Taylor actually did reach out to all the musicians that played instruments on the first master recording for the re-recordings. And almost all of them participated in the project. It’s really cool that he could tell that that was the case.
The human ear is an incredible tool. If LegalEagle had given him a little more screen time, I bet Beato could point out much, much more about the differences in the tracks.
I'm curious if she will re-record some of the collaborations she's done with other artists that were not on albums like the Bad Blood remix with Kendrick Lamar or Safe & Sound with the Civil Wars (get the band back together? :( ).
My favorite part of that whole situation is that the music label tells the artist "you're screwed because of *legalese*, and you should just calmly take it" and then when the artist finds a legal way to screw them over, suddenly it's "They are negatively impacting us and they are the worst person ever for it!" I ain't even a Taytay fan and I love that she did that.
THIS. They gaslit the hell out of her and tried to flip the narrative. They came for her first, knowing exactly what they were doing and what message it sent, and then tried to condemn her for responding. Scooter Braun and Scott Borchetta are trash.
@@scottwpilgrim He's named after his sister. :D But seriously, the day I ever feel bad for a record label please contact my family because I need a functional MRI. I probably have a brain tumor.
@@scottwpilgrim Bieber needs to get rid of Scooter, I truly believe he's manipulating Justin for his money. He describes themselves as a "family".... reminds me of toxic companies.
Olivia Rodrigo said that witnessing the Taylor Swift masters dispute made her realize how cautious she needed to be while breaking into the mainstream music industry. Olivia said that she refused to sign a label until she found one that would allow her to own her own masters and give her a fair deal in royalties, licensing, and revenue because she didn’t want her music to be given the same treatment that her Taylor’s _Taylor Swift, Fearless, Speak Now, Red, 1989, & Reputation_ albums received.
And then she stole from 5 to 6 artists + that we know of , that was really disappointing and takes away from the whole point of all the hard work of Taylor's example for other artist
I think while this legal battle was difficult for Taylor it did bring a huge level of awarness to artists and the public about the importance of owning your masters. She definitely impacted the music industry course and I respect her a lot for the strength that she's proven while doing so. She's quite the unique combination of artistic talent and business prowess
Her business manager is the one calling the shot. Swift isn't actually making the decisions on this stuff, she has a giant team around her including 2 huge marketing agencies in LA and New York. Bizarre how people worship celebrities and actually think she's leading the charge on this stuff.
@@ricktyman4709 She makes the decisions, her teams work for her. Why would marketing teams decide legal aspects of her career? that makes no sense. Nobody is worshiping anyone, other objective analists from Forbes, Billboard, NYTimes have acknowledged her skills so don't try to make this a "crazy fan" comment.
@@ricktyman4709 She decides who she works with the direction to take. She has the final say. She’s smart enough to surround herself with the brightest legal and marketing minds. I don’t even like her music so I’m not a super fan. I’m a fan of her career choices not her music.
She took out her entire music catalog out of spotify before so that they agree to pay artists more and it worked. Same goes with Apple Music. She made a deal with UGM that they give more profit to their new artists as well. She did a lot for the new generation of artists, her impact is undeniable. Truly an artist of the decade or maybe century. For dummies who’s says she’s money hungry have no logical thinking at all. All of her music that she owns (since lover) are all available for free on RUclips. Her biggest income is not from streaming, she doesn’t to need that anyway. If she wants money that much why did she remove her entire catalog from Spotify for years? especially during her peak era too
As with most situations it is the labels that get the money from streaming services who then pay their artists shitty. Taylor is revolutionary in going around this and I'm glad she exists and is back on streaming in a greater way! Go Taylor!
Actually, Taylor Swift took her music off Spotify because she didn't like that they had a free tier. She was of the opinion that only people who pay should be able to listen to her music.
@@Djungelurban - That is not going to stop a portion of us out there. I have not bought a song since the 90's when they stopped selling vinyl and CD's were on the decline. I found a legal company to buy from online for a while that was about 80% discount compared to Apple/Google/others until they dried up. These days I get mine from various foreign sources in high quality MP3's. No DRM. No I do not use any download services and certainly none you have heard of. I have one of the largest collections of music I believe in the region. I do this because if something changes in the licencing on these songs, the way they have this stuff configured is they can reach into your device or account and remove it. Good luck with that shit. I don't even need a connection to choose from 32k songs in the library in the car. Its easy today to have a hoard like that given the massive storage devices out there floating around and a copy of it is on my Mac my PC my Tablet my Safe. Can't get them all.
To people saying, "Taylor Swift isn't the first one to introduce re-recordings, some musicians did it way before that," yes she isnt the first one but she definitely has the biggest impact considering how huge her fan base is. KUDOS to her!
Def Leppard recorded new masters of their music a few years ago because their old label wouldn’t give them permission to release their old music on streaming services.
Pointing that out isn't meant to dimiinsh what she did; it's meant to call out how this video gives the wrong impression in implying that such re-recordings are unprecedented, when in fact the practice has been common for many, many decades. Historically, critics and fans have generally preferred originals in the end, even if they appreciate the gesture. So it's also strange that this piece assumes, going forward, that the opposite will be the case for Swift, and, by implication, others going forward. Only time will tell.
I love that she not only remade her albums, she upgraded them with more experienced vocals and all of the improvements in instruments and recording technology that she didn’t have on the first go-round. Being able to improve on her existing creations and make them work for her financially sounds like a win 💰 win to me. Kudos to Taylor 👍🏾
It’s amazing too for the fans that grew up with her because the songs are re-recorded in the “grown up” way. Like the song grew with us not just the artist.☺️
@@cawesomewhatever definitely! i grew up with fearless specifically, so hearing how mature her voice is now on fearless (taylor’s version) is so lovely
I'm a huge Taylor Swift fan but my mom never bought me the Taylor Swift albums I wanted. Now I'm glad that I don't because now I get to buy all her re-recorded albums and fulfill my childhood dreams while also supporting Taylor Swift. It's a win win situation.
@Matej Taylor Swift is geared towards tween and teen girls, it's ok if it's not something you can relate to but don't tear down people who like her music. I probably wouldn't enjoy your type of music but I wouldn't call you pathetic for having a different opinion about music.
@@PrivacymodeGreat way to handle it I just worry they were a Swiftie that felt they couldn't Swift 😢 Sadly, some people feel unincluded or pushed out to the point they get really mean- you being kind in response though, really changes their life. I can tell you that much, so thank you
Salvador Dali did a similar thing with his art after he lost control of it. He signed tens of thousands of blank canvases, and then encouraged people to buy them and print his most famous works to dilute the value of the real ones.
He would also buy extravagant meals and pay for them by doodling on and signing the bills, making them worth way more as artwork than the restaurants would have gotten for the food
Gieger did the same thing after he was ripped off (Ridley Scott screwed him big time after he did the Aliens special effects, which were based on his artwork. It took him years and tons of side projects to recoup the money he lost).
Taylor actually did request a lot of the same musicians and team help with her reproduced albums. One of my fave things about them is how she brought them back. I love in the Vault songs how she's bringing other artists she loves to sing with her. It's not just about money or making a label happy for her anymore. She's getting to really enjoy what she's doing. I love that for her 😭❤
These re-recordings have never been about the money for TayTay. She saw her life’s work being sold and used without even considering her. 🛴did everything he could to keep her from getting them back. Offering deals he knew she would and could never take. But all of this did give us Swifties something really special. Watching each era Begin Again❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️ The only question that remains is…. What era are we in when Tay doesn’t even know😂😂
@@redvinesron i think she’s at home, with Joe, and they are looking at all of us clowns who come up with one insane theory after another. And they are laughing their asses off 😂. We don’t know what her end game is with 1989. Will she release it before red? Will she release it at the same time as red? After red? We don’t know. But the theories get crazier. I haven’t been a fan for that long, only since 2019. And never in my wildest dreams did I imagine an artist pulling me in like this. But that’s the power of Taylor!
One thing that I feel like often gets missed when talking about this is that Big Machine wasn't some big company taking a chance on this unknown teenager. She met Scott Borchetta when he was working for another label and planning to set up Big Machine. She took a chance on them just as much as they did on her - she had bigger labels who offered her development deals (where essentially they'd work with her towards the goal of releasing a record when she was 18, but not yet) but Big Machine, since they were just starting out, was in a position to take a leap and offer her a record deal. She on her end also took a leap by signing with this brand new, unknown label. Big Machine's success can almost entirely be attributed to Taylor Swift. Not only did her music make up 50% of their overall net worth, but the other artists that got big on that label absolutely benefitted from Swift's success - from 2008 onwards, signing with Taylor Swift's label was a way more attractive proposition to other artists than signing with Big Machine without Taylor Swift would have been. Both Swift and Big Machine took a risk with each other, and both benefitted massively. It was a mutually beneficial partnership, and both sides owed each other, though I'd argue that post-1989, Big Machine benefitted from Swift far more than she did from them. But when it came time that Borchetta wanted to sell Big Machine, they tried to treat Swift like an unknown 15 year old instead of the reason for their success. Letting Swift buy her masters would have been tough for Big Machine initially, but there was a LOT of value in maintaining a positive relationship with an artist this big with this much proven longevity (and essentially the only artist who still sells substantial amounts of physical albums in addition to being a streaming giant). It would have left the door open for partnerships down the road, and she may have been amenable to some sort of deal that benefitted Big Machine while still giving her ownership of her masters. Even if they didn't offer her the chance to buy her masters, selling them to literally anyone who wasn't Scooter Braun would have at least kept the relationship cordial, rather than prompting Swift to go scorched-earth (which should have been utterly unsurprising for anyone, but especially Scott Borchetta, one of her closet collaborators for over a decade). I disagree with the argument in general that artists signed the contracts so they have to live with every unfair, exploitative provision within them, but I can at least follow the logic when it comes to a big label expending resources on someone who may or may not succeed, when they could be pouring those resources into more surefire successes or their already successful clients. Big Machine, though, was a startup that would have been taking a risk on anyone, because they weren't big enough to attract anyone except risky newcomers. Their gamble paid off big time, but if not for Swift, it is extremely likely they would have folded early on, or puttered along for a while with micellaneous country acts until eventually having to shut down. Tl;dr Taylor Swift took a chance on an unknown label and Big Machine bit the hand that fed them to success.
Yes, her relationship with BMR soured but let's not ignore the fact that BMR gave her a ton of freedom to do what she wanted with her music and marketing from the beginning that most other labels wouldn't have done at the time with someone just starting. Just because BMR was starting doesn't mean they could've done that, because Scott was risking his money and his label by giving her so much control. IMO a big label is the one that can better afford to make a mistake than one that is just starting. And no, I do not think he made her vault the songs she's now including in re-recordings. We know she's still not releasing every song she wrote for an album (she cut 2 songs from Lover to make room for Death by a thousand cuts and London Boy and Aaron said some of his favourite songs didn't make it onto folklore and evermore).
@@bluegreen5377 ummmm no taylor has countless of arguments with BMR before about her artistic choice she's just very adamant and convinced just almost everyone.. When swift was starting she and her mom took the initiative to used social media to promote her songs (swift was actually one of the first artist who used social media as a tool for marketing) because bmr is not financially capable to promote her outside of Nashville. Taylor went from one gig to another after school in some of nashville's night clubs and request the audience to call radio stations and request for her songs (again it's her own initiative) because bmr still is not that capable to promote and pay for radio support that's why Taylor's father invest in Big Machine for a (3% share) at least to help the label financially. Taylor personally used her own funds to create 1989 because big machine is so against her moving to pop (MV, marketing, themes, photoshoots, promotions) it was all Taylor and her personal team (13 management) efforts, Big Machine only helps distribute the albums for (targets and radio/streaming) but unfortunately taylor pulled out her streaming catalogue for 3 yrs.. In short taylor created/contributed more than BMR.
I'm not much of a listener of Swift's music, just not my thing, but she's absolutely a genius for doing this. So much respect for her. What an absolute badass.
Yeah, I've never been into her music either (personally I used to be a huuuge country music lover - and I'd be kind of/*OK VERY resentful whenever pop artists marketed themselves as country...and, I'd even like *some* of them, like Rascal Flatts or Miranda Lambert, but I'd still just simply hate the fact they didn't just call themselves pop instead. Taylor's songs I still wasn't fond of even after she stopped marketing as country, not out of stubbornness - but just because I never particularly enjoyed it, as pop or as country). But regardless what she did here is good, and I do grant her that.
@@raggletaggle8827 I'm sure you still love country music, it's "twangpop" you're not a fan of :) There is some new country that's still good though. Check out Yola.
Heard Dolly Parton talking about her song "I will always love you" and how Elvis was going cover it... but Elvis wanted 50% of the publishing rights to the song to do the cover. She turned Elvis down, and the rest is history. As she says in interviews about Whitney's cover of her song, you can give Whitney the credit, just give Dolly the money.
While that story is correct Elvis himself didn’t turn it down, he didn’t even know it had been offered to him. Colonel Parker was doing that shit all the time behind his back.
It was Jolene and “Colonel” Tom Parker tried to push the issue. “You know, when Elvis covers a song they usually give him 50% out of gratitude.” Dolly told the Colonel to take a hike. She never liked him to begin with.
About Whitney's contract to cover the song Dolly said "When I made that song, I could take money to the bank, when she (Whitney) sang it, I bought the bank." Dolly has always been far smarter than anyone gave her credit and she fully utilized business people looking at her like a dumb bimbo with a golden voice by dialing that image to 11 and then making absolutely fantastic deals concerning her music. Even with all her rather massive charity investments, she's worth over 600 Million.
Even as a non-Swiftie, a mere casual listener, I have a lot of respect for Taylor Swift. She put in the work to own her music as not let her old company win, I always admire people who stick it to the man. She's a great artist and businesswoman, and her passion shows.
A generic loaf of white bread should never be considered legendary. Popular, passable and forgotten are generic white bread's hallmarks, just like Tay, Tay's ditty du jour.
@@isaakvanwegen2784 No, it didn't. Swift used the abundant powers she had to fight against those trying to control her interests. Receiving, yet another, undeserved award is morbidly redundant. But, after all, it is what she does best.
@@jalderink but others didn't achieve what she did, so she isn't generic. I'm not a fan or anything and don't think she's a great person or anything she just isn't generic. If she was generic she wouldn't have achieved as much. She doesn't make unique music necessarily but it isn't totally generic neither and neither is she.
