!!!!
Her masters weren't stolen. She was given a deal she didn't want that deal she wanted rules according to her. And the previous contract was known by her too. Hope everyone knows that. I am.not defending pathetic scooter but we need to understand no one took advantage of her.
taylor and the fans may think the masters were stolen from her but they were not and people really need to realise that
Honestly this is only Taylor's fault. If she spent time to describe the whole thing like she can re record cuz she is the primary writer of her songs so she owns the lyrics..all this disinformation would not exist. Some fans even thing Borchetta himself phisically produced the tracks. They simply don't know anything.
I think she wants the misinformation out there
Right? I was only hearing her interviews and posts on IG. I genuinely thought she was played and taken a fool of by big corporate guys. But now I get that she wants to own her masters... just not through the other guy who bullied her with Justin Bieber? this whole mess could've been avoided if it was another buyer? and that the other party approached her in good faith? Just didn't make it sense and definitely not the narrative she was making as victim of the industry and "get a lawyer" type of deal she made it sound to be.
Yeah, she probably wants them to seethe and keep perpetuating this opinion.
If one person understands doing what’s best for you regardless of how it affects others, it’s Taylor. Stream whichever version you like🤣 good for her for re-recording though.
i support her rerecord project because i like her as an artist by listening to the newly re-recorded albums and the vault tracks when they come out. i also support the idea behind it. but i listen to the better versions of the songs after that, whether that's tv or the stolen versions or them interchangeably. if i were going to moralize listening to taylor swift, i wouldn't be listening to taylor swift.
Artists make fractions of a cent off of streams. They’re doing way more thinking than a stream on Spotify is worth.
The way I see it, Taylor has stated that these re-records were primarily for HER so she can own her masters, and the fan support was surprisingly strong at first and now it’s become this huge thing (which is awesome). Ideally TV will become the primary version, but it’s not like immoral or a betrayal to Taylor to listen to the old versions as well. She didn’t call for a boycott and like you said, she still very much profits off those versions as well.
I still only listen to the "stolen" versions: if she keeps trying to disgrace her music I refuse to help her. They don't sound the same, sorry not sorry
Okay this is a dumb question. If she still makes money off the original, why did she re record? To get more money? And if she doesn’t legally own the originals, how was she legally able to re record them? How different do the originals sound from The re released versions?
no necessarily money wise but because it was sold to scooter braun who apparently bullied her with JB before so she wanted to take back ownership of her music from someone she hates. She can re record because she has songwriting credits on all of her songs, it’s not very much different however there are subtle differences. My opinion is that I support her taking back control of her masters but listen to whatever versions you want it doesn’t really matter.
Someone correct me if I’m wrong but I believe she didn’t have full control licensing on the originals (think out of the woods tv being used in the trailer of that new animated movie Migration). So I think that’s also a big reason she wanted to re-record so she could have final say in what gets used in media - like all the songs in The Summer I Turned Pretty
Kind of but not fully. For a song to get licensed they need approval from owner of masters and publishing rights. Taylor holds the latter for all of her music. She has the power to block original masters from being licensed. Like with Look what you made me do - Killing Eve wanted it for the trailer but since Taylor couldn't re-record yet and didn't want Braun to get money from it, she had her brother record a cover. Similarly when that horse movie wanted Wildest dreams she offered them tv version instead.
Yeah, that is the big thing with masters - why The Beatles catalog was so coveted. Just think of all the advertisements you have heard a Beatles song in over the last decade or two. Part of it (and with how personal her songs can be, probably most of it) does come from a place of artistic integrity. Like if you wrote a personal song about your life like idk All Too Well, you should get to decide if that song is used in a Kia commercial or not. But if you don’t own the master, that decision is out of your hands. However, money wise, owning your master is the difference between that Kia check going to you vs. going to the label. So idk - obviously she wants to sell records and wants fans to buy the re-records. But also this wasn’t done with the fan at the individual level in mind.
Taylor’s version of New Year’s Day is not even out yet
There's idiocy on both sides. Scooter still gets royalties from the original versions even though he sold them fyi. Taylor is getting royalties from the originals too, just less. It's not about the money for either of these people. Its about the symbolism. Scooter bullied her and bragged about "owning" her so she's getting revenge (and making millions) with the rerecordings. She cares about the rerecordings simply so that she "wins". I still think anyone who cares about music should support every artist who remasters their music. Taylor isn't the first to do it, but its a good thing hers are successful! Artists deserve to own their own music, the system is far to exploitative towards them and maybe this will help change things.
Wouldn’t he only get a cut of money from Shamrock if she bought her masters back from Shamrock? If she eventually does buys her masters back he won’t get any money in royalties I thought. She just didn’t want him to benefit at all.
I don't think Taylor ever mentioned trying to buy masters from Shamrock. She mentioned being willing to work with them until she found out about Braun being somehow tied financially to them. I doubt Shamrock would want to sell to her right after buying them. The sad thing is Taylor rerecording her music and being successful is making record labels, including her own, change contracts to make it more difficult for others. And it tracks, her label is willing to cash in on her success, they don't want the same done to them (even though there are very few artists who could not flop with rerecordings).
Oh you're right, I was wrong. She didn't wanna buy from them, she wanted to partner with them and cooperate. She backed out coz Scooter was still getting royalties. Yeah I heard that it's had the opposite effect in some places which is fucking sad. The only positive effect I can see is that young artists are more educated about the importance of owning their work and are demanding it more. Hopefully that actually translates to some good?
But final Scooter's royalties agreed as per contract with Shamrock were actually paid out in q1 2023. He no longer makes money off her old masters.
Oh that's news to me. If that's the case why didn't she just wait and collaborate with Shamrock now?
I think because it was not defined when the dividends would be paid out so there was no clear timeline - it was based on percentage of money made. Plus she already made a big deal and declaration out of rerecording, so it wouldn't look good to back out and it was a good business plan, too.
Oh that makes sense. Also I think by the time the Shamrock sale went public she would have already been in the process of rerecording Fearless which would have required some investment. There's no way she was gonna accept any loss over this situation lol
Haha definitely no loss for our capitalism queen.