Jump to content


Please note: You can easily log in to MPN using your Facebook account!

So What Do You Think of Taylor Swift Re-Recording Her Stuff?


Recommended Posts

Apparently this is a big deal to some people. To recap, Swift lost the rights to her original masters. So, she's re-recording them and re-releasing them so she can get income from them, and denying the ability to license her original recordings.

 

Seems like a great "screw you" to a record company, and a way to get fans to buy the same music a second time. But, it's not the same music. Diehard Taylor Swift fans hear the differences, which some think is sacrilegious, while others think it sounds almost exactly the same, except her voice sounds a tad more mature and the production is mildly better.

 

I'm not a fan of re-visiting the past, but...there is that music business angle. She should be able to do whatever she wants to do with her music. Also, I never bought any Taylor Swift albums, but I like some of her music. Might as well get the version 1.1 music, because I don't know the original stuff by heart, and have no way of knowing how close or far apart they are in terms of the recordings.

 

What do y'all think about re-recording your old material? She's not the first to do it, and music isn't the only genre...think of the tweaks George Lucas made to subsequent Star Wars re-issues.

Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Replies 15
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Did she lose the rights to the masters or did she never have them and lose the ability to buy them? I think it is SOP for new artists not to own masters.

 

I think you are correct that it was a case of not being able to buy back her masters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As far as I am concerned, Taylor Swift can do that if she wants. She would not be the only person I would say that about but she's earned where she is now and I'm sure it wasn't easy.

 

I like some of her music too and think she's earned the right to do whatever she wants with her own creations.

It took a chunk of my life to get here and I am still not sure where "here" is.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The charm of her singing those songs when she was young, and sounded young, was kind of the point. If it's "known" she's singing the same songs but later, older - the context is different. I haven't heard it, I don't know how different it sounds, but the concept is flawed.

 

On the other hand, there are two examples I'm super duper familiar with, and I don't like it at all.

 

 

Jeff Lynne re-recorded a bunch of classic songs of his/ELO - and did a crazy good job of it, BUT.... it's not the same, I can hear differences, and - *it's not as good*. A little less enthusiasm for the 'old lyrics, a touch of "grey" in the high notes, and it can't be an absolute perfect clone of the recording.

 

The first Ozzy record with Randy Rhoads Sharon Osbourne apparently didn't want anyone getting and royalties except Ozzy? They rerecorded everything but Randy's parts, but - not as close as Jeff Lynne did. And the mix is really different, bass lines and drum accents different, different feel. A great job as a "tribute" recording, but it's not the same. Found that out thinking I was losing my mind showing a part to a student, listening to it on Spotify - and noticed bits changed.

 

In both of those cases the mastering sounds different. It might be "better" by someone's objective opinion, but it's not what it *was*.

 

I would have thought, based on what I heard, Taylor would have done an *updated* version of her recordings, not an ersatz version. That would have been more interesting IMO, and she would have resold the same songs.

Guitar Lessons in Augusta Georgia: www.chipmcdonald.com

Eccentric blog: https://chipmcdonaldblog.blogspot.com/

 

/ "big ass windbag" - Bruce Swedien

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm fine with it, but the songs will never sound the same. They just won't, and that's the one sad part about the whole situation.

Yamaha: Motif XF8, MODX7, YS200, CVP-305, CLP-130, YPG-235, PSR-295, PSS-470 | Roland: Fantom 7, JV-1000

Kurzweil: PC3-76, PC4 (88) | Hammond: SK Pro 73 | Korg: Triton LE 76, N1R, X5DR | Emu: Proteus/1 | Casio: CT-370 | Novation: Launchkey 37 MK3 | Technics: WSA1R

Former: Emu Proformance Plus & Mo'Phatt, Korg Krome 61, Roland Fantom XR & JV-1010, Yamaha MX61, Behringer CAT

Assorted electric & acoustic guitars and electric basses | Roland TD-17 KVX | Alesis SamplePad Pro | Assorted organs, accordions, other instruments

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think there's an important point that's being overlooked. If you grew up before the 70s, live performance was the Gold Standard for music. The goal of the studio was to try and capture magic that had been honed by months on the road. Music was so of the moment, even the playback media of that time agreed - records wore out, 8-track tapes self-destructed.