@@isaakvanwegen2784 I see your point, Isaak but success has many facets. Sure, you can say that she stands out because of her success but that doesn't mean that generic isn't successful. Ford sells the most trucks but that doesn't mean they're all Bigfoot or that Bigfoot is the best. Most of them are more similar than different and frankly, so is she. I don't think that she isn't talented or deserve any awards, it's just the LEVEL of the awards she's received is really more due to how monetarily successful & popular her celebrity career has been than her skills as a musician. Her timing couldn't have been better. The entire music industry was in turmoil so they propped her up like a humongous, neon billboard above a 5 cent lemonade stand. Kids buying lemonade were 90% of her fanbase. The award shows were desperate to draw attention so they gleefully handed her awards that would draw that attention. Music biz sees a buncha kids buying that lemonade? Kids love sugar, the Executives know this. Let's sell 'em all the juice we can squeeze w/10 x the corn syrupy sweetness to wash it down with. (They had plenty left over from the boy band era). You know, filling the void for her EXACT same fan base. Do you really think teens adoration is a good measuring stick for musical virtuosity? Sure, she's good. Best new pop single or teen choice award, easy. She's just not multiple, ARTIST or ALBUM OF THE YEAR good. Placing her efforts above the greatest musicians in modern history, just exposes these awards for what they are. Shiny, hollow plastic made to sell you more shiny hollow plastic. A simple formula to cash in on the mainstream. not celebrate true creative genius. How is that NOT generic?
though she won't be able to repeat this trick as easily on the other 4 albums. as her career progressed and she moved to pop from country she wrote and composed fewer songs. so after this she might do a compilation of the stuff she has rights to of the rest.
Even before her fights over her first six albums, Swift fought digital streaming platforms over royalties and won. She has been fighting for the rights of songwriters and recording artists, big and small, for ages.
Just a bit of Trivia here, but I'm actually the person who shutdown Napster. It wasn't my original intention as I went to solve a legal/technical dilemma that had even the Judge wondering if new laws weren't needed. I analyzed the Napster system and identified their design flaw. For one, Napster had no income (it was living off Venture Capital). My intention was to make them not only Legal but allow them to become a revenue source for Musicians -- so even garage bands could make themselves known without using the Record Industry. Those songs that required royalties could be purchased. A new band could sell for an intro price to establish themselves. And those who didn't care could be shared for free. However that's when I found out Napster wasn't in it for the musicians but to break everything. They said my analysis had nothing to do with anything but threatened me when i told them that as it has nothing to do with anything that i could take it to the Judge. So i took my report of how to fix Napster and make it legal (which I could have done solo in a month) to the Courts and two weeks later now that the confusion was gone Napster was shutdown. And that's the story. Had they not been as greedy as the Record Industry Napster could have been Amazon before Amazon -- selling anything & everything. Oh well.
Watching this over a year later and Fearless (Taylor's Version) and Red (Taylor's Version) have now out streamed the original versions of the albums, her impact is truly undeniable.
Hey all. I’m a professional working class musician and have soooo much to say about all this. First! Thank you Legal Eagle!!! The legality surrounding music is intentionally designed to be hostile towards musicians. And, I know what a lot of you are thinking “just don’t take the contract” and as a person who has turned down several bad record deals, I have to say… there’s not really a good* alternative for us. Though, hundreds of thousands of us do take the route I did- playing 5-9 shows a week that are 4hrs long. It’s not really sustainable either. But that really is the state the industry these days. Band camp is AWESOME, but 70% us never make enough to even pay the bills. I’m a lucky exception. As far as Taylor’s new recordings! I INSTANTLY heard the increase in quality. Better guitar tones, better mastering, and better mixing were immediately evident. I’m not an avid listener of Taylor Swifts Music, but I’m really really really proud of her business savvy nature. I’ve seen a lot of my fellow pros get locked into oppressive contracts, and am really happy to see her challenge the status quo
I do think with the rise of social media and the internet, that has helped provide more alternatives for musicians, although it's still really difficult without a label, but in earlier times, including when Taylor Swift signed her record deal (2004-2005) it was almost impossible to have a serious career without a label.
So if you're smart and don't accept a bad deal the record co. uses your unknownness as leverage? When you play a bunch of shows your popularity goes up then the record co. will give you a better contract I take it.
@@dannydaw59 without a record deal, which will be a bad one because you’re unknown, you’re highly unlikely to become known. This gatekeeper function is less important than it used to be, but it’s not unimportant as yet.
Sounds like it's time and I'm sure many music artists are to create DAOs - decentralized autonomous organizations whereby you could create structured smart contracts with producers sound recorders and other musicians' videographers in order to produce music videos without having the high up front investment that music labels front. And that I'm sure artists like Swift and others might break out and create sub labels to their own that are focused on identifying new talent. The challenge with talent identification of course is that just like angel investors even though somebody's idea or product or music might be great there are many other factors that have to coalesce for it to succeed and to make money. People working at a label are also in a way putting their reputation on the line within the industry when they ask for favors to get certain placement for the artist that they're repping. However with direct-to-fan music it's different but for getting into venues you still need those relationships. Unless of course art is great some means whereby based on their fan base they can show a certain number of pre-sales to a venue in a given region to prove that they're not going to cost them any money. In a way it seems that all of us are growing up... Ie and whatever industry we are in if we are going to harness the power of social media blockchain smart contracts you could get a good lawyer or we need to start thinking like a lawyer and we need to start thinking like a producer. It's not always every artist nature to also be thinking like a producer... Which is why we are artists. But it does seem there is a tremendous vacuum which tremendous opportunity for producers of the next generation to create systems that draw highly talented artists who are working with them. In the same way that many CEOs are either offering face pay like the $70,000 guy or four-day work weeks the next generation of companies are seeing that in order to attract top talent they have to offer equitable agreements. So really the greatest threat to the music industry as it is today isn't going to come from artists directly, but from the enterprising and fair-minded individuals who find ways to harness new technology to become the equitable music labels of tomorrow who will attract the top talent and be able to engage large and small venues advertisers film producers etc with the same power and leverage that music labels heretofore held the keys to.
as parts of that 70% who dosent make money (i havent even made enough to cover the sm58 i used in my last ep lol ) this just so much this. gotta love an industry designed to make us slaves right?
While not the first album, it was the first album with a international release. The debut album was not released in a lot of countries and instead Fearless was the first CD there, and it just had some songs from the debut added to it. So I can see where the confusion comes from. I only learned about the debut album because of the fearless rerecording and finding out that some songs I loved where missing. Only then did I learn that those songs where not from Fearless technically.
The first album is also one the most successful of 2010s lol. Like literally the longest charting album of that decade. So it's not even an unknown album.
i think one important caveat to remember is that Taylor was the primary songwriter to all of her music so she retained publishing rights to every song she released under her former label. THIS is the reason why she was able to do what she did with rerecording. This same situation will not apply if artists don't write their own songs.
Indeed, and yet another reason for artists to have a DIYer mentality (shout-out Curtiss King). Writing your own music is excellent therapy, as well as allowing for you to be able to make a power move like Taylor did if the situation calls for it.
I was just about to mention that very same thing. If someone else that didn’t have the composition rights tried to do this they would be instantly sued for copyright infringement and lose big.
@@Orangeflava it sounds like that just becomes a "cover" song? In which case you'd have to pay a small portion of the royalties. If you're using a common distributor like Distrokid it's really easy. You don't even communicate with the rights holder. There's an option to allocate the royalties from a database when you upload the song. Unless I'm misunderstanding your question?
Another big part of this, is for the first time in history the Artist can reach out to their fan base directly with Twitter and such. This means that the artists voice louder than ever before and they don’t have to go through the old “filters” that they used to have to navigate, great video!
@@seanjohnson7367 as she should be ❤️ & not u calling swifties "deranged" when majority of us are young adults and are calling out scooter for his shit , just a tip for you, Scooter Braun is a Zionist and his company funds Genocide in Yemen.
@@rachsmith3479 No -- she owns her songwriting/publishing. She never owned her masters, so I don't think she has some sort of inalienable right to own those.
As soon as he played the recorded track, I could hear the difference, it was clearer, and overall sounded better. I am by no means a Swifty, but mos def have mad respect for her and her efforts.
She writes, sings, directs, acts, put on an epic show AND makes power moves. It’s a shame that media only talks about her dating life which is honestly nobody’s business. How much more does a woman gotta do.
@@250Pants What other artist has rerecorded their music to effectively make the original versions worthless, specifically to spite the company that was treating her so poorly? She pulled a POWER MOVE while being bullied and completely crushed the corporate muckity-mucks! Brilliant!
@@funisnumberone1 the original versions lost value but are not worthless. I don't get what is there to admire? That she can handle business? If she's got her head in too many things her creativity will surely be impacted. You call that a power move because she has power? Well of coirse she has power. Money = power
@@250Pants If you don't get it, it's probably because you are not trying to or it's simply over your head. I noticed you declined to mention another artist who has done this (a lot of them have money). Seems her creativity has not been affected while she strategically prioritizes which albums to re-record first. She's got new songs and (Taylor's Version) of past recordings topping the charts. And they sound better, making the previous versions obsolete (dramatically depreciated in value). If you're still confused, ask someone to explain it to you. I've done all I can to try to help you understand. Take care.
I've never been a fan of Taylor Swift's music, but I can recognize that she is a mega-talented songwriter. I am a huge fan of her career arch though. She continues to impress and inspire me :)
I grew up on 80's music so yeah I aint really a fan of Taylor's music --- but she is a big inspiration to young women today to take control of their lives and careers and don't allow white men like Scooter Braun push them around --- FIGHT BACK and FIGHT FOR YOUR RIGHTS, LADIES
I've been an on and off fan of hers for years... I've never been the biggest fan, but I've never really disliked her music. The one thing I've always known about her.. when she stands for something, she sets her mind on it, and works hard to achieve it. She really has changed the music industry.. seemingly for the better
By getting the original musicians back she is ensuring they are not being screwed over by the new recordings - that shows true character in my opinion and a new respect for Taylor Swift. No matter what version of the song is used, the musicians remain unaffected in any income and bragging rights :D
Positively affected even, the album's charted again so depending on the deals she made they would have had a huge boost compared to the continued sales of the originals
@@250Pants I think that depends on what they negotiate for payments. I believe royalty revenues are sometimes negotiated for session musicians, even if it's not the most common form of payment.
@@jeffreyquinn3820 In the US the only exceptions are residuals (if the musician belongs to a Union) and SoundExchange only if they are listed as "featured artists" on the recordings with a contract/agreement registered with SEx. So for example Lana Del Rey has a collaboration with Taylor where maybe she plays guitar and sings- then she will be a featured artists on that recording and I'm sure Lana's managers would've negotiated it. That's pretty much it, everything else is work for hire and I'm sure that makes up close to 95-99% of session musician earnings
It's a curious problem, when you're first starting a new business, publishing a new album or book, etc...that is exactly when you need great lawyering. But you can't afford great lawyering until you've made tons of money on your business or book.
I don't know about the music industry, but there's a ton of writers' guilds/unions that offer free support to first time authors and highlight predatory publishers to prevent abuse
This is pretty much any artistic freelancers -whether music or literature or actors or whoever. You are coming out fresh with no knowledge of the industry and you pretty much sign any rights away.
Know 'Genetically Modified Sceptic'? The Atheist-RUclipsr so nice and unbiased and non-arrogant that he has lots of Christian Fans now? That warm guy? Or Forrest Valkai, the Bio-Teacher who's also on Tiktok?
As a law student, I really appreciate this in depth analysis of the Taylor Swift situation. None of the other RUclips videos abt it makes it as clear cut as you do. Great job!
Fun fact, if a giant mouse hadn't perverted copyright law beyond all recognisable relation to its original intent, pretty much none of this would matter.
To be fair, if it hadn't been Disney, someone would have done it. Maybe not a far or as many times, but it would have happened. Companies were already trending that way before Disney decided to go whole-hog in on it themselves too.
Disney’s biggest push was keeping things out of the public domain for as long as possible. It didn’t have anything to do with the music industry as they didn’t want to lose Mickey Mouse
(of course I realise this means others could just be recording own versions of those songs for use in movies/games etc... but see: good relationship with artist for future access (if you don't want to wait 14 years)) (also, I know it'd shifted to 28 before the mouse, I did say "pretty much", but then we'd moved to being kept out of the public domain, and who is to say w/o that influence it mightn't have swung back at some point)
Actually, Disney's actions has worked in artists' favor as far as making money and owning your ideas goes. It's copyright law that gave Taylor the ability to remake her own music and stick it to the owners of the original masters. The problem here is not copyright law, it's bad contracts from greedy record labels.
"What is she trying to prove by doing all this?" Lemme tell you... Olivia Rodrigo owns her music bcoz she learned from Taylor Swift. The Music Industry everybody!
And all artists signed under UMG is now getting bigger profits off of spotify streams now because it’s part of her deal. She also convinced apple to pay artists during their three months free trial. She’s done a huge impact on the industry, it is sad that most of it is overlooked.
Not surprising that she's one of, if not the most, successful singer of our time. Not only is she talented and very down to earth, she's also smart and rebellious against the abusive/exploitative higher ups
Good for her. I've always been impressed by what I heard about her in the news (like that time she sued a former employee for 1 cent for groping her). Setting a great example for everyone. Hopefully she, or witnesses to this, can set up some sort of young musicians legal aid so that literal children don't keep getting exploited by big companies.
@@offgun6466 Or that time where she boycotted Spotify for three years during her most successful era so far, won and ensured everyone gets paid more for their art!
have you listened to her 2 recent albums? (folklore/evermore) they’re a completely new genre and a lot of people who aren’t pop fans enjoyed them a lot
@@elllied_ I appreciate the sentiment, but I've heard some of her music on the radio, and it's really not my cup of tea. If she ever does an hard rock or metal album, I'll be sure to give it a listen
@@Moribax85 Funny.. I'm a hard rock guitarist, and I absolutely love Swift's music .. ALL of it. She has an amazing sense of melody. "Speak Now" has some rocky moments, and you should definitely check out the live versions of "The Story Of Us" (Speak Now tour on RUclips) or "We Are Never Getting Back Together" (1989 Tour - again on RUclips) .. live they're total rock anthems (she has a great guitarist called Paul Sidoti). I wish she would do a no holds barred Hard Rock album.. she's got the song writing chops to create some mega anthems. But sadly I don't think it's going to happen. Fun fact - she did a duet gig with Def Leppard and sang Pour Some Sugar with them, and they Sang Love Story!!
It's so funny to me how the Carlisle Group and the other private firms thought it'd be a good idea to partake in the backstabbing of the person they wanted to profit from lol. All of them though, Scooter and Scott as well. My guess is they were used to silencing artists with legal action and threats. They didn't know just who they were stealing from (pun intended)... This is the same girl who declined a contract with SONY at 14 because she refused to release songs she hadn't written, and because she didn't want to get lost in a big label. THAT is the person they were trying to steal from.
I can give you Carlyle because they're with Braun and helped him buy BMR but Taylor made it clear she made her peace with someone (not Scooter) owning her music and was ready to work with Shamrock until she found out Scooter is still profiting from her music even after he sold the masters.
The Eagles did it first. They fired their label back in the 70s (before the band broke up), created their own label, management company, and distribution chain so that they could control 100% of their music. Three 6 Mafia followed suit (sort of). DJ Paul and Juicy J are cousins and their uncles were in a pretty successful gospel group. They told their nephews to own their music because it’ll bring them more money in the long run. And that’s what they did. Most artists are just happy to get the advance from the label because that’s more than most of them will ever make.
If artists want to make any money they’re going to have to find a way to distribute and that means giving someone collateral for investment. I don’t know how that could happen for any aspiring young artist other than selling the rights to their music. People who are pre-influence aren’t going to be in positions to take the ideal contracts. Taylor Swift had the luxury of becoming successful and loved by millions of people to control her own destiny. I doubt that could be said of most young artists.
