“Swifties” are familiar with their undevoted loyalty to household name singer, Taylor Swift, to look for the “(Taylor’s Version)” albums when listening or buying music to ensure that they are loyal to Swift herself. And last week was no different as Swift hit fans with yet another reimagined album, “Speak Now (Taylor’s Version),” her unfiltered take on her 2010 album originally released by the record label, Big Machine. The social media tsunami that populated everyone’s feed lays it all out: Taylor was wronged from the sale of her music by label executive, Scooter Braun, and now Swiftie revenge is oh so sweet. But what does it mean for other artists, and what are the true economic implications of re-recording an album that has already had success?
“Re-recording an album is every musician’s dream as these recordings are a way for artists to earn more money and have more control of the direction of their recordings,” said Dina LaPolt, the founder of LaPolt Law which represents some of the world’s top entertainer and entrepreneurs.
LaPolt explains that typically record label contracts require a minimum of seven years restricting re-recording rights that sometimes tolls from the last album ordered, which could result in decades restricting the re-record right. At the dealmaking stage, artists try to limit these recording restrictions and with more leverage, may try to take the position that the artist controls the recording and simply license those rights to the label. But the vast majority of these deals land on an exchange, meaning if you want the financial investment and distribution channels and marketing machine of the label, there is an invariable lockdown on your recordings.
LaPolt went on to explain that the artist then has two ways to monetize their songs. The first from whatever deal they produced with the label for the recordings, and the second from the composition of the song itself (provided that the artist writes the songs).
“Sound recordings make more money and is a relatively new regulated form of copyright since 1978,” said LaPolt.
She also said that song compositions are controlled by a third-party publisher who monetizes the compositions separately and shares an aligned interest in being able to re-record popular compositions where the publisher can also benefit from those economics without the label involvement.
But Swift is not the first artist to “Shake It Off” and reclaim her music from record labels. Other artists have recently re-recorded their music like the 70s Irish rock band U2. Earlier this year, the group released a re-record of 40 original songs for their new album “Songs of Surrender.”
While reclaiming music can be a dream for artists, the reality of the dream sets in for Stephen Finfer, an attorney, publisher and expert in all things music who has decades of experience in music transactions.
“If it made sense, everyone would have done it,” says Finfer who believes Swift’s re-recording is a “unique set of circumstances where she had incredible publicity around the sale of her masters.”
According to Finfer, music careers typically do not align with an artist’s permitted window and right to re-record, but Swift is at the peak of her stardom and at a different label. Thus, this makes it a “no brainer” for Swift to take this opportunity as a chance to pursue the “(Taylor’s Version)” re-releases.
But there are challenges behind re-recording.
“Re-records rarely capture the same energy and magic as the hit recording, so it lends itself for a second-best sound alike,” said Finfer. “This may result in a devaluation of the original recording.”
He also highlights that records are expensive to make, as well as the possible legal and approval requirements that may impact or block the actual ability to do so beyond the re-recording restrictions. In other words, artists may also have to factor in vocalists, unique players and producers in the process.
Even when an artist can overcome these challenges and legally re-record, there is still a requirement to fund a significant amount of marketing to be able to point consumers to the use of the “new” recording – but not every artist has Swifties as we know.
The economic and creative advantage to controlling a recording out in the market is undeniable but it is challenged by a recording industry that monetizes recordings and the reality that not everyone can capture lighting in a bottle more than once for a myriad of economic, legal and creative reasons.
"artist" - Google News
July 11, 2023 at 07:15AM
https://ift.tt/Lmeu1NE
Here Is Why Taylor Swift Re-Recording Her Album Is Every Artist’s Dream - Forbes
"artist" - Google News
https://ift.tt/8Tq2lHF
Bagikan Berita Ini
0 Response to "Here Is Why Taylor Swift Re-Recording Her Album Is Every Artists Dream - Forbes"
Post a Comment