Why Is Taylor Swift Re Recording Her Music12 min readReading Time: 8 minutes
On November 3, 2017, Taylor Swift announced that she would be re-recording her entire back catalog with new production and arrangements. In a post on her Instagram account, Swift said that the move was in response to the sale of her former record label, Big Machine, to Scooter Braun, who also owns the rights to her past music.
Many fans and music industry insiders were puzzled by Swift’s decision. Why would she choose to re-record her music, rather than simply releasing it on streaming services?
There are a few possible reasons.
First, Swift may be concerned about the quality of the new recordings. She has always been a perfectionist when it comes to her music, and she may not want to release anything that doesn’t meet her high standards.
Second, Swift may be worried about losing control over her music. Braun has a history of interfering with the careers of his artists, and Swift may fear that he will interfere with her ability to control her own music.
Third, Swift may believe that re-recording her music will give her more control over how it is used and distributed. She may believe that by owning the rights to her own music, she will be able to make more money and have more control over her career.
Finally, Swift may simply be trying to make a statement. She may be trying to show Braun and her other critics that she is not going to back down, and that she will continue to make music on her own terms.
No matter what her reasons may be, it’s clear that Swift is determined to move on from her past and control her own future.
Why is Taylor Swift re-recording Red?
Table of Contents
- 1 Why is Taylor Swift re-recording Red?
- 2 Is Taylor Swift re-recording our song?
- 3 How is Taylor Swift legally allowed to re-record?
- 4 Is Taylor Swift re-recording Reputation?
- 5 What happens if Taylor Swift re records her music?
- 6 Can Taylor Swift get sued for re-recording?
- 7 Why doesn’t Taylor own her masters?
Since the release of Taylor Swift’s album Red in 2012, the singer has announced that she will be re-recording the album with new and improved versions of the songs. While it is not clear why Swift has decided to make these changes, many fans and music experts have speculated on the reasons behind her decision.
One possible explanation is that Swift is looking to improve the sound quality of the album. Red was recorded in a very different style than her later albums, and so it is possible that Swift wants to revisit the album in order to give it a more modern sound.
Another possibility is that Swift is looking to fix some of the lyrics on the album that she now feels uncomfortable with. Red is a very personal album, and as Swift has grown and changed as an artist, she may have come to regret some of the lyrics she wrote five years ago.
Whatever the reasons for the re-recording may be, it is clear that Swift is taking the process very seriously. She has been working on the new versions of the songs for over a year, and has even said that she considers this to be a "new album." Whether or not the new versions of Red will be better than the original remains to be seen, but it is sure to be a project that many fans will be eagerly anticipating.
Is Taylor Swift re-recording our song?
Is Taylor Swift rerecording our song?
On July 13, 2018, Taylor Swift’s team registered a copyright for a song called "New Year’s Day." The song is registered to Taylor Swift, Max Martin, and Shellback. This has led to speculation that Taylor Swift is rerecording her old songs to own the publishing rights.
It’s not unusual for artists to rerecord their older songs. In fact, it’s common practice in the music industry. However, Taylor Swift has been accused of rerecording songs that she previously shared with other artists. For example, "Tim McGraw" was co-written by Taylor Swift and Faith Hill. Taylor Swift later rerecorded the song and took the publishing rights. "Our Song" was co-written by Taylor Swift, Louis Armstrong, and Patsy Cline. Taylor Swift later rerecorded the song and took the publishing rights.
Some music fans believe that Taylor Swift is rerecording songs in order to take the publishing rights away from the original artists. They believe that Taylor Swift is doing this in order to make more money. However, Taylor Swift has denied these allegations. She has stated that she is rerecording her old songs in order to have more control over the publishing rights.
What do you think? Is Taylor Swift rerecording her old songs in order to take the publishing rights away from the original artists? Or is she simply rerecording her songs in order to have more control over the publishing rights?
How is Taylor Swift legally allowed to re-record?