Ok, so like what if an artist copies a Taylor Swift song word for word as an original recording but it sounds identical to Swift's version. Should that artist be able to control that original work because they made it even though it's clearly plagiarized from another artist?
@@ghostderazgriz That misses the point of the video, there are 2 rights, the abstract rights which belong to the artist, and the master recording that were given away to the label who paid for them. Swift's contract ended so she owned her lyrics and overall the music as a whole, she just didn't own the master recordings which where being sold to others by the company, who still owns them. She records a new version and that's that she now owns a different set of masters for the same songs. So an artist who is not Swift couldn't record her music and profit from it. The Beatles case is unfortunate for Paul, because John Lennon is death, so recording again can't happen.
I am so proud of Swift and I am actually really glad, now, that I've never, personally, bought any of her records yet... so that I can buy these new ones!
I’m buying all the news ones to support her too! As a music fan and a supporter of all sorts of artists, I know that the degree of success she experiences with this endeavor is going to effect so many artists to come!
@@sidt1036 It sure will! I will be planning to buy them, too! I love to support the artists I love! I'm so excited for musicians futures because of what she's doing!
Great to hear! And "Lover," "folklore," and "evermore" were all created after she left Big Machine, so you can buy them now, and know that they're already owned by her.
She's extremely smart to also add the from the vault songs, it's a more incentive to buy and increases the value. While others have done it before her, due the swiftie fanbase she has a huge impact along with more and more people aware. Taylor also has a recording studio in one of her houses, no need to actually pay a studio to help her if she can do it at any given point.
@@yousuf9841 unreleased songs/songs that didn't make it into the original albums, she's re-recording some of those too and adding them to the album re-recordings, (she named them "vault tracks") which gives fans an extra incentive to buy/stream the new versions instead of the old/original ones
Thanks for covering this. Had a recording contract myself after joining a band years ago, started to dig into what I signed and learned that it was exclusive and the label would get rights to anything I recorded as an artist, not just with that particular band. I was able to get out of it, but boy are they designed to fleece artists.
Yeah, that's pretty much the job description. You spend 500,000 by advancing 10k on 50 bands. 49 of those bands flop, so you need to get 500k out of a 10k contract to break even.
It sounds to me like it was designed to fleece artists who didn't read the contract. Why did you start "to dig into what I signed" rather than "dig into what I was being asked to sign?" How is the label the bad guy because you were so eager to have a record deal that you signed it without reading it?
@@Bad_Wolf_Media Because the label intentionally made a shitty contract, perhaps? This is like saying "How is it my fault that I shot and killed someone? It should be their fault for not dodging the bullet."
Wow Taylor really outdid herself. Haven’t listened to her in years but I’m going to listen to her remade albums. Thank you for breaking this out so simply and so entertainingly.
I'll buy her new versions. She deserves to benefit from her brand. She is a breath of fresh air in terms of supporting her friends and staff. She could be a much different individual with her success, but she is a classy lady. I'd love to meet her in persona.
I am a massive Taylor Swift fan so Im in-the-know of this situation, but I never knew the deep situation like this. Thanks for the analysis. Im incredibly proud of her innovation in the Music Industry legality-wise My fav song is Wildest Dreams for those that are curious. I recommend it, her version was just released recently
"Get a good lawyer." Best advice you can get. But I would imagine it is challenging for an emerging artist who is desperate to make a name for themselves and has little room to make demands as to what their recording contract states. Actors, for example, have unions that work to ensure that contracts are fair and that actors are not exploited. Do music artists have the same protections? If not, perhaps the long term solution here is to organize.
@@skellington2000 Sure, but her actions are also paving the way for artists after her to have control over their own work - is that not also a good thing, even if it comes with self-interested side effects?
@@skellington2000 This did not just impact her own music but was a warning sign to the new generation to not do the same mistake she did. Olivia Rodrigo has full control of her masters because of Taylor's public battle for her own.
I was never a Taylor Swift fan. I heard some of her songs on the radio and I didn't hate them or anything, I just never really listened to her. Then I read all about her fight with Scooter Braun and Big Machine and how she decided to re-record her albums to cut them out and, as an old musician who was in a band who actually turned down the only record deal we were ever offered due to unreasonable terms, I was nothing but entirely impressed with this woman. This is just about the only time I've ever heard of an artist finally sticking it to the f*cking vultures that prey on creative people's hopes and dreams. Well done Taylor! You are a hero!
@@nelidadumitrache7508 they can adjust contracts for everything, but the smarter artists (or those who have good lawyers) won't sign, and they'll just lose out.
This was super interesting. I’m glad Taylor has found a way to regain control of her music. I found the bit about Michael Jackson and Paul McCartney a bit misleading, as McCartney and Yoko Ono were given first dibs and offered the chance to buy back the Beatles catalog before anyone else, but they decided the 40 million price tag was too high. (Paul was worth hundreds of millions at the time, and made about 40 million in royalties alone each year. But he told friends the catalog was “too pricey.”) After they passed on the purchase, the catalog was up for grabs. Jackson found out about it and offered to pay anything. They told him it would be 47.5 million, (seven and a half million more than the price offered to McCartney and Ono). Jackson snapped up the deal, which from a business standpoint, was brilliant; he ended up making about a billion off licensing and royalties. McCartney felt betrayed when he found out about the purchase and severed their friendship. I love the Beatles, but I can’t side with McCartney on this. He had his chance and didn’t take it; he had only himself to blame. He did end up getting control of their catalog again, but it took a long time and a lot money. I’m not a huge MJ fan, but I don’t see him as the bad guy in that particular scenario.
Exactly. MJ was a superior business man. His estate STILL owns the copyrights to Eminem and many other artists music. Paul always seems arrogant to me.
I don’t know. Unless you the artist are selling your masters to another artist, or org., I think owning the masters of another artist makes you kinda of a dick. Record labels included here. Artists should own their masters at least partially. Not saying it’s not a good business move, but maybe a dick move too. Funny how those coincide…
@@hannahpaquette520 He actually gifted Sammy Davis Juniors rights back to him after he bought it! He knew how badly a lot of (especially black) artists got screwed over, he worked hard to do better himself.
I’m a proud OG Swiftie and I remember mentioning in my Intellectual Property Law exam her feat with respect to new and small artists getting paid during the 3-month trial period on Apple music and Spotify as a pre-condition to putting her catalog back to their streaming services. I love her for that and for so many other reasons. Artists are the creators of their arts and they should be paid for it. It is not greediness for artists to demand what they deserve. Imagine great composers then dying poor, obscure and starved to death (e.g. Vivaldi)? Unless it is a charitable act, artists should be paid in an amount equivalent to their work’s worth. Businessmen’s greediness should not have a place in any industry that involves art.
Everything in corporate america is this way. From healthcare to music. Toxic businesses only care about making more money than 50 generations could ever spend. Don't care about ruining lifes or the planet. The ugly truth about capitalism.
It's an industry full of artistic people who probably haven't really made it a habit in life to delve into dense, complicated documents... working with people who probably lack the artistic talent that they see every day in their jobs, but still really like money. It's like sending a 5-five-year-old with a fistfull of french fries into a pack of seagulls. How surprised can you really be at what happens? What would be shocking is if the record companies actually made even a half-assed effort at acting like decent people.
@@Jartran72 Yeah, because everything Taylor Swift is doing is only about goodness and light and making the world a happy place, having nothing at all to do with money, right?
Haven't really listened to Taylor's music since I was a teen but DAMN. YOU GO GURL! So proud! Congrats on this and all your future success from your childhood home state. Thanks for covering this, LegalEagle!
Taylor is amazing for this & this is special because she isn't re-recording her music after 30-40 years but right at the moment she was allowed to. She is at the peak of her career (yes, even after so many years!) and she is showing that art has value and that she is right every step of the way doing this. I love how she got 'revenge' on scooter and Scott because it was just a very nasty move. It's also amazing to see all the fans (me included!) come together and buy and stream her Taylors Versions because we all believe in her so much! I still hope one day she gets the chance to buy her own, original masters, but until then she is setting legendary steps in the music industry and you can't deny that fact. Looking back at '1989' when she removed all her music from streaming to better the payment to ALL artists before her, and coming after her she basically put her own power and art to better the lives of future generations!
I'm not a fan of Swift's music, just isn't my style, but I'm glad she stood up for herself and came out on top. I understand artists need to work with other companies but the artist should be the primary person to benefit from such business transactions. Like how RUclipsrs work with editors but the editors don't get to own the video.
@@juliantopasaribu7783 she has like two rock-ish and rap songs, and even if she had more her voice, lyrics etc. might not be what everyone wants, it's okay.
Say what you will about her but she is not just talented and intelligent, but she has balls of steel. She refused to back down and took charge of her own destiny in the best way possible. She didn't bother to get even, she got better.
In other words, guys, go buy and stream the re-recordings and make sure to never never support any of the old versions once all re-recordings are released.
I really hope "Taylor Swift" and "Speak Now" will be re-recorded soon. Part of me feels like Taylor Swift will re-record her self titled album last, to symbolize how she's fully reclaimed her image and name, but I also don't want to keep listening to the versions of the songs she doesn't own.
Part of the appeal of re-recording the albums is that as the composer, Taylor has the legal right to deny sync licenses, which means that if someone wanting to use the original recordings tried to go through Shamrock, she could use her position as the composer to deny them the ability to use the original masters. This is why Taylor encourages artists to write their own music; the amount of legal leverage that that has provided for her has been invaluable. Even though she hasn't finished re-recording the albums, she has the ability to cut off a significant portion of the revenue the originals would have generated. I remember reading somewhere that her team is denying sync licenses for Shake it Off and Blank Space near-daily, which is just so crazy omg. And for what it's worth--Fearless was her second album and Lover was her seventh album (sorry, I'm pedantic and annoying and I had to lol).
@@thebeefyleaf I didn't say it did. I said that she already had the right to deny usage of her songs, which she used to prevent Scooter and Shamrock from profiting off her songs by using them in movies or commercials. Go re-read the comment
That’s generally not true. In standard music publishing agreements, the publisher has discretion over synch licensing (does not need the writer(s) approval). Of course, if the writer has enough clout, they may change that or at least stipulate that certain industries like tobacco, household products, etc be left out. But generally no. If you state that’s true for Taylor it doesn’t mean it will be true for other artists who control their compositions.
This video definitely changes my preconceived notions of her. I always knew labels were bad, but wow... Good for her for sticking it to the man! This is a good lesson for any artist looking to get started. Makes me think of those talent shows on TV... 100K and they own you!
She is also the reason people WILL get payed is spotify is sold and the reason why people get payed even when someone tries out apple music for 3 months free of charge, she put them on blast and had them bactracking in like 12 hours. People make her the villain but she is aware of her power and uses it to fight for everyone.
That's how you kick your label in the balls, Love everything about it. There was a time, back around 2009 I had a label deal laying on the table in front of me... and when I read through it and realized that we'd be losing money to take the deal, I walked away completely disillusioned and didn't touch my instruments for several years. I'm glad she played it smart.
i fully 100% agree that there's no point to listening to the original versions if we have the re-recordings, bc they always sound immensely better -- better mixed, better produced, her voice is stronger and more mature... it's a very big and noticeable difference. out of all the re-recordings we've gotten so far, my favorite is red, partly because 10 min all too well is absolutely insane. but mostly because the whole re-recorded album just sounds absolutely incredible.
The original deal was in the label's favor, but it wasn't like naive 15 year old TS (plus her parents and everyone else who was helping her make decisions with the label) got tricked into some exceptionally bad deal. The terms she signed on are pretty common in the business, especially for small or beginning artists.
@@PhysicsGamer I've heard all these people making fun of Taylor Swift for "not reading her contract," not being smart enough to get a good contract, etc. She in her own words "made peace" with the fact her masters would be sold, a major part of the problem was who they were sold to. My point? This isn't a problem with Swift. It's a problem with the recording business in general. If this whole mess helps change those policies, then that's great.
@@scottmatheson3346 You’re missing my point. People are acting like this is all Ms Swift’s fault, and “she signed the contract, then changed her mind about it,” or “she should have read the contract first,” etc. I’m saying it was a bad contract, and she new that and settled for it because it’s so common and nothing better (for her) was available. Now that she has some pull in the music biz (she was in the top 10 most popular artists of the decade when she signed to Republic) she can hopefully change this policy for everyone.
Everything I see about Taylor just makes me respect her more as an artist and a human. I adore this woman and she deserves all the best the world can give her!
What Taylor did by re-recording her masters is so epic I don't even have words. Great video! Love learning about music business and entertainment law.THANK YOU and keep it up!
I've always enjoyed her music and how she seems to be kind and gracious to fans and in interviews. Nice to see she made such intelligent decisions that will protect her rights and potentially help others. Also lets be honest is it surprising she sounds better? Music is a skill and like any skill it improves with practice.
Funniest thing about this whole case: Scooters Braun seriously underestimated Taylor's parasocial relationship with her fans. I believe I read somewhere that he scoffed at her decision to rerecord her albums basically telling her that no one would ever buy them again. Dude, she's not a top selling artist (man or woman) because she's just a pretty blond.
@@nickm4974Actually, Taylor’s initial fans may have been aged 10+ (along with their parents/families who secretly enjoyed passively listening to their daughter’s/sister’s/granddaughter’s music), but those original Swifties grew up remaining Swifties. Then they became Mothers themselves, but never stopped playing and buying Taylor Swift music- and now they can afford to also buy the merch and concert tickets. So it’s an entire range of ages who enjoy and buy Taylor Swift’s music, for themselves and getting their kids into it. And don’t even get me started on all the LGBTQI fans of all ages for whom TS has been a huge ally publicly and whose songs of feeling not seen or geeky or not included absolutely resonate. They buy her stuff too. So this myth that all of Taylor’s fans are young girls is pretty outdated now. Just sayin’ 😊
Taylor DOES NOT have a parasocial relationship with her fans! The toxic ones have one with her! They think they are friends, make demands of her, tell her who she can and can't date. Send threats to anyone who doesn't like Taylor. They are obsessed and stalker-ish. Most of her fans are normal but the toxic ones are extremely loud! They don't realize they are making Taylor and Swifties look bad! 🫶
There needs to be more legislation to protect young artists from these bad actors and predatory contracts. They bank on these kids being ignorant to music law or not knowing their worth because they’re so desperate to ‘make it’. I personally know entertainment lawyers who left the sector because they couldn’t stomach the levels of predatory exploitation. There’s something so seedy about exploiting young people who just wanna follow their dreams and earn a living while doing it.
@@marshakatrinatacadao7693 I'm not sure how worthwhile it is to view exploitation in any other terms than big ones: financial, sexual, personal. I don't see anywhere in Taylor's story where she has been exploited in any appreciable way. She has literally gotten to shape her entire musical career without artistic limits. The label gave her the money, the backing talent, and the connections to have this journey. In return, they own her masters. Taylor didn't put the money down for producing or recording or promoting her masters, so why should she have any right to dictate how they're treated after the fact. The label hasn't kept her from writing music, expressing herself, or furthering her career.