 

Humans played ONLY live music for (at least) 35,000 years. We've been able to record it for 150 years. That means for 99.995% of the time humans have been playing music, it was of the moment - heard once, and never again in the same way.

 

It turned around 180 degrees in the 70s, post Beatles. The recording became the Gold Standard, and playing live's goal was to reproduce the recording.

 

It's great Taylor Swift did "Folklore," which fits more into my frame of reference of what music is about - spontaneous, from the heart. something different. Re-recording a recording isn't of much interest to me. I'd rather hear six albums of new material, done rapid-fire on a Paisley Park kind of schedule. It has nothing to do with whether I'm "old," she's a woman, contracts, or record companies. It's simply about what I would prefer to hear.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think there's an important point that's being overlooked. If you grew up before the 70s, live performance was the Gold Standard for music. The goal of the studio was to try and capture magic that had been honed by months on the road. Music was so of the moment, even the playback media of that time agreed - records wore out, 8-track tapes self-destructed.

 

Humans played ONLY live music for (at least) 35,000 years. We've been able to record it for 150 years. That means for 99.995% of the time humans have been playing music, it was of the moment - heard once, and never again in the same way.

 

It turned around 180 degrees in the 70s, post Beatles. The recording became the Gold Standard, and playing live's goal was to reproduce the recording.

 

It's great Taylor Swift did "Folklore," which fits more into my frame of reference of what music is about - spontaneous, from the heart. something different. Re-recording a recording isn't of much interest to me. I'd rather hear six albums of new material, done rapid-fire on a Paisley Park kind of schedule. It has nothing to do with whether I'm "old," she's a woman, contracts, or record companies. It's simply about what I would prefer to hear.

 

I know that I sing many songs (some mine, some written by others) at a higher level of refinement now than I did years ago. I still sound more or less the same in terms of tone but phrasing, expression and timing are all improved in my opinion. I "delver" better now than I used to, similar to my development on guitar. Subtle inflections can make a big difference.

 

For all that, there is personal opinion and inclination. I'm sure some would disagree with me but just for one I feel like the version of Up On Cripple Creek from the Last Waltz movie is much better than the version from the album The Band by The Band.

I don't know about the Taylor Swift stuff, I don't really listen to much music and haven't for a long time. Since she is a dedicated artist, I can't imagine her having a static development, there is an evolution that some may enjoy and others not so much.

 

I don't have much to say about preferences, there is lots of music that I love and lots that I do not like at all. If everybody's choices reflected mine, there wouldn't be much music that I don't like.

 

I always figure people are lucky if they like something that I dislike, they enjoy more moments in life. So it goes. What really changed for me was the respect I had for Taylor Swift when she stood up to Apple Music on behalf of the indy bands and artists that were not going to get paid for 90 days when she told Apple they could pay all of those people or forget about ever having her catalog on their streaming service. She didn't have to do that (and yes, she made more money too), but she did it.

I've never stood down a trillion dollar company and I don't know anybody who has. I respect that, it meant a great deal when she did that.

 

So, she gets a pass to record everything she wants because she feels like it, and that's that.

It took a chunk of my life to get here and I am still not sure where "here" is.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did she lose the rights to the masters or did she never have them and lose the ability to buy them? I think it is SOP for new artists not to own masters.

 

I think you are correct that it was a case of not being able to buy back her masters.

 

My understanding is that like most recording artists on a major label, she did not own the masters. The record label did. She had opportunity to get the masters, and was told of the sale before it happened in case she wanted to purchase them, but didn't. And then was outraged when they were sold for $350M or some significant sum. But it all really doesn't matter.

