MacDaddy Posted February 12, 2021 Share Posted February 12, 2021 So from what I've read, Taylor Swift signed a 6 album record deal in 2006, in exchange for a large advance to kick start her career the record company would own the masters. As the writer or co-writer of her music, she still owns the publishing rights. This was/is standard practice for new or unsigned bands. (A band owning their masters was so unprecedented in 1998, that Motley Crue had to sign an NDA to stop them saying how they did it). Now apparently Miss Swift is cross because the masters which she does not own have been sold by someone she does not like? Am I missing something? Her PR Machine has successfully portrayed her as a victim, when all involved are multi-millionaires. . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigRedX Posted February 12, 2021 Share Posted February 12, 2021 That's my understanding too. However I think that part of the problem is that she was not given to opportunity to make a bid for the master when they were sold. However without knowing exactly what is contained within all the various contracts, and only those whose signatures are only their plus their legal representatives will know for sure, it is difficult to comment accurately on the situation. Added to the fact that both the mainstream and specialist music media often seem to have problems distinguishing the various rights and ownerships when it comes to music, who knows and can comment with accuracy on exactly what the problem is? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silvia Bluejay Posted February 12, 2021 Share Posted February 12, 2021 More details HERE. Moral of the story, always keep your own masters, and if the contract doesn't comply, change it (or change record company). Self-publishing makes this easier (but also makes everything else a bit more difficult). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silvia Bluejay Posted February 12, 2021 Share Posted February 12, 2021 Oh, THIS may be interesting as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheLowDown Posted February 12, 2021 Share Posted February 12, 2021 I wonder how much less likely I will ever want to listen to her songs as a result of this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burns-bass Posted February 12, 2021 Share Posted February 12, 2021 All power to her. What she’s doing isn’t illegal, it’s fair game. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveXFR Posted February 12, 2021 Share Posted February 12, 2021 As a the most the greatest punk musician (Skater boy) of the last 40 years, Im surprised she didn't sign to Hellcat or an independent record label or go full DIY Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maude Posted February 12, 2021 Share Posted February 12, 2021 28 minutes ago, SteveXFR said: As a the most the greatest punk musician (Skater boy) of the last 40 years, Im surprised she didn't sign to Hellcat or an independent record label or go full DIY Pssst, that was Avril Lavigne. From what I hear Swifty is a pretty shrewd, and ruthless if needed, business woman, and if you're her target audience then she writes a pretty catchy pop tune. Good luck to her. 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveXFR Posted February 12, 2021 Share Posted February 12, 2021 Lavigne, Swift? They're both often described as the millennials Iggy Pop Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikel Posted February 12, 2021 Share Posted February 12, 2021 If indeed she signed said contract then I dont see a problem. If she wants to own the masters of any new material then sign a contract to that fact. Job done. She has not been shafted over royalties like many acts so whats the beef? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nilebodgers Posted February 12, 2021 Share Posted February 12, 2021 28 minutes ago, mikel said: If indeed she signed said contract then I dont see a problem. If she wants to own the masters of any new material then sign a contract to that fact. Job done. She has not been shafted over royalties like many acts so whats the beef? Control. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bolo Posted February 12, 2021 Share Posted February 12, 2021 17 minutes ago, nilebodgers said: Control. That was one of the Jackson sisters wasn't it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.gif.9ad672bb8b84505709f76b39c8c256ec.gif)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.