@@seanjohnson7367 It's creative exploitation. As an artist, she was denied access to her own work, her own art. Oh no, actually she was given the access but that access means holding her back and risking her future . The label used her own art to hold her back with the label. She was not given the same deal the label had given to other music executive. The label tried to leverage Taylor's relationship with her work, so she would stay with them. So yeah, it is exploitation. Taking advantage of someone who in the first place was willing to pay for the fair cost of her own art.
@@marshakatrinatacadao7693 the artist has no right to buy back their masters. If she felt buying back the masters was important, she should’ve started planning for it years ago. These very much feels like self-inflected wounds.
She did not apologize to Kate. As a spoiled child she is. Kate only apologized even though she was not wrong because she has a good heart. What Taylor doesn't deserve.
I've never been a huge Swift fan, but honestly her fighting the good fights in copyright and against harassers has made me buy my first copy of a Taylor's Version album
Yeah, even if I didn't care about supporting Taylor, I would still listen to the new ones over the old ones because the new ones just sound so much better. Can't wait for the rest of her rerecorded albums!
Please do more on music law and how musicians can be more informed about it. Musicians get so discouraged and used by labels that they usually end up being broke while labels take all their money - which means they can't afford legal action and they wouldnt even know where to begin if they did. Please help musicians like me to be more aware of what we need to sign and not sign. Thank you for this video - it has already made an impact in more people's lives than you know! Take care, EJ :)
That face when Rick hears just the first snare from the re-records is so telling, heh. The new album really is an improvement on the original. So many points to Swift for actually managing to get one up on the music industry for once!
I had never heard either version before, but as soon as the new one was started I could definitely hear that"hey, some of those sounds were not as clear in the original"
All the absolute badassery by Taylor aside, can we just appreciate the mental image of Devin always having a gavel when he does things? Plus a suit. Fantastic.
Her singing has improved dramatically both her voice and her artistry. In addition, on RED, she offered the 10 minute version of "All to Well" and the 10 songs from the vault that did not make the original album cut including "Run" featuring Ed Sheeran, one of my favorite TS song.
I listened to Fearless (Taylor's Version) on Napster right after it came out, and while I didn't do an A-B test I was fairly certain that the new version sounded fuller and more mature. Glad to hear Rick Beato back up my incredibly amateur opinion.
@@texasyojimbo I thought it was shut down after the lawsuit with Metallica. I didn’t know it was rhapsody now. Fun fact. My dads cousins was on the Napster legal team for that lawsuit.
I've always wondered why she chose to re-record her albums and copy it exactly how it sounded back when it was first released and your video made me understand why. I never realized there are a lot of legal stuff going on behind every artists and record labels when they released a song. And indeed, Taylor is smart enough to re-record her albums immediately after the feud.
A couple of corrections/clarifications. Fearless was Taylor Swift's second album not her first. Second, Taylor actually DID look into buying her masters back from the private equity firm but terminated the deal after finding out that Scooter Braun had a financial stake in it.
I think Devon meant that it’s either her first re-recorded album, or “first albums.” It’s hard to hear, but I thought I heard an s at the end. At first I wanted to “scream” SECOND ALBUM too, but I’m not sure. I think he said albums. (Which would still be strange, seeing how it’s 2/3rds of her catalog)
@@rubyi2677 yes, they did. They offered her that contract when the old contract was about to expire. So she signed with Republic Records, where she does retain full control over her work.
Are you telling m,e this dude bought a company, then sold the company's most valuable asset by far to another company that he personally had an ownership stake in as well? Somewhere the Mafia is proud. That shit's gotta be illegal somehow.
So much brilliance here. swift re-recording her own music, your analysis, and you going to Beato to compare the two recordings. Copyright law has been so perverted and abused in the US, love to see artists reclaiming control.
In 2006, a DJ friend of mine wanted to release a cover of "Waiting for a Star to Fall" by Boy Meets Girl but the record company refused to release the master copy ( because they wanted to release their own remix). So he contacted original singer and songwriter and he re-recorded the vocals specifically for this remix. And my guess is that is probably not the first time this has happened considering how tightly master copies are held and the propensity for shenanigans to circumvent them. That being said, Taylor has weaponised the process and shown other artists a pathway ahead. More power to her.
As both fan of legal eagle and a swiftie, this was one of the best things that I watched on youtube this month. Thank you so much legal eagle. Btw, Can you explain why on the old music videos, the new taymor version song is on the credits??
I was wondering that too. I guess it's because the recording's are sonically similar enough to be considered the same so when listing the song for the music video Taylor was able to choose her version since she controls the channel. I don't really know though and I wonder if it affects the copyright situation of the music videos.
I didn't think I could respect Devin more than I already did, but knowing that he helped defend another youtube person against copyright claims for fair use is so awesome. Well done.
A lot of Rick’s power in the copyright claims is his social media reach. This is not cynicism, this is something he acknowledges, and, in personal empathy with other RUclipsrs, has some angst about.
Honestly, I'm not a big fan of Taylor Swift, but I have to respect what she's doing here. What's going on currently is unfair to the artists and I hope more artists do what she did
The industry has always been unfair to artists. Always. The Beatles were making a penny a song on their first albums right up till 1966. When they fired Epstein and Allan Klein got involved. And he still ripped them off.
@@vorpalblades if you don't sign deals with a record label you probably won't make it far in the industry, especially with Taylor being a teen country singer in 2006. and fair record deals weren't available back then. it's either make the deal they're offering, or try to make it on your own (which 99.99% doesn't work out for artists)
@@vorpalblades that's like saying "if you can't afford food just stop living instead of working". These record labels have a huge control of the entire industry. They scout talented artists at a very young age, when they can't afford to pay rent, let alone hire a lawyer. The initial offers are too good to deny and that's how they get stuck with these contracts. Anyway, as a result of Swift's lawsuits newer artists have learnt about the legal complexities and started watching out for themselves.
@@vorpalblades very very naive comment. even more naive than the people who sign the contracts. it shows you have a lack of ethics and empathy maybe you work for one of the record labels
Well she is a legend. She fought for her rights and other's rights, her song writing is on another level. She brings smiles on people's faces when she is at her lowest. She is the by product of everything's she went through and that didn't break her at all and now the advices she gives can quite literally save a person's life by telling them what is necessary to know in this world with people who have the right to speak and will speak a lot of things good or bad about you.
I have to disagree with her lyricism being on “another level.” As a lyricist myself her works are predominantly pop songs that didn’t change much of anything other than what’s classified as country music. She’s a talented performer who is wildly successful so I’m not trying to take anything away from her. But I don’t understand the hype around her.
Swift is a dynamo of talent and brains. And, of course, she made the record better the second time around. Her actions have helped all musicians and musical artists, going forward. She's a force of nature. Love her music and brilliance. Tay Tay!
I’m a firm believer that everything happens for a reason. I’m sure it sucked for Taylor in the beginning when all this happened but now she is the one who is laughing her way to the bank. She is a GENIUS for doing this. Girl’s got bigger balls than Scooter! ❤
I’ve never been a fan of Swift; not my kind of music. But I fully support her going to battle with oppressive power structures and standing up for not only herself, but for the rights of the artist writ large. Good for her.
I followed this case pretty closely and was so happy that it ended in her favour. I'll never be a professional musician, but I always found it so insulting and exploitative that record labels' ownership superceded that of the artists creating the music. I understand them getting a cut of the profits considering they foot so much capital, but the vast majority of it?
It didn't end in her favor. The master recordings she wanted are still owned by the label she left. They didn't lose anything at all. She will profit from the new releases, but she still has to spend the money to record them and promote them and get them distributed digitally and physically. She didn't "win" anything. Those are all simple things for her to do because of the money she banked WITH THE SUPPORT of a label. But how many new and up-and-coming artists have hundreds of millions in the bank and 10s of millions of followers on social media to make such a "win" happen for them?
@@Bad_Wolf_Media It ended in her favour with regards to her retaining the rights to the scores and lyrics of her songs, if not the original recordings themselves. To me that's a big win. Without this she couldn't re-record that album. It's true that it doesn't solve the issue of predatory practices within that industry.
The record labels' interests don't supercede the artists, the artists sell their interests to the labels. Something that should be possible and not being able to do so would seriously harm many artists. Now protections from exploitative contracts signed under a massive power differential, especially those relating to minors (which Taylor Swift was when signing on originally), could and should be improved.
@@Bad_Wolf_Media For one, she influenced olivia rodrigo to own her masters from the start.And artists are starting to come from tik tok nowadays and this may influence their decision too.Her curent label isn't doing much of anything in supporting her and considering she allways ends at the top of best selling artists ww,they are doing just fine.
The label allways gets most or a lot of money percentage wise.Depends how many co writers,producers,the artist has on an album.The fewer,the more money for the artist.But the label still gets like 40%,even if taylor has her masters.
she owns her own art. It's called publishing. She got a lot of money and connections from the label that launched her. That's why she doesn't own that SIDE of her art.
@@seanjohnson7367 she caused the label to have money, which is what's determinative here. you don't strike me as this stupid, sean, so that means you are being dishonest.
Taylor actually did reach out to all the musicians that played instruments on the first master recording for the re-recordings. And almost all of them participated in the project. It’s really cool that he could tell that that was the case.
The human ear is an incredible tool. If LegalEagle had given him a little more screen time, I bet Beato could point out much, much more about the differences in the tracks.
I'm curious if she will re-record some of the collaborations she's done with other artists that were not on albums like the Bad Blood remix with Kendrick Lamar or Safe & Sound with the Civil Wars (get the band back together? :( ).
@@aaliyahfoster2705 She can’t re-record Safe and Sound cause she already owns the master to it
@@fengbeto Wait, really? Hold awn. *quickly typing*
@@aaliyahfoster2705 I think that she’ll try to since for fearless and red she has confirmed she’ll re record the collaborations
My favorite part of that whole situation is that the music label tells the artist "you're screwed because of *legalese*, and you should just calmly take it" and then when the artist finds a legal way to screw them over, suddenly it's "They are negatively impacting us and they are the worst person ever for it!" I ain't even a Taytay fan and I love that she did that.
THIS. They gaslit the hell out of her and tried to flip the narrative. They came for her first, knowing exactly what they were doing and what message it sent, and then tried to condemn her for responding. Scooter Braun and Scott Borchetta are trash.
@@SarahCeee102 man, a grown adult named Scooter. Sketchy as hell.
@@scottwpilgrim He's named after his sister. :D
But seriously, the day I ever feel bad for a record label please contact my family because I need a functional MRI. I probably have a brain tumor.
@@scottwpilgrim Bieber needs to get rid of Scooter, I truly believe he's manipulating Justin for his money. He describes themselves as a "family".... reminds me of toxic companies.
And they were like ‘here’s an album she didn’t agree on releasing’ and ALMOST NOBODY BOUGHT IT 😂
Olivia Rodrigo said that witnessing the Taylor Swift masters dispute made her realize how cautious she needed to be while breaking into the mainstream music industry. Olivia said that she refused to sign a label until she found one that would allow her to own her own masters and give her a fair deal in royalties, licensing, and revenue because she didn’t want her music to be given the same treatment that her Taylor’s _Taylor Swift, Fearless, Speak Now, Red, 1989, & Reputation_ albums received.
@Matej your mother
And then she stole from 5 to 6 artists + that we know of , that was really disappointing and takes away from the whole point of all the hard work of Taylor's example for other artist
@@iiiiiiigggg Sampling and interpolation is not "stealing." Not to mention the fact that there are limited melodies and beat patterns.
@@clem.3894 the problem is she did not credit the sampling.. only the interpolation
@@iiiiiiiggggriiiiight! Horrible artist
I think while this legal battle was difficult for Taylor it did bring a huge level of awarness to artists and the public about the importance of owning your masters. She definitely impacted the music industry course and I respect her a lot for the strength that she's proven while doing so. She's quite the unique combination of artistic talent and business prowess
Her business manager is the one calling the shot. Swift isn't actually making the decisions on this stuff, she has a giant team around her including 2 huge marketing agencies in LA and New York.
Bizarre how people worship celebrities and actually think she's leading the charge on this stuff.
@@ricktyman4709 That's because they're celebrities. Their name and image speaks more than their support teams.
@@ricktyman4709 She makes the decisions, her teams work for her. Why would marketing teams decide legal aspects of her career? that makes no sense. Nobody is worshiping anyone, other objective analists from Forbes, Billboard, NYTimes have acknowledged her skills so don't try to make this a "crazy fan" comment.
@@marabu_00 EXACTLY
@@ricktyman4709 She decides who she works with the direction to take. She has the final say. She’s smart enough to surround herself with the brightest legal and marketing minds. I don’t even like her music so I’m not a super fan. I’m a fan of her career choices not her music.
She took out her entire music catalog out of spotify before so that they agree to pay artists more and it worked. Same goes with Apple Music. She made a deal with UGM that they give more profit to their new artists as well. She did a lot for the new generation of artists, her impact is undeniable. Truly an artist of the decade or maybe century.
For dummies who’s says she’s money hungry have no logical thinking at all. All of her music that she owns (since lover) are all available for free on RUclips. Her biggest income is not from streaming, she doesn’t to need that anyway. If she wants money that much why did she remove her entire catalog from Spotify for years? especially during her peak era too
As with most situations it is the labels that get the money from streaming services who then pay their artists shitty. Taylor is revolutionary in going around this and I'm glad she exists and is back on streaming in a greater way! Go Taylor!
Wow, I didn't know that's why she went off Spotify for a while. I'm utterly blown away learning all this about her.
Actually, Taylor Swift took her music off Spotify because she didn't like that they had a free tier. She was of the opinion that only people who pay should be able to listen to her music.
@@Djungelurban - That is not going to stop a portion of us out there. I have not bought a song since the 90's when they stopped selling vinyl and CD's were on the decline. I found a legal company to buy from online for a while that was about 80% discount compared to Apple/Google/others until they dried up. These days I get mine from various foreign sources in high quality MP3's. No DRM. No I do not use any download services and certainly none you have heard of. I have one of the largest collections of music I believe in the region. I do this because if something changes in the licencing on these songs, the way they have this stuff configured is they can reach into your device or account and remove it. Good luck with that shit. I don't even need a connection to choose from 32k songs in the library in the car. Its easy today to have a hoard like that given the massive storage devices out there floating around and a copy of it is on my Mac my PC my Tablet my Safe. Can't get them all.
@@Djungelurbanwhere did you get that from? Artists get paid even when people free stream on Spotify, so I highly doubt she had that opinion.
To people saying, "Taylor Swift isn't the first one to introduce re-recordings, some musicians did it way before that," yes she isnt the first one but she definitely has the biggest impact considering how huge her fan base is. KUDOS to her!
Def Leppard recorded new masters of their music a few years ago because their old label wouldn’t give them permission to release their old music on streaming services.
Fact! Its not about who did it first. Its about who did it right.
@@stephanieden4 but you could really hear the difference… it was so far off….
