Explained: Taylor's Version

Taylor's Version: 

How Taylor Swift made her music her own

Anyone with even the vaguest interest in popular music will no doubt have seen the recent re-release of 'Red', the award-winning album from American country-pop superstar, Taylor Swift, initially released in the Autumn of 2012. 

Why the re-release, you might ask? It would be considered highly unusual for such a relatively recent collection of music to be afforded a second publication. It is not uncommon at all for Swift, however. Back in April, the singer released a re-recorded version of her much-loved early album, 'Fearless', much to the excitement of fans and the interest of industry bodies. It is expected that the other Swift albums will also be given new life at some point in the future. So, what is the story behind this string of album re-offerings, and how might these new 'Taylor Versions' signal a change in how artists manage and control their work?

The saga began in 2018 when Swift’s entered a dispute with Big Machine Records (her record label, at the time) at the end of her thirteen-year recording contract. During this time, the singer released six very successful albums, 'Taylor Swift' (2006), 'Fearless' (2008), 'Speak Now' (2010), 'Red' (2012), '1989' (2014) and 'reputation' (2017).

The master recordings for all six of these records remained with Big Machine, despite the singer's claims to the work as the credited writer. A 'master recording' represents the final version of the recording; it is what listeners come to hear on the radio, CDs or through streaming platforms. Although Swift retained the rights to the musical compositions of her songs, the right to the finished recordings stayed with the label. From Swift's perspective, the business relationship reached its breaking point when she was denied the opportunity to buy back her master recordings upon completing her contract with Big Machine, despite numerous requests. 

It is estimated that her work comprises nearly 80% of the label's revenue – hence why, shortly after the end of the contract, a deal was struck between Big Machine Label Group CEO Scott Borchetta and Ithaca Holdings CEO, Scooter Braun for the sale of recordings. Swift took to social media, claiming “none of these investors bothered to contact [her] or [her] team directly — to perform their due diligence on their investment…."She also stated that Braun (manager for the likes of Justin Bieber, Demi Lovato and Ariana Grande) engaged in “incessant…- manipulative [and] bullying” towards Swift. All of this came when the country-pop singer's reputation was acutely suffering due to ongoing personal issues being widely covered by the media.

 

In August 2019, Swift made a bold move in a bid to 'reclaim her career, announcing that she would re-record her past six albums and take sole ownership of the new masters. Doing so would enable the singer to access the songs to be used as part of her own live performances; she would also be able to grant permission for others to use her songs in advertisements, movies, or to feature in documentaries. Owning master recordings of popular tracks can be incredibly lucrative, but more than that, it represents the pinnacle of an artist's career. Perhaps this is what motivated Prince to claim in a Rolling Stone interview, “if you don’t own your masters, your master owns you.”

Contrary to what you might think, contention between artists and record labels regarding this form of ownership is nothing new; in fact, it's common. High-profile artists like Beyoncé and Frank Ocean have spent several years negotiating deals with their labels: the deals were concluded, and the recordings were secured in 2011 and 2017, respectively. For artists that are denied the opportunity to buy back their master recordings, re-recording serves as a viable, albeit rarely taken, alternative route. Taylor Swift's decision to undergo this process earned her widespread support from across the industry. Singer-songwriter, Halsey came out on social media to back Swift's decision, stating, “[she] deserves to own the painstaking labour of her heart”. Grammy-award winning Kelly Clarkson encouraged Swift not only to re-record the original tracks but to use the opportunity to inject new life into them for the benefit of her fans: “put brand new art and some kind of incentive so fans will no longer buy the old version," she wrote on Twitter.

'Red: Taylor's Version' - The latest re-release was made available to listen to earlier in November

The newly recorded tracks would not only give Swift the sole ownership she had been denied previously but would also devalue the earning capacity of her original recordings for their new owners, namely Ithaca Holdings CEO and their CEO, Scooter Braun. From a musical standpoint, the process also allows Swift to revisit and offer a renewed perspective; her matured vocal quality and slight alterations in instrumentation give listeners a sense that they are getting something new. To further incentivise fans to purchase and stream the new 'Taylor Versions', Swift also promises to include never-heard-before 'vault' tracks: previously unreleased songs written when the specific album was initially recorded. 

What might this mean for new artists? 

Swift’s experience will undoubtedly reshape how recording labels frame the master recordings ownership clause for newly signed artists. The potential success of her re-recordings may lead to record labels to extend the duration of when an artist is restricted from re-recording their song — from one to two years to ten or more - potentially indefinitely. 

Swift's re-recording marks a pivotal moment in the music industry because it reworks the traditional path of artists gaining ownership rights of their master recordings. With Swift's status, fans are eager to invest in and appreciate her re-recordings since they represent an updated version of her life's work; now, the songs and albums hold greater value since they are owned solely by Swift. 

Swift's re-recording battle with Big Machine Records transcends the simple means of gaining profit. Instead, Swift's fight recognizes the need for record labels to be more transparent when signing artists; they must clearly describe the ownership status of master recordings. 

Specifically, Swift’s re-recording goal will allow her to revisit the culmination of her youth and early adulthood: “Music I wrote on my bedroom floor and videos I dreamed up and paid for from the money I earned playing in bars, then clubs, then arenas, then stadiums.” Thus, Swift’s re-recordings are much more than her earning a profit; it is for her to have complete ownership of the music she spent her entire life working on.