This article has been imported from chorus.fm for discussion. All of the forum rules still apply. Steve Knopper, writing for Billboard: The major labels, Universal Music Group, Sony Music Entertainment and Warner Music Group, have recently overhauled contracts for new signees, according to top music attorneys, some demanding artists wait an unprecedented 10, 15 or even 30 years to re-record releases after departing their record companies. “The first time I saw it, I tried to get rid of it entirely,” says Josh Karp, a veteran attorney, who has viewed the new restrictions in UMG contracts. “I was just like, ‘What is this? This is strange. Why would we agree to further restrictions than we’ve agreed to in the past with the same label?’” And: Adds Dina LaPolt, a music attorney with a long history of grappling with labels over contracts: “Now, because of all this Taylor Swift stuff, we have an even new negotiation. It’s awful. We’re seeing a lot of ‘perpetuity.’ When we were negotiating deals with lawyers, before we would get the proposal, we’d get the phone call from the head of business affairs. We literally would say, ‘If you send that to me, it will be on Twitter in 10 minutes.’ It never showed up.” more Not all embedded content is displayed here. You can view the original to see embedded videos and other embedded content.
This is wild to see. Really hoping that artists stick to their guns on this one... What's interesting, though, is how wildly unsuccesful most moves to re-record classic tracks have been in the past. Even when it's arguably recorded better (e.g., MxPx's Life in General; the Social D greatest hits record) the original is generally going to be what fans stick with. Taylor is the exception and not the rule in this regard, although part of me wonders if we might see an uptick in this because of how successful those have been?
It always seemed to me the main reason TS re-recorded albums did so well was simply because people were aware of her losing the masters to Braun, and bought the new versions to kind of stick it to him. Of course labels want to own songs and not recordings, they'd want your first born if they could legally slip it in a contract
MxPx really only did that for fun, didn't they? It was released on their website for free and I dunno if it's even on streaming. Recently I think Thrice and Switchfoot were two that did it with pretty great fan reaction.
The Starting Line really made theirs an event, the re-records felt like a bonus. That's a nice indie example.
I didn't think about the motive on that one, but I think you're right maybe? I think they had the rights back at that point... It is up on streaming, though! I also hadn't thought of the Thrice one, but the reaction was positive on that one initially. But I'd be curious to know if that stuck over time or if people just got excited initially. Now I'm thinking about albums that could actually really benefit from this (beyond the motive of wanting to own the record in full)...