@@socheasar6720 right? Idolatrous
Pointing that out isn't meant to dimiinsh what she did; it's meant to call out how this video gives the wrong impression in implying that such re-recordings are unprecedented, when in fact the practice has been common for many, many decades. Historically, critics and fans have generally preferred originals in the end, even if they appreciate the gesture. So it's also strange that this piece assumes, going forward, that the opposite will be the case for Swift, and, by implication, others going forward. Only time will tell.
I love that she not only remade her albums, she upgraded them with more experienced vocals and all of the improvements in instruments and recording technology that she didn’t have on the first go-round. Being able to improve on her existing creations and make them work for her financially sounds like a win 💰 win to me.
Kudos to Taylor 👍🏾
Exactly. Tell Me Why went from a fun song to a masterpiece with her prettier vocals and better drums. I can't wait for 1989 (Taylor's Version)
AND she was able to add every song she originally wrote for the past albums but the label at the time told her to cut them off from the albums.
It’s amazing too for the fans that grew up with her because the songs are re-recorded in the “grown up” way. Like the song grew with us not just the artist.☺️
@@cawesomewhatever definitely! i grew up with fearless specifically, so hearing how mature her voice is now on fearless (taylor’s version) is so lovely
They were recorded in the same way, she said the hardest part was to sing as she had years ago without sounding like a caricature of herself.
I'm a huge Taylor Swift fan but my mom never bought me the Taylor Swift albums I wanted. Now I'm glad that I don't because now I get to buy all her re-recorded albums and fulfill my childhood dreams while also supporting Taylor Swift. It's a win win situation.
@Matej Taylor Swift is geared towards tween and teen girls, it's ok if it's not something you can relate to but don't tear down people who like her music. I probably wouldn't enjoy your type of music but I wouldn't call you pathetic for having a different opinion about music.
@@PrivacymodeGreat way to handle it
I just worry they were a Swiftie that felt they couldn't Swift 😢
Sadly, some people feel unincluded or pushed out to the point they get really mean- you being kind in response though, really changes their life. I can tell you that much, so thank you
Salvador Dali did a similar thing with his art after he lost control of it. He signed tens of thousands of blank canvases, and then encouraged people to buy them and print his most famous works to dilute the value of the real ones.
He would also buy extravagant meals and pay for them by doodling on and signing the bills, making them worth way more as artwork than the restaurants would have gotten for the food
Wow so smart! As a curiosity Swift named Dalí in one of her songs
Oh yeah. That would make a few people angry. :-) I'm sure he laughed and laughed.
Didn’t Beethoven write sheet music on a restaurant bill once and pay with the song instead of money?
Gieger did the same thing after he was ripped off (Ridley Scott screwed him big time after he did the Aliens special effects, which were based on his artwork. It took him years and tons of side projects to recoup the money he lost).
Taylor actually did request a lot of the same musicians and team help with her reproduced albums. One of my fave things about them is how she brought them back. I love in the Vault songs how she's bringing other artists she loves to sing with her. It's not just about money or making a label happy for her anymore. She's getting to really enjoy what she's doing. I love that for her 😭❤
These re-recordings have never been about the money for TayTay. She saw her life’s work being sold and used without even considering her. 🛴did everything he could to keep her from getting them back. Offering deals he knew she would and could never take.
But all of this did give us Swifties something really special. Watching each era Begin Again❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️ The only question that remains is…. What era are we in when Tay doesn’t even know😂😂
@@mrpddnos oh, I think she knows. She's just messing with us 😂
@@redvinesron i think she’s at home, with Joe, and they are looking at all of us clowns who come up with one insane theory after another. And they are laughing their asses off 😂.
We don’t know what her end game is with 1989. Will she release it before red? Will she release it at the same time as red? After red? We don’t know. But the theories get crazier.
I haven’t been a fan for that long, only since 2019. And never in my wildest dreams did I imagine an artist pulling me in like this. But that’s the power of Taylor!
Yesssssss
@@mrpddnos The Red rerelease is coming out next month in November so unless she does a surprise 1989 drop on the same day, it'll be after Red
One thing that I feel like often gets missed when talking about this is that Big Machine wasn't some big company taking a chance on this unknown teenager. She met Scott Borchetta when he was working for another label and planning to set up Big Machine. She took a chance on them just as much as they did on her - she had bigger labels who offered her development deals (where essentially they'd work with her towards the goal of releasing a record when she was 18, but not yet) but Big Machine, since they were just starting out, was in a position to take a leap and offer her a record deal. She on her end also took a leap by signing with this brand new, unknown label.
Big Machine's success can almost entirely be attributed to Taylor Swift. Not only did her music make up 50% of their overall net worth, but the other artists that got big on that label absolutely benefitted from Swift's success - from 2008 onwards, signing with Taylor Swift's label was a way more attractive proposition to other artists than signing with Big Machine without Taylor Swift would have been.
Both Swift and Big Machine took a risk with each other, and both benefitted massively. It was a mutually beneficial partnership, and both sides owed each other, though I'd argue that post-1989, Big Machine benefitted from Swift far more than she did from them. But when it came time that Borchetta wanted to sell Big Machine, they tried to treat Swift like an unknown 15 year old instead of the reason for their success. Letting Swift buy her masters would have been tough for Big Machine initially, but there was a LOT of value in maintaining a positive relationship with an artist this big with this much proven longevity (and essentially the only artist who still sells substantial amounts of physical albums in addition to being a streaming giant). It would have left the door open for partnerships down the road, and she may have been amenable to some sort of deal that benefitted Big Machine while still giving her ownership of her masters. Even if they didn't offer her the chance to buy her masters, selling them to literally anyone who wasn't Scooter Braun would have at least kept the relationship cordial, rather than prompting Swift to go scorched-earth (which should have been utterly unsurprising for anyone, but especially Scott Borchetta, one of her closet collaborators for over a decade).
I disagree with the argument in general that artists signed the contracts so they have to live with every unfair, exploitative provision within them, but I can at least follow the logic when it comes to a big label expending resources on someone who may or may not succeed, when they could be pouring those resources into more surefire successes or their already successful clients. Big Machine, though, was a startup that would have been taking a risk on anyone, because they weren't big enough to attract anyone except risky newcomers. Their gamble paid off big time, but if not for Swift, it is extremely likely they would have folded early on, or puttered along for a while with micellaneous country acts until eventually having to shut down.
Tl;dr Taylor Swift took a chance on an unknown label and Big Machine bit the hand that fed them to success.
I totally agree! Most people don't know this or will keep denying it to regurgitate the false narratives they picked up.
Yes, her relationship with BMR soured but let's not ignore the fact that BMR gave her a ton of freedom to do what she wanted with her music and marketing from the beginning that most other labels wouldn't have done at the time with someone just starting. Just because BMR was starting doesn't mean they could've done that, because Scott was risking his money and his label by giving her so much control. IMO a big label is the one that can better afford to make a mistake than one that is just starting.
And no, I do not think he made her vault the songs she's now including in re-recordings. We know she's still not releasing every song she wrote for an album (she cut 2 songs from Lover to make room for Death by a thousand cuts and London Boy and Aaron said some of his favourite songs didn't make it onto folklore and evermore).
@@bluegreen5377 ummmm no taylor has countless of arguments with BMR before about her artistic choice she's just very adamant and convinced just almost everyone.. When swift was starting she and her mom took the initiative to used social media to promote her songs (swift was actually one of the first artist who used social media as a tool for marketing) because bmr is not financially capable to promote her outside of Nashville. Taylor went from one gig to another after school in some of nashville's night clubs and request the audience to call radio stations and request for her songs (again it's her own initiative) because bmr still is not that capable to promote and pay for radio support that's why Taylor's father invest in Big Machine for a (3% share) at least to help the label financially. Taylor personally used her own funds to create 1989 because big machine is so against her moving to pop (MV, marketing, themes, photoshoots, promotions) it was all Taylor and her personal team (13 management) efforts, Big Machine only helps distribute the albums for (targets and radio/streaming) but unfortunately taylor pulled out her streaming catalogue for 3 yrs.. In short taylor created/contributed more than BMR.
in a nutshell, Borchetta ruined his years partnership with Taylor by selling it to Scooter and denied her.
Nicely explained. Very good points !
I'm not much of a listener of Swift's music, just not my thing, but she's absolutely a genius for doing this. So much respect for her. What an absolute badass.
Yeah, I've never been into her music either (personally I used to be a huuuge country music lover - and I'd be kind of/*OK VERY resentful whenever pop artists marketed themselves as country...and, I'd even like *some* of them, like Rascal Flatts or Miranda Lambert, but I'd still just simply hate the fact they didn't just call themselves pop instead. Taylor's songs I still wasn't fond of even after she stopped marketing as country, not out of stubbornness - but just because I never particularly enjoyed it, as pop or as country). But regardless what she did here is good, and I do grant her that.
I recommended you to listen to Red (Taylor's Version) Will be out on November 12th
@@raggletaggle8827 have you tried listening to folklore and evermore? It’s inide pop . Maybe you would like it
@@stevents1987 I was going to suggest watching Netflix/ Disney documentary but that also works.
@@raggletaggle8827 I'm sure you still love country music, it's "twangpop" you're not a fan of :) There is some new country that's still good though. Check out Yola.
Heard Dolly Parton talking about her song "I will always love you" and how Elvis was going cover it... but Elvis wanted 50% of the publishing rights to the song to do the cover. She turned Elvis down, and the rest is history. As she says in interviews about Whitney's cover of her song, you can give Whitney the credit, just give Dolly the money.
Dolly is simply amazing. As an artist, writer, businesswoman, or just all around human being.
That’s why we love Dolly.
While that story is correct Elvis himself didn’t turn it down, he didn’t even know it had been offered to him. Colonel Parker was doing that shit all the time behind his back.
It was Jolene and “Colonel” Tom Parker tried to push the issue. “You know, when Elvis covers a song they usually give him 50% out of gratitude.”
Dolly told the Colonel to take a hike. She never liked him to begin with.
About Whitney's contract to cover the song Dolly said "When I made that song, I could take money to the bank, when she (Whitney) sang it, I bought the bank."
Dolly has always been far smarter than anyone gave her credit and she fully utilized business people looking at her like a dumb bimbo with a golden voice by dialing that image to 11 and then making absolutely fantastic deals concerning her music.
Even with all her rather massive charity investments, she's worth over 600 Million.
Even as a non-Swiftie, a mere casual listener, I have a lot of respect for Taylor Swift. She put in the work to own her music as not let her old company win, I always admire people who stick it to the man. She's a great artist and businesswoman, and her passion shows.
Taylor Swift is legendary
A generic loaf of white bread should never be considered legendary. Popular, passable and forgotten are generic white bread's hallmarks, just like Tay, Tay's ditty du jour.
@@jalderink she isn't generic though and this video proved that doesn't it?
@@isaakvanwegen2784 No, it didn't. Swift used the abundant powers she had to fight against those trying to control her interests. Receiving, yet another, undeserved award is morbidly redundant. But, after all, it is what she does best.
@@jalderink but others didn't achieve what she did, so she isn't generic. I'm not a fan or anything and don't think she's a great person or anything she just isn't generic. If she was generic she wouldn't have achieved as much. She doesn't make unique music necessarily but it isn't totally generic neither and neither is she.
@@isaakvanwegen2784 I see your point, Isaak but success has many facets. Sure, you can say that she stands out because of her success but that doesn't mean that generic isn't successful. Ford sells the most trucks but that doesn't mean they're all Bigfoot or that Bigfoot is the best. Most of them are more similar than different and frankly, so is she. I don't think that she isn't talented or deserve any awards, it's just the LEVEL of the awards she's received is really more due to how monetarily successful & popular her celebrity career has been than her skills as a musician. Her timing couldn't have been better. The entire music industry was in turmoil so they propped her up like a humongous, neon billboard above a 5 cent lemonade stand. Kids buying lemonade were 90% of her fanbase. The award shows were desperate to draw attention so they gleefully handed her awards that would draw that attention. Music biz sees a buncha kids buying that lemonade? Kids love sugar, the Executives know this. Let's sell 'em all the juice we can squeeze w/10 x the corn syrupy sweetness to wash it down with. (They had plenty left over from the boy band era). You know, filling the void for her EXACT same fan base. Do you really think teens adoration is a good measuring stick for musical virtuosity? Sure, she's good. Best new pop single or teen choice award, easy. She's just not multiple, ARTIST or ALBUM OF THE YEAR good. Placing her efforts above the greatest musicians in modern history, just exposes these awards for what they are. Shiny, hollow plastic made to sell you more shiny hollow plastic. A simple formula to cash in on the mainstream. not celebrate true creative genius. How is that NOT generic?
I’m so glad she fought for her rights.
To PAAAAAARTeeeh
She fought for her MONEY.
Every artists fights for their rights the great thing here is that she won big time.
though she won't be able to repeat this trick as easily on the other 4 albums. as her career progressed and she moved to pop from country she wrote and composed fewer songs. so after this she might do a compilation of the stuff she has rights to of the rest.
Remember , everything this fraud says is dishonest , fake , corporate and incorrect.
You're lowkey promoting Taylor Swift's version and i love you for it. She's the queeennn!
Yep. She is the Queen. And he is the King 👑 for explaining the matter and why we need to stream Taylor's Version.
As anyone with a moral compass would
Even before her fights over her first six albums, Swift fought digital streaming platforms over royalties and won. She has been fighting for the rights of songwriters and recording artists, big and small, for ages.
Not to mention her $1 lawsuit over sexual harrassment when the radio personality groped her.
@@WayneWerner In other words, she's not afraid to make the fight a legal one with actual ramifications.
Just a bit of Trivia here, but I'm actually the person who shutdown Napster.
It wasn't my original intention as I went to solve a legal/technical dilemma that had even the Judge wondering if new laws weren't needed.
I analyzed the Napster system and identified their design flaw.
For one, Napster had no income (it was living off Venture Capital). My intention was to make them not only Legal but allow them to become a revenue source for Musicians -- so even garage bands could make themselves known without using the Record Industry. Those songs that required royalties could be purchased. A new band could sell for an intro price to establish themselves. And those who didn't care could be shared for free.
However that's when I found out Napster wasn't in it for the musicians but to break everything. They said my analysis had nothing to do with anything but threatened me when i told them that as it has nothing to do with anything that i could take it to the Judge.
So i took my report of how to fix Napster and make it legal (which I could have done solo in a month) to the Courts and two weeks later now that the confusion was gone Napster was shutdown.
And that's the story.
Had they not been as greedy as the Record Industry Napster could have been Amazon before Amazon -- selling anything & everything.
Oh well.
Taylor Swift has always impressed me as a musician, and as a person. Now I respect her all the more as a businesswoman.
Well done T Swizzle!
ahh dang, it's been awhile since i last heard T Swizzle 😭
Watching this over a year later and Fearless (Taylor's Version) and Red (Taylor's Version) have now out streamed the original versions of the albums, her impact is truly undeniable.
Now that it's out, give it a year and we can add Speak Now (Taylor's Version) to that list.
@@lucashenderson2775 Add 1998 Taylor version of October 27
Well her fanbase is only building so that tracks
Now add 1989
Hey all. I’m a professional working class musician and have soooo much to say about all this. First! Thank you Legal Eagle!!!