 

She didn't have rights to the masters of her work before or after the sale. Someone else did and exercised those rights. Whether she is unhappy about it or not, she has every legal right to re-record her songs for whatever reason she wants - she wrote them and and make new recordings. The hand-wringing is just drama. Happily she is wealthy enough that re-recording her whole catalog is an option. For most recorded musicians in the history of the world, her situation is a) familiar, and b) much more final than hers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does she "currently" perform those songs live? I would imagine the new recordings would sound similar to how it sounds when she sings her old hits at a recent or upcoming concert.

 

Another approach might have happened if she were currently touring. I can't recall who it was, but someone recently did a live version of one of their classic albums and released that. She could have done the same had she been on the road.

"I'm so crazy, I don't know this is impossible! Hoo hoo!" - Daffy Duck

 

"The good news is that once you start piano you never have to worry about getting laid again. More time to practice!" - MOI

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm fine with it, but the songs will never sound the same. They just won't, and that's the one sad part about the whole situation.

 

If that's important to you, why bother with the re-recorded versions? You can buy the originals and they'll sound the same, to the extent, anyway, how different "mastered" versions differ, either intentionally or unintentionally. But unless the owner of the masters offers a re-mix, it will still be the same performance as the original.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have no problem with it. I wish her luck (not that she needs it). We all know they won't sound the same.

 

Even a remix of an old LP doesn't sound the same. Whether it sounds better or worse to you is a matter or taste, but to a serious listener, they always sound different. Of course, that's the point of a remix. Even if someone tried to duplicate the original mix, they would find it impossible.

 

But a re-recording is bound to be even more different from the original.

 

I play music for a living and a new song goes through three basic phases;

 

1) Exploration. It's new, you are discovering different ways to nuance it, different ways to play background/solo parts, different ways to phrase the lead lines. There is a lot of controlled experimentation going on. It's exciting.

 

2) Peak. You've figured out basic phrasing, which licks work, which ones don't, which inversions of the chords to play in the comp parts, which modes to play during an improvised solo, and you've made improvements in the arrangement. The song is at its peak, and you can't wait to play it again. It's exciting.

 

3) Comfort. You've played it so much that the extra thrill is gone. You still enjoy playing it, but you lost that "I can't wait" feeling.

 

So Ms.Swift can re-record all her old songs, but they will not be the same. She is probably in the comfort phase. The mix will be different too. Better? Worse? Just different? That's up to the individual to decide. Some of her fans will hear the difference, others won't. Some will care, other's won't.

 

I've casually listened to her, probably not enough to notice the difference. I don't own a copy of any of her songs, though I appreciate her talents, but nothing I've heard has been a "keeper" for me.

 

Insights and incites by Notes

Bob "Notes" Norton

Owner, Norton Music http://www.nortonmusic.com

Style and Fake disks for Band-in-a-Box

The Sophisticats http://www.s-cats.com >^. .^< >^. .^<

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Given the apparent situation, I say great. She should do it if she wants to.

 

If it sounds different, that's okay. I suppose it should. If we can all hear someone singing songs for 20 years or more when we see them in concert, certainly, someone should be able to also re-sing their own songs for a recording.

 

It doesn't ruin what is already out there. Don't like the new versions? Fantastic. Just listen to the original ones.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The artist owns the song copyrights, the label owns the recording copyrights. Under this condition, the artist is free to re-record their songs if the label is refusing to cooperate.

 

Hardly the first time this has happened. Styx's first hit song "Lady" was under their 1st label. After they changed labels and wanted to include "Lady" on a greatest hits compilation, the original label refused to allow the recording to be included. So Styx re-recorded "Lady". You're hard pressed to hear any difference, even with Tommy Shaw replacing former member John Curulweski on the really high vocal harmony.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Billy Joel's original release of "New York State of Mind" on the Turnstiles LP in 1976 included a sax solo by Richie Cannata. Years later Billy Joel got a new sax player to record a totally new sax solo, while leaving the entire rest of this studio recording totally unchanged. I assume there was some disagreement between Joel and Cannata. While I don't know the details of the disagreement, this resolution seemed inappropriate to me.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...