The legality surrounding music is intentionally designed to be hostile towards musicians. And, I know what a lot of you are thinking “just don’t take the contract” and as a person who has turned down several bad record deals, I have to say… there’s not really a good* alternative for us. Though, hundreds of thousands of us do take the route I did- playing 5-9 shows a week that are 4hrs long. It’s not really sustainable either. But that really is the state the industry these days. Band camp is AWESOME, but 70% us never make enough to even pay the bills. I’m a lucky exception.
As far as Taylor’s new recordings! I INSTANTLY heard the increase in quality. Better guitar tones, better mastering, and better mixing were immediately evident.
I’m not an avid listener of Taylor Swifts Music, but I’m really really really proud of her business savvy nature. I’ve seen a lot of my fellow pros get locked into oppressive contracts, and am really happy to see her challenge the status quo
I do think with the rise of social media and the internet, that has helped provide more alternatives for musicians, although it's still really difficult without a label, but in earlier times, including when Taylor Swift signed her record deal (2004-2005) it was almost impossible to have a serious career without a label.
So if you're smart and don't accept a bad deal the record co. uses your unknownness as leverage? When you play a bunch of shows your popularity goes up then the record co. will give you a better contract I take it.
@@dannydaw59 without a record deal, which will be a bad one because you’re unknown, you’re highly unlikely to become known. This gatekeeper function is less important than it used to be, but it’s not unimportant as yet.
Sounds like it's time and I'm sure many music artists are to create DAOs - decentralized autonomous organizations whereby you could create structured smart contracts with producers sound recorders and other musicians' videographers in order to produce music videos without having the high up front investment that music labels front.
And that I'm sure artists like Swift and others might break out and create sub labels to their own that are focused on identifying new talent.
The challenge with talent identification of course is that just like angel investors even though somebody's idea or product or music might be great there are many other factors that have to coalesce for it to succeed and to make money.
People working at a label are also in a way putting their reputation on the line within the industry when they ask for favors to get certain placement for the artist that they're repping.
However with direct-to-fan music it's different but for getting into venues you still need those relationships. Unless of course art is great some means whereby based on their fan base they can show a certain number of pre-sales to a venue in a given region to prove that they're not going to cost them any money.
In a way it seems that all of us are growing up... Ie and whatever industry we are in if we are going to harness the power of social media blockchain smart contracts you could get a good lawyer or we need to start thinking like a lawyer and we need to start thinking like a producer. It's not always every artist nature to also be thinking like a producer... Which is why we are artists.
But it does seem there is a tremendous vacuum which tremendous opportunity for producers of the next generation to create systems that draw highly talented artists who are working with them.
In the same way that many CEOs are either offering face pay like the $70,000 guy or four-day work weeks the next generation of companies are seeing that in order to attract top talent they have to offer equitable agreements.
So really the greatest threat to the music industry as it is today isn't going to come from artists directly, but from the enterprising and fair-minded individuals who find ways to harness new technology to become the equitable music labels of tomorrow who will attract the top talent and be able to engage large and small venues advertisers film producers etc with the same power and leverage that music labels heretofore held the keys to.
as parts of that 70% who dosent make money (i havent even made enough to cover the sm58 i used in my last ep lol ) this just so much this. gotta love an industry designed to make us slaves right?
FYI: Fearless was not Taylor’s first album, her self titled debut was, fearless was her second
While not the first album, it was the first album with a international release. The debut album was not released in a lot of countries and instead Fearless was the first CD there, and it just had some songs from the debut added to it.
So I can see where the confusion comes from.
I only learned about the debut album because of the fearless rerecording and finding out that some songs I loved where missing. Only then did I learn that those songs where not from Fearless technically.
I had the same thought
I think he meant her first re recorded album, phrasing was just insufficient
The first album is also one the most successful of 2010s lol. Like literally the longest charting album of that decade. So it's not even an unknown album.
@@doyouseeit5268 it lasted longer on the top 50 than any of her albums
i think one important caveat to remember is that Taylor was the primary songwriter to all of her music so she retained publishing rights to every song she released under her former label. THIS is the reason why she was able to do what she did with rerecording. This same situation will not apply if artists don't write their own songs.
Indeed, and yet another reason for artists to have a DIYer mentality (shout-out Curtiss King). Writing your own music is excellent therapy, as well as allowing for you to be able to make a power move like Taylor did if the situation calls for it.
Agree, this is important. I've watched a few videos on this T.Swifty thing and they really don't drive this point home like they should.
I was just about to mention that very same thing. If someone else that didn’t have the composition rights tried to do this they would be instantly sued for copyright infringement and lose big.
Was looking for this! So if another artist didnt write a song they could reach out to the songwriter for approval and then re-record? That would work?
@@Orangeflava it sounds like that just becomes a "cover" song? In which case you'd have to pay a small portion of the royalties. If you're using a common distributor like Distrokid it's really easy. You don't even communicate with the rights holder. There's an option to allocate the royalties from a database when you upload the song. Unless I'm misunderstanding your question?
Another big part of this, is for the first time in history the Artist can reach out to their fan base directly with Twitter and such. This means that the artists voice louder than ever before and they don’t have to go through the old “filters” that they used to have to navigate, great video!
Very true, this couldn't be done without proper communication with the fanbase
the perverse example is Taylor complaining on twitter and having her deranged Stans threaten to murder Scooter Braun. What a time to live in.
@@seanjohnson7367 as she should be ❤️ & not u calling swifties "deranged" when majority of us are young adults and are calling out scooter for his shit , just a tip for you, Scooter Braun is a Zionist and his company funds Genocide in Yemen.
@@seanjohnson7367 So you think artists shouldn't own their work? 🤦😑
@@rachsmith3479 No -- she owns her songwriting/publishing. She never owned her masters, so I don't think she has some sort of inalienable right to own those.
As soon as he played the recorded track, I could hear the difference, it was clearer, and overall sounded better. I am by no means a Swifty, but mos def have mad respect for her and her efforts.
Just from a sound engineer perspective it's pretty fun going back and forth between the two versions. I can't wait till all of them are out
She writes, sings, directs, acts, put on an epic show AND makes power moves. It’s a shame that media only talks about her dating life which is honestly nobody’s business. How much more does a woman gotta do.
Plays instruments too.
how is that a “power move”
@@250Pants What other artist has rerecorded their music to effectively make the original versions worthless, specifically to spite the company that was treating her so poorly? She pulled a POWER MOVE while being bullied and completely crushed the corporate muckity-mucks! Brilliant!
@@funisnumberone1 the original versions lost value but are not worthless. I don't get what is there to admire? That she can handle business? If she's got her head in too many things her creativity will surely be impacted. You call that a power move because she has power? Well of coirse she has power. Money = power
@@250Pants If you don't get it, it's probably because you are not trying to or it's simply over your head. I noticed you declined to mention another artist who has done this (a lot of them have money). Seems her creativity has not been affected while she strategically prioritizes which albums to re-record first. She's got new songs and (Taylor's Version) of past recordings topping the charts. And they sound better, making the previous versions obsolete (dramatically depreciated in value). If you're still confused, ask someone to explain it to you. I've done all I can to try to help you understand. Take care.
I've never been a fan of Taylor Swift's music, but I can recognize that she is a mega-talented songwriter. I am a huge fan of her career arch though. She continues to impress and inspire me :)
Similar to how I'm not a fan of soccer, but still like sports law (which in Europe = Soccer).
I’m glad I found someone else will think this way
❤️
Well said
I grew up on 80's music so yeah I aint really a fan of Taylor's music --- but she is a big inspiration to young women today to take control of their lives and careers and don't allow white men like Scooter Braun push them around --- FIGHT BACK and FIGHT FOR YOUR RIGHTS, LADIES
I've been an on and off fan of hers for years... I've never been the biggest fan, but I've never really disliked her music.
The one thing I've always known about her.. when she stands for something, she sets her mind on it, and works hard to achieve it. She really has changed the music industry.. seemingly for the better
Know 'Genetically Modified Sceptic'?
By getting the original musicians back she is ensuring they are not being screwed over by the new recordings - that shows true character in my opinion and a new respect for Taylor Swift. No matter what version of the song is used, the musicians remain unaffected in any income and bragging rights :D
Positively affected even, the album's charted again so depending on the deals she made they would have had a huge boost compared to the continued sales of the originals
what? musicians do not earn royalties like artists and producers do. They get paid union rates. That’s it
@@250Pants I think that depends on what they negotiate for payments. I believe royalty revenues are sometimes negotiated for session musicians, even if it's not the most common form of payment.
@@jeffreyquinn3820 In the US the only exceptions are residuals (if the musician belongs to a Union) and SoundExchange only if they are listed as "featured artists" on the recordings with a contract/agreement registered with SEx. So for example Lana Del Rey has a collaboration with Taylor where maybe she plays guitar and sings- then she will be a featured artists on that recording and I'm sure Lana's managers would've negotiated it. That's pretty much it, everything else is work for hire and I'm sure that makes up close to 95-99% of session musician earnings
It's a curious problem, when you're first starting a new business, publishing a new album or book, etc...that is exactly when you need great lawyering. But you can't afford great lawyering until you've made tons of money on your business or book.
I don't know about the music industry, but there's a ton of writers' guilds/unions that offer free support to first time authors and highlight predatory publishers to prevent abuse
@@redwitch95 I think the problem is that the music industry is like ~95% predatory companies, ~4.5% artists, and not much room for support.
This is pretty much any artistic freelancers -whether music or literature or actors or whoever. You are coming out fresh with no knowledge of the industry and you pretty much sign any rights away.
Know 'Genetically Modified Sceptic'?
The Atheist-RUclipsr so nice and unbiased and non-arrogant that he has lots of Christian Fans now?
That warm guy?
Or Forrest Valkai, the Bio-Teacher who's also on Tiktok?
@@loturzelrestaurant What is your point, exactly?
This women is very smart, no wonder she is still so successful after more than 16 years in music industry
As a law student, I really appreciate this in depth analysis of the Taylor Swift situation. None of the other RUclips videos abt it makes it as clear cut as you do. Great job!
Fun fact, if a giant mouse hadn't perverted copyright law beyond all recognisable relation to its original intent, pretty much none of this would matter.
To be fair, if it hadn't been Disney, someone would have done it. Maybe not a far or as many times, but it would have happened. Companies were already trending that way before Disney decided to go whole-hog in on it themselves too.
Disney’s biggest push was keeping things out of the public domain for as long as possible. It didn’t have anything to do with the music industry as they didn’t want to lose Mickey Mouse
(of course I realise this means others could just be recording own versions of those songs for use in movies/games etc... but see: good relationship with artist for future access (if you don't want to wait 14 years))
(also, I know it'd shifted to 28 before the mouse, I did say "pretty much", but then we'd moved to being kept out of the public domain, and who is to say w/o that influence it mightn't have swung back at some point)
Actually, Disney's actions has worked in artists' favor as far as making money and owning your ideas goes. It's copyright law that gave Taylor the ability to remake her own music and stick it to the owners of the original masters. The problem here is not copyright law, it's bad contracts from greedy record labels.
@@Bl4ckDr4co I still think the current state of copyright law is a pretty big issue.
"What is she trying to prove by doing all this?"
Lemme tell you... Olivia Rodrigo owns her music bcoz she learned from Taylor Swift.
The Music Industry everybody!
And all artists signed under UMG is now getting bigger profits off of spotify streams now because it’s part of her deal. She also convinced apple to pay artists during their three months free trial. She’s done a huge impact on the industry, it is sad that most of it is overlooked.
Ha, yeah, Olivia Rodrigo -- today's top music plagiarist.
@@seanjohnson7367 Nah. Watch any musician’s video dissecting her songs. The claims aren’t strongly substantiated.
And now Adele also owns her music from her album 30.
@@seanjohnson7367 all music is inspired by something else. Esp pop music, a lot of it sounds similar
Not surprising that she's one of, if not the most, successful singer of our time. Not only is she talented and very down to earth, she's also smart and rebellious against the abusive/exploitative higher ups
Good for her. I've always been impressed by what I heard about her in the news (like that time she sued a former employee for 1 cent for groping her). Setting a great example for everyone. Hopefully she, or witnesses to this, can set up some sort of young musicians legal aid so that literal children don't keep getting exploited by big companies.
iirc the radio host sued her for defamation after she spoke out about the sa, so she countersued for 1$, and won. shes so badass honestly
Or that time she fought Apple Music to pay smaller artists for their songs by increasing the pay for streams
@@offgun6466 Or that time where she boycotted Spotify for three years during her most successful era so far, won and ensured everyone gets paid more for their art!
I've never liked Taylor Swift's music, it's not my genre at all, but now I admire her as a person: she had the balls to take fight for her rights
have you listened to her 2 recent albums? (folklore/evermore) they’re a completely new genre and a lot of people who aren’t pop fans enjoyed them a lot
@@elllied_ I appreciate the sentiment, but I've heard some of her music on the radio, and it's really not my cup of tea. If she ever does an hard rock or metal album, I'll be sure to give it a listen
@@Moribax85 haha ok it was worth a try!!
@@Moribax85 although it's not 'hard' rock per se, her album Speak now has some chill rock songs such as The story of us and Haunted. Give them a try!
@@Moribax85 Funny.. I'm a hard rock guitarist, and I absolutely love Swift's music .. ALL of it. She has an amazing sense of melody. "Speak Now" has some rocky moments, and you should definitely check out the live versions of "The Story Of Us" (Speak Now tour on RUclips) or "We Are Never Getting Back Together" (1989 Tour - again on RUclips) .. live they're total rock anthems (she has a great guitarist called Paul Sidoti). I wish she would do a no holds barred Hard Rock album.. she's got the song writing chops to create some mega anthems. But sadly I don't think it's going to happen. Fun fact - she did a duet gig with Def Leppard and sang Pour Some Sugar with them, and they Sang Love Story!!
It's so funny to me how the Carlisle Group and the other private firms thought it'd be a good idea to partake in the backstabbing of the person they wanted to profit from lol. All of them though, Scooter and Scott as well. My guess is they were used to silencing artists with legal action and threats.
They didn't know just who they were stealing from (pun intended)... This is the same girl who declined a contract with SONY at 14 because she refused to release songs she hadn't written, and because she didn't want to get lost in a big label. THAT is the person they were trying to steal from.
I can give you Carlyle because they're with Braun and helped him buy BMR but Taylor made it clear she made her peace with someone (not Scooter) owning her music and was ready to work with Shamrock until she found out Scooter is still profiting from her music even after he sold the masters.
steal? where’s the evidence ? The label owns the masters . They didn’t steal them.
Good for her! Artists should have control over what they create.
The Eagles did it first. They fired their label back in the 70s (before the band broke up), created their own label, management company, and distribution chain so that they could control 100% of their music.
Three 6 Mafia followed suit (sort of). DJ Paul and Juicy J are cousins and their uncles were in a pretty successful gospel group. They told their nephews to own their music because it’ll bring them more money in the long run. And that’s what they did.
Most artists are just happy to get the advance from the label because that’s more than most of them will ever make.
If artists want to make any money they’re going to have to find a way to distribute and that means giving someone collateral for investment. I don’t know how that could happen for any aspiring young artist other than selling the rights to their music. People who are pre-influence aren’t going to be in positions to take the ideal contracts. Taylor Swift had the luxury of becoming successful and loved by millions of people to control her own destiny. I doubt that could be said of most young artists.
Not so simple, but yes
Ok, so like what if an artist copies a Taylor Swift song word for word as an original recording but it sounds identical to Swift's version. Should that artist be able to control that original work because they made it even though it's clearly plagiarized from another artist?
@@ghostderazgriz That misses the point of the video, there are 2 rights, the abstract rights which belong to the artist, and the master recording that were given away to the label who paid for them. Swift's contract ended so she owned her lyrics and overall the music as a whole, she just didn't own the master recordings which where being sold to others by the company, who still owns them. She records a new version and that's that she now owns a different set of masters for the same songs. So an artist who is not Swift couldn't record her music and profit from it. The Beatles case is unfortunate for Paul, because John Lennon is death, so recording again can't happen.
I am so proud of Swift and I am actually really glad, now, that I've never, personally, bought any of her records yet... so that I can buy these new ones!
I’m buying all the news ones to support her too! As a music fan and a supporter of all sorts of artists, I know that the degree of success she experiences with this endeavor is going to effect so many artists to come!
@@sidt1036 It sure will! I will be planning to buy them, too! I love to support the artists I love! I'm so excited for musicians futures because of what she's doing!
Great to hear! And "Lover," "folklore," and "evermore" were all created after she left Big Machine, so you can buy them now, and know that they're already owned by her.
She owns her masters for Lover, folklore, and evermore, as well as her re-recordings
Same! I'm a new fan ever since Lover album so I'm only buying the new stuff that belongs to her.
She's extremely smart to also add the from the vault songs, it's a more incentive to buy and increases the value. While others have done it before her, due the swiftie fanbase she has a huge impact along with more and more people aware.
Taylor also has a recording studio in one of her houses, no need to actually pay a studio to help her if she can do it at any given point.
whats a vault song
@@yousuf9841 unreleased songs/songs that didn't make it into the original albums, she's re-recording some of those too and adding them to the album re-recordings, (she named them "vault tracks") which gives fans an extra incentive to buy/stream the new versions instead of the old/original ones
@@elizabethm8982 Thank you so much!
Thanks for covering this. Had a recording contract myself after joining a band years ago, started to dig into what I signed and learned that it was exclusive and the label would get rights to anything I recorded as an artist, not just with that particular band. I was able to get out of it, but boy are they designed to fleece artists.
Does it use a phrase like "in this universe and any other universe"?
Yeah, that's pretty much the job description. You spend 500,000 by advancing 10k on 50 bands. 49 of those bands flop, so you need to get 500k out of a 10k contract to break even.
It sounds to me like it was designed to fleece artists who didn't read the contract. Why did you start "to dig into what I signed" rather than "dig into what I was being asked to sign?"
How is the label the bad guy because you were so eager to have a record deal that you signed it without reading it?
@@Bad_Wolf_Media Because the label intentionally made a shitty contract, perhaps?
This is like saying "How is it my fault that I shot and killed someone? It should be their fault for not dodging the bullet."
@@Bad_Wolf_Media Wow. The name fits. Lawyer up before you go see this guy.
Wow Taylor really outdid herself. Haven’t listened to her in years but I’m going to listen to her remade albums. Thank you for breaking this out so simply and so entertainingly.
you should check out the two albums she made in quarantine (folklore/evermore) they have a really different and indie feel you might enjoy them!! :D
So am I.
I'll buy her new versions. She deserves to benefit from her brand. She is a breath of fresh air in terms of supporting her friends and staff. She could be a much different individual with her success, but she is a classy lady. I'd love to meet her in persona.
*When you are a law school student and a classically trained musician.*
Thank you, LegalEagle! Favorite video so far!
I am a massive Taylor Swift fan so Im in-the-know of this situation, but I never knew the deep situation like this. Thanks for the analysis. Im incredibly proud of her innovation in the Music Industry legality-wise
My fav song is Wildest Dreams for those that are curious. I recommend it, her version was just released recently
"Get a good lawyer." Best advice you can get. But I would imagine it is challenging for an emerging artist who is desperate to make a name for themselves and has little room to make demands as to what their recording contract states. Actors, for example, have unions that work to ensure that contracts are fair and that actors are not exploited. Do music artists have the same protections? If not, perhaps the long term solution here is to organize.
The new version is better. Just her vocals alone have become smoother. The transitions between her registers ahhhh so good.
I knew Taylor was awesome, but didnt realize she was this awesome.
Maybe that's how she's been keeping her top position for over 13 years
She isnt 14 years active for no reason
@@skellington2000 Sure, but her actions are also paving the way for artists after her to have control over their own work - is that not also a good thing, even if it comes with self-interested side effects?
@@skellington2000 This did not just impact her own music but was a warning sign to the new generation to not do the same mistake she did. Olivia Rodrigo has full control of her masters because of Taylor's public battle for her own.
I was never a Taylor Swift fan. I heard some of her songs on the radio and I didn't hate them or anything, I just never really listened to her.
Then I read all about her fight with Scooter Braun and Big Machine and how she decided to re-record her albums to cut them out and, as an old musician who was in a band who actually turned down the only record deal we were ever offered due to unreasonable terms, I was nothing but entirely impressed with this woman.
This is just about the only time I've ever heard of an artist finally sticking it to the f*cking vultures that prey on creative people's hopes and dreams.
Well done Taylor! You are a hero!
"Get a good lawyer" are wise words for everyone
Aren't music publishers just going to add clauses in contracts prohibiting musicians from re-recording earlier albums?
@@nelidadumitrache7508 they can adjust contracts for everything, but the smarter artists (or those who have good lawyers) won't sign, and they'll just lose out.
Ah taylor herself said this in her vogue interview , ig 2015?
This was super interesting. I’m glad Taylor has found a way to regain control of her music.
I found the bit about Michael Jackson and Paul McCartney a bit misleading, as McCartney and Yoko Ono were given first dibs and offered the chance to buy back the Beatles catalog before anyone else, but they decided the 40 million price tag was too high. (Paul was worth hundreds of millions at the time, and made about 40 million in royalties alone each year. But he told friends the catalog was “too pricey.”) After they passed on the purchase, the catalog was up for grabs. Jackson found out about it and offered to pay anything. They told him it would be 47.5 million, (seven and a half million more than the price offered to McCartney and Ono). Jackson snapped up the deal, which from a business standpoint, was brilliant; he ended up making about a billion off licensing and royalties. McCartney felt betrayed when he found out about the purchase and severed their friendship. I love the Beatles, but I can’t side with McCartney on this. He had his chance and didn’t take it; he had only himself to blame. He did end up getting control of their catalog again, but it took a long time and a lot money. I’m not a huge MJ fan, but I don’t see him as the bad guy in that particular scenario.
Exactly. MJ was a superior business man. His estate STILL owns the copyrights to Eminem and many other artists music. Paul always seems arrogant to me.
I don’t know. Unless you the artist are selling your masters to another artist, or org., I think owning the masters of another artist makes you kinda of a dick. Record labels included here. Artists should own their masters at least partially. Not saying it’s not a good business move, but maybe a dick move too. Funny how those coincide…
Yes I agree! MJ was in the right!
@@hannahpaquette520
He actually gifted Sammy Davis Juniors rights back to him after he bought it!
He knew how badly a lot of (especially black) artists got screwed over, he worked hard to do better himself.
Didn't MJ also buy Eminem's entire masters catalog because he tried to diss him in one of his songs? 😂
I’m a proud OG Swiftie and I remember mentioning in my Intellectual Property Law exam her feat with respect to new and small artists getting paid during the 3-month trial period on Apple music and Spotify as a pre-condition to putting her catalog back to their streaming services. I love her for that and for so many other reasons.
Artists are the creators of their arts and they should be paid for it. It is not greediness for artists to demand what they deserve. Imagine great composers then dying poor, obscure and starved to death (e.g. Vivaldi)? Unless it is a charitable act, artists should be paid in an amount equivalent to their work’s worth. Businessmen’s greediness should not have a place in any industry that involves art.
The music industry is so predatory and abusive historically, it's astounding.
Everything in corporate america is this way. From healthcare to music. Toxic businesses only care about making more money than 50 generations could ever spend. Don't care about ruining lifes or the planet. The ugly truth about capitalism.
It's an industry full of artistic people who probably haven't really made it a habit in life to delve into dense, complicated documents... working with people who probably lack the artistic talent that they see every day in their jobs, but still really like money. It's like sending a 5-five-year-old with a fistfull of french fries into a pack of seagulls. How surprised can you really be at what happens? What would be shocking is if the record companies actually made even a half-assed effort at acting like decent people.
It’s funny in classical music composers just use the themes from each other and now people are suing each other for music sounding similar.
@@Jartran72 Yeah, because everything Taylor Swift is doing is only about goodness and light and making the world a happy place, having nothing at all to do with money, right?
Welcome to capitalism
Haven't really listened to Taylor's music since I was a teen but DAMN. YOU GO GURL! So proud! Congrats on this and all your future success from your childhood home state. Thanks for covering this, LegalEagle!
Folklore and evermore is astonishing!
Taylor is amazing for this & this is special because she isn't re-recording her music after 30-40 years but right at the moment she was allowed to. She is at the peak of her career (yes, even after so many years!) and she is showing that art has value and that she is right every step of the way doing this. I love how she got 'revenge' on scooter and Scott because it was just a very nasty move. It's also amazing to see all the fans (me included!) come together and buy and stream her Taylors Versions because we all believe in her so much!
I still hope one day she gets the chance to buy her own, original masters, but until then she is setting legendary steps in the music industry and you can't deny that fact. Looking back at '1989' when she removed all her music from streaming to better the payment to ALL artists before her, and coming after her she basically put her own power and art to better the lives of future generations!
I think you mean 15-17 years, she's 33 and started 2004/2006 (or 32 at the time of your post)
I'm not a fan of Swift's music, just isn't my style, but I'm glad she stood up for herself and came out on top. I understand artists need to work with other companies but the artist should be the primary person to benefit from such business transactions. Like how RUclipsrs work with editors but the editors don't get to own the video.
Pop, country, alternative, folk, teater, rock, rap not your genre???
@@juliantopasaribu7783 y'all I'm a swiftie too but please let's not shove Taylor's songs down everyone's throat 😭
@@juliantopasaribu7783 lmao by rap do you mean thug story
@@juliantopasaribu7783 she has like two rock-ish and rap songs, and even if she had more her voice, lyrics etc. might not be what everyone wants, it's okay.
@@skylaeve3573 then they have bad taste, as she is "the music industry".
Say what you will about her but she is not just talented and intelligent, but she has balls of steel. She refused to back down and took charge of her own destiny in the best way possible. She didn't bother to get even, she got better.
In other words, guys, go buy and stream the re-recordings and make sure to never never support any of the old versions once all re-recordings are released.
I really hope "Taylor Swift" and "Speak Now" will be re-recorded soon. Part of me feels like Taylor Swift will re-record her self titled album last, to symbolize how she's fully reclaimed her image and name, but I also don't want to keep listening to the versions of the songs she doesn't own.
@@TuesdaysArtTHE WAY SOEAK NOWS BEEN RE-RECORDED NOW
Part of the appeal of re-recording the albums is that as the composer, Taylor has the legal right to deny sync licenses, which means that if someone wanting to use the original recordings tried to go through Shamrock, she could use her position as the composer to deny them the ability to use the original masters. This is why Taylor encourages artists to write their own music; the amount of legal leverage that that has provided for her has been invaluable. Even though she hasn't finished re-recording the albums, she has the ability to cut off a significant portion of the revenue the originals would have generated. I remember reading somewhere that her team is denying sync licenses for Shake it Off and Blank Space near-daily, which is just so crazy omg.
And for what it's worth--Fearless was her second album and Lover was her seventh album (sorry, I'm pedantic and annoying and I had to lol).
@@thebeefyleaf ... yes it is? And I literally say that she's the composer of the songs?
@@thebeefyleaf I didn't say it did. I said that she already had the right to deny usage of her songs, which she used to prevent Scooter and Shamrock from profiting off her songs by using them in movies or commercials. Go re-read the comment
@@mrndmrrs sorry for butting in but i love the fact that you used three different accounts to reply haha 😂
@@elizabethm8982 I fully never know which account I'm logged into on any given device, it's a curse tbh 🤣😰
That’s generally not true. In standard music publishing agreements, the publisher has discretion over synch licensing (does not need the writer(s) approval). Of course, if the writer has enough clout, they may change that or at least stipulate that certain industries like tobacco, household products, etc be left out. But generally no. If you state that’s true for Taylor it doesn’t mean it will be true for other artists who control their compositions.
Red blew Fearless out of the water which says a lot about her choices. Patiently waiting for Reputation to be re recorded since it’s my favorite.
This video definitely changes my preconceived notions of her. I always knew labels were bad, but wow... Good for her for sticking it to the man! This is a good lesson for any artist looking to get started. Makes me think of those talent shows on TV... 100K and they own you!
She is also the reason people WILL get payed is spotify is sold and the reason why people get payed even when someone tries out apple music for 3 months free of charge, she put them on blast and had them bactracking in like 12 hours.
People make her the villain but she is aware of her power and uses it to fight for everyone.
That's how you kick your label in the balls, Love everything about it. There was a time, back around 2009 I had a label deal laying on the table in front of me... and when I read through it and realized that we'd be losing money to take the deal, I walked away completely disillusioned and didn't touch my instruments for several years.
I'm glad she played it smart.
Well, I hope Taylor’s inspiration is able to help you pick up that instrument again. But this time, play it like you mean it. 💛
i fully 100% agree that there's no point to listening to the original versions if we have the re-recordings, bc they always sound immensely better -- better mixed, better produced, her voice is stronger and more mature... it's a very big and noticeable difference.
out of all the re-recordings we've gotten so far, my favorite is red, partly because 10 min all too well is absolutely insane. but mostly because the whole re-recorded album just sounds absolutely incredible.
This is definitely my favorite video since I am a Law Student and a Swiftie!!!
LOL. It just warms my heart the people who screwed a naive teenager get their comeuppance from that same now much wiser woman.
The original deal was in the label's favor, but it wasn't like naive 15 year old TS (plus her parents and everyone else who was helping her make decisions with the label) got tricked into some exceptionally bad deal. The terms she signed on are pretty common in the business, especially for small or beginning artists.
@@deltab9768 That doesn't actually make it better, though. That just means a whole ton of "small or beginning artists" are getting bad deals.
@@PhysicsGamer I've heard all these people making fun of Taylor Swift for "not reading her contract," not being smart enough to get a good contract, etc. She in her own words "made peace" with the fact her masters would be sold, a major part of the problem was who they were sold to.
My point? This isn't a problem with Swift. It's a problem with the recording business in general. If this whole mess helps change those policies, then that's great.
@@deltab9768 people make peace with their own mistreatment all the time. that says nothing at all to whether an action is mistreatment or not.
@@scottmatheson3346 You’re missing my point. People are acting like this is all Ms Swift’s fault, and “she signed the contract, then changed her mind about it,” or “she should have read the contract first,” etc. I’m saying it was a bad contract, and she new that and settled for it because it’s so common and nothing better (for her) was available. Now that she has some pull in the music biz (she was in the top 10 most popular artists of the decade when she signed to Republic) she can hopefully change this policy for everyone.
Everything I see about Taylor just makes me respect her more as an artist and a human. I adore this woman and she deserves all the best the world can give her!
What Taylor did by re-recording her masters is so epic I don't even have words. Great video! Love learning about music business and entertainment law.THANK YOU and keep it up!
I've always enjoyed her music and how she seems to be kind and gracious to fans and in interviews. Nice to see she made such intelligent decisions that will protect her rights and potentially help others. Also lets be honest is it surprising she sounds better? Music is a skill and like any skill it improves with practice.
Funniest thing about this whole case: Scooters Braun seriously underestimated Taylor's parasocial relationship with her fans. I believe I read somewhere that he scoffed at her decision to rerecord her albums basically telling her that no one would ever buy them again. Dude, she's not a top selling artist (man or woman) because she's just a pretty blond.
Taylor's fanbase is crazy. 14 year old girls mainly but her social media presence is huge.
@@nickm4974Actually, Taylor’s initial fans may have been aged 10+ (along with their parents/families who secretly enjoyed passively listening to their daughter’s/sister’s/granddaughter’s music), but those original Swifties grew up remaining Swifties. Then they became Mothers themselves, but never stopped playing and buying Taylor Swift music- and now they can afford to also buy the merch and concert tickets. So it’s an entire range of ages who enjoy and buy Taylor Swift’s music, for themselves and getting their kids into it. And don’t even get me started on all the LGBTQI fans of all ages for whom TS has been a huge ally publicly and whose songs of feeling not seen or geeky or not included absolutely resonate. They buy her stuff too. So this myth that all of Taylor’s fans are young girls is pretty outdated now. Just sayin’ 😊
@@nickm4974you underestimate her fan base. It’s inter generational from Gen Alpha to Boomers of all sexes.
Taylor DOES NOT have a parasocial relationship with her fans! The toxic ones have one with her! They think they are friends, make demands of her, tell her who she can and can't date. Send threats to anyone who doesn't like Taylor. They are obsessed and stalker-ish. Most of her fans are normal but the toxic ones are extremely loud! They don't realize they are making Taylor and Swifties look bad! 🫶
There needs to be more legislation to protect young artists from these bad actors and predatory contracts. They bank on these kids being ignorant to music law or not knowing their worth because they’re so desperate to ‘make it’. I personally know entertainment lawyers who left the sector because they couldn’t stomach the levels of predatory exploitation. There’s something so seedy about exploiting young people who just wanna follow their dreams and earn a living while doing it.
They gave her the opportunity to become richer than 99% of the world and ultra famous. I really fail to see where she was exploited.
@@seanjohnson7367 If you only view exploitation in simple monetary terms, then you would never understand the sentiment.
@@marshakatrinatacadao7693 I'm not sure how worthwhile it is to view exploitation in any other terms than big ones: financial, sexual, personal. I don't see anywhere in Taylor's story where she has been exploited in any appreciable way. She has literally gotten to shape her entire musical career without artistic limits. The label gave her the money, the backing talent, and the connections to have this journey. In return, they own her masters. Taylor didn't put the money down for producing or recording or promoting her masters, so why should she have any right to dictate how they're treated after the fact. The label hasn't kept her from writing music, expressing herself, or furthering her career.
@@seanjohnson7367 It's creative exploitation. As an artist, she was denied access to her own work, her own art. Oh no, actually she was given the access but that access means holding her back and risking her future . The label used her own art to hold her back with the label. She was not given the same deal the label had given to other music executive. The label tried to leverage Taylor's relationship with her work, so she would stay with them. So yeah, it is exploitation. Taking advantage of someone who in the first place was willing to pay for the fair cost of her own art.
@@marshakatrinatacadao7693 the artist has no right to buy back their masters. If she felt buying back the masters was important, she should’ve started planning for it years ago. These very much feels like self-inflected wounds.
The more I learn about Taylor the more amazing she becomes.
Feminist? LOL
Dating Calvin Harris knowing what he did to Rita Ora....
She did not apologize to Kate. As a spoiled child she is. Kate only apologized even though she was not wrong because she has a good heart. What Taylor doesn't deserve.
@@rosanaconta3416 bestie you clearly need to get a life
@@rosanaconta3416 Really? If you're going to turn her down, at least change that argument, its outdated
I've never been a huge Swift fan, but honestly her fighting the good fights in copyright and against harassers has made me buy my first copy of a Taylor's Version album
Yeah, even if I didn't care about supporting Taylor, I would still listen to the new ones over the old ones because the new ones just sound so much better. Can't wait for the rest of her rerecorded albums!
As others said, her music isn't really my cup of tea. However, I'm becoming a fan of Taylor Swift as a person. She deserves a lot of respect.
Same. Just can't make myself like the style but she is awesome.
Please do more on music law and how musicians can be more informed about it. Musicians get so discouraged and used by labels that they usually end up being broke while labels take all their money - which means they can't afford legal action and they wouldnt even know where to begin if they did. Please help musicians like me to be more aware of what we need to sign and not sign. Thank you for this video - it has already made an impact in more people's lives than you know! Take care, EJ :)
That face when Rick hears just the first snare from the re-records is so telling, heh. The new album really is an improvement on the original. So many points to Swift for actually managing to get one up on the music industry for once!
I had never heard either version before, but as soon as the new one was started I could definitely hear that"hey, some of those sounds were not as clear in the original"
All the absolute badassery by Taylor aside, can we just appreciate the mental image of Devin always having a gavel when he does things? Plus a suit. Fantastic.
Don't forget the eagle on the kitchen table too.
But aren't Judges the ones who use gavels?
@@jalderink Yes, but thats the added adorable factor.
Her singing has improved dramatically both her voice and her artistry. In addition, on RED, she offered the 10 minute version of "All to Well" and the 10 songs from the vault that did not make the original album cut including "Run" featuring Ed Sheeran, one of my favorite TS song.
As an artist I’d like to thank you for covering this topic. More people should know about this.
I listened to Fearless (Taylor's Version) on Napster right after it came out, and while I didn't do an A-B test I was fairly certain that the new version sounded fuller and more mature. Glad to hear Rick Beato back up my incredibly amateur opinion.
On..... Napster?
@@MichaelSotoCE yes, Napster is the rebranded Rhapsody. It's a legit streaming service now.
@@texasyojimbo I thought it was shut down after the lawsuit with Metallica. I didn’t know it was rhapsody now. Fun fact. My dads cousins was on the Napster legal team for that lawsuit.
I've always wondered why she chose to re-record her albums and copy it exactly how it sounded back when it was first released and your video made me understand why. I never realized there are a lot of legal stuff going on behind every artists and record labels when they released a song. And indeed, Taylor is smart enough to re-record her albums immediately after the feud.
A couple of corrections/clarifications. Fearless was Taylor Swift's second album not her first. Second, Taylor actually DID look into buying her masters back from the private equity firm but terminated the deal after finding out that Scooter Braun had a financial stake in it.
I think Devon meant that it’s either her first re-recorded album, or “first albums.” It’s hard to hear, but I thought I heard an s at the end. At first I wanted to “scream” SECOND ALBUM too, but I’m not sure. I think he said albums. (Which would still be strange, seeing how it’s 2/3rds of her catalog)
Scooter also made it a condition of the sale to the firm that they couldn't reach out to Swift until after the sale had taken place.
Didn’t they also try to get her back by making a contract where for every new album Taylor gives them, she’ll get one of her old album back?
@@rubyi2677 yes, they did. They offered her that contract when the old contract was about to expire. So she signed with Republic Records, where she does retain full control over her work.
Are you telling m,e this dude bought a company, then sold the company's most valuable asset by far to another company that he personally had an ownership stake in as well?
Somewhere the Mafia is proud. That shit's gotta be illegal somehow.
So much brilliance here. swift re-recording her own music, your analysis, and you going to Beato to compare the two recordings. Copyright law has been so perverted and abused in the US, love to see artists reclaiming control.
In 2006, a DJ friend of mine wanted to release a cover of "Waiting for a Star to Fall" by Boy Meets Girl but the record company refused to release the master copy ( because they wanted to release their own remix). So he contacted original singer and songwriter and he re-recorded the vocals specifically for this remix. And my guess is that is probably not the first time this has happened considering how tightly master copies are held and the propensity for shenanigans to circumvent them. That being said, Taylor has weaponised the process and shown other artists a pathway ahead. More power to her.
As both fan of legal eagle and a swiftie, this was one of the best things that I watched on youtube this month.
Thank you so much legal eagle.
Btw, Can you explain why on the old music videos, the new taymor version song is on the credits??
I was wondering that too. I guess it's because the recording's are sonically similar enough to be considered the same so when listing the song for the music video Taylor was able to choose her version since she controls the channel. I don't really know though and I wonder if it affects the copyright situation of the music videos.
I believe it’s because she owns the publishing rights, but Shamrock still profits off of it.
I would guess that she just synced the new recording to the old video? Videos are a completely different arena of copyright law...
It’s because the new masters are like the “official” version so the old version are treated like covers now
I didn't think I could respect Devin more than I already did, but knowing that he helped defend another youtube person against copyright claims for fair use is so awesome. Well done.
A lot of Rick’s power in the copyright claims is his social media reach. This is not cynicism, this is something he acknowledges, and, in personal empathy with other RUclipsrs, has some angst about.
Taylor is such an inspiration. Out of all the hard times she stayed true to herself and kept pushing. She deserves ALL the love she is receiving. 💝💝💝💝
Honestly, I'm not a big fan of Taylor Swift, but I have to respect what she's doing here. What's going on currently is unfair to the artists and I hope more artists do what she did
The industry has always been unfair to artists. Always. The Beatles were making a penny a song on their first albums right up till 1966. When they fired Epstein and Allan Klein got involved. And he still ripped them off.
No one forces them to sign these deals. If you don't hire a contract lawyer, it's your own fault.
@@vorpalblades if you don't sign deals with a record label you probably won't make it far in the industry, especially with Taylor being a teen country singer in 2006. and fair record deals weren't available back then. it's either make the deal they're offering, or try to make it on your own (which 99.99% doesn't work out for artists)
@@vorpalblades that's like saying "if you can't afford food just stop living instead of working". These record labels have a huge control of the entire industry. They scout talented artists at a very young age, when they can't afford to pay rent, let alone hire a lawyer. The initial offers are too good to deny and that's how they get stuck with these contracts.
Anyway, as a result of Swift's lawsuits newer artists have learnt about the legal complexities and started watching out for themselves.
@@vorpalblades very very naive comment. even more naive than the people who sign the contracts. it shows you have a lack of ethics and empathy maybe you work for one of the record labels
Well she is a legend. She fought for her rights and other's rights, her song writing is on another level. She brings smiles on people's faces when she is at her lowest. She is the by product of everything's she went through and that didn't break her at all and now the advices she gives can quite literally save a person's life by telling them what is necessary to know in this world with people who have the right to speak and will speak a lot of things good or bad about you.
Seconded
I have to disagree with her lyricism being on “another level.”
As a lyricist myself her works are predominantly pop songs that didn’t change much of anything other than what’s classified as country music.
She’s a talented performer who is wildly successful so I’m not trying to take anything away from her. But I don’t understand the hype around her.
She really did come back stronger than a 90s trend in every possible aspect.
Soooo proud to be a Swiftie.
Swift is a dynamo of talent and brains. And, of course, she made the record better the second time around. Her actions have helped all musicians and musical artists, going forward. She's a force of nature. Love her music and brilliance. Tay Tay!
I love how the companies said,that piracy hurts the music industry,while the bigest factor in the hurting was they themselfs.
I’m a firm believer that everything happens for a reason. I’m sure it sucked for Taylor in the beginning when all this happened but now she is the one who is laughing her way to the bank. She is a GENIUS for doing this. Girl’s got bigger balls than Scooter! ❤
I love the amount of references and jokes in this. Top notch for sure.
Also that transition to the sponsor was *chef's kiss*
fitting you should choose "chef's kiss", considering the sponsor
@@CorvusCorone68 Yes I realized that after I posted XD
I LOVE being an OG swifty. I'm so proud of how far she has come
I’ve never been a fan of Swift; not my kind of music. But I fully support her going to battle with oppressive power structures and standing up for not only herself, but for the rights of the artist writ large. Good for her.
I followed this case pretty closely and was so happy that it ended in her favour. I'll never be a professional musician, but I always found it so insulting and exploitative that record labels' ownership superceded that of the artists creating the music. I understand them getting a cut of the profits considering they foot so much capital, but the vast majority of it?
It didn't end in her favor. The master recordings she wanted are still owned by the label she left. They didn't lose anything at all. She will profit from the new releases, but she still has to spend the money to record them and promote them and get them distributed digitally and physically. She didn't "win" anything.
Those are all simple things for her to do because of the money she banked WITH THE SUPPORT of a label. But how many new and up-and-coming artists have hundreds of millions in the bank and 10s of millions of followers on social media to make such a "win" happen for them?
@@Bad_Wolf_Media It ended in her favour with regards to her retaining the rights to the scores and lyrics of her songs, if not the original recordings themselves. To me that's a big win. Without this she couldn't re-record that album. It's true that it doesn't solve the issue of predatory practices within that industry.
The record labels' interests don't supercede the artists, the artists sell their interests to the labels. Something that should be possible and not being able to do so would seriously harm many artists.
Now protections from exploitative contracts signed under a massive power differential, especially those relating to minors (which Taylor Swift was when signing on originally), could and should be improved.
@@Bad_Wolf_Media For one, she influenced olivia rodrigo to own her masters from the start.And artists are starting to come from tik tok nowadays and this may influence their decision too.Her curent label isn't doing much of anything in supporting her and considering she allways ends at the top of best selling artists ww,they are doing just fine.
The label allways gets most or a lot of money percentage wise.Depends how many co writers,producers,the artist has on an album.The fewer,the more money for the artist.But the label still gets like 40%,even if taylor has her masters.
I hadn't realized why Prince had changed his name. Go Swift, though. Here's to more artists protecting their rights to their own art.
she owns her own art. It's called publishing. She got a lot of money and connections from the label that launched her. That's why she doesn't own that SIDE of her art.
@@seanjohnson7367 more like the other way around. It wasn't even a label when Scott signed her. She is the reason it's even a company.
@@yourstepmother8109 No, she didn't pay the label, so no.
@@seanjohnson7367 she was making most of the money for the label. Without her it would have crashed and burned.
@@seanjohnson7367 she caused the label to have money, which is what's determinative here. you don't strike me as this stupid, sean, so that means you are being dishonest.
Honestly the best thing that come out of all this drama is my tears ricochet. Seriously a work of art