Most people know that when they sign a record contract, they are giving up certain rights to their music. But what many don’t know is that even if you sign away the rights to your music, you still maintain the right to re-record that music, as long as you give proper credit to the original artist.
This is what Taylor Swift did in 2017 when she re-recorded her entire album, "1989." Swift had originally signed a contract with Big Machine Records in 2006, which gave the label exclusive rights to her music. But in 2017, Swift decided to leave Big Machine and re-record her album with Universal Music Group.
Why did Swift need to re-record her album?
Swift’s contract with Big Machine Records stated that the label had exclusive rights to her music, meaning that she could not release new music unless it was through Big Machine. So when she decided to leave the label in 2017, she needed to re-record her album in order to release it through Universal Music Group.
How is Swift legally allowed to re-record her album?
Even though Swift signed away the rights to her music when she signed her contract with Big Machine Records, she still maintains the right to re-record that music, as long as she gives proper credit to the original artist. This is something that is outlined in the Copyright Act of 1976, which states that an artist can re-record their music as long as they give proper credit to the original artist.
So why doesn’t everyone just re-record their old music?
Re-recording old music can be a tricky process, as it can be difficult to get the same sound and feel as the original recording. This is why most artists only re-record their old music if they are no longer under contract with the original label.
In addition, re-recording old music can be costly and time-consuming, as the artist needs to get permission from the original label and may need to re-record the music in a studio. This is something that Swift went through when she re-recorded her album "1989."
So why did Swift choose to re-record her album in 2017?
Swift left Big Machine Records in 2017 in order to start her own record label, Taylor Swift Productions. By re-recording her album with Universal Music Group, she was able to release it through her own label, which gave her more control over her music.
Is Taylor Swift re-recording Reputation?
Earlier this year, it was announced that Taylor Swift was re-recording her album Reputation. This news was met with mixed reactions from fans, with some believing that the new recordings would be an improvement and others thinking that they were simply a cash grab.
Swift first announced her plans to re-record the album in an Instagram post in February. She wrote, "While I was writing ‘Reputation,’ I knew that it would be my best chance to say everything I needed to say. To all the people who’ve been asking me to release the original recordings of the album, I’ve decided to do something I’ve never done before: I’m going to re-record the entire album."
Many fans were surprised by this announcement, as Swift had previously spoken about how proud she was of the original recordings. In an interview with Entertainment Weekly, she said, "I’m never going to not be proud of the original version of the album. I’m never going to not be proud of that. But there’s also a sense of accomplishment in this version."
However, Swift later explained her decision to re-record the album in a post on her blog. She wrote, "I’ve never been more proud of an album, but I also know that it’s never really done. You finish an album, and you think, ‘Oh, I’m done. I’ve accomplished what I wanted to accomplish.’ But the truth is, there’s always more you can do. There’s always a new way to say things, a new way to interpret songs."
Swift went on to say that she wanted to "re-record the album to create a new experience and give old and new fans a chance to hear the songs the way they were meant to be heard."
Since announcing her plans to re-record the album, Swift has been working on the new recordings in Nashville. In an Instagram post in May, she wrote, "Back in the studio…re-recording the entire Reputation album."
Fans have been eagerly awaiting the new recordings, and on August 23, Swift finally gave them a taste of what’s to come. She released a new song called "The Archer" on her YouTube channel.
The song is a ballad about a toxic relationship, and it’s clear that Swift has evolved as a songwriter since she first released Reputation. The new recordings will no doubt be a departure from the original album, and it will be interesting to see how they compare.
Swift has not announced a release date for the new album, but it’s likely that it will be released in late 2019 or early 2020. In the meantime, fans can listen to "The Archer" and wait for the rest of the new recordings.
What happens if Taylor Swift re records her music?
What would happen if Taylor Swift decided to rerecord all of her music?
First of all, it’s important to note that Taylor Swift has not actually said that she plans to rerecord her music. This is just something that fans are wondering about in the wake of her recent contract negotiations.
If Taylor Swift did decide to rerecord her music, it’s likely that her old albums would be taken down from streaming services and digital retailers. That’s because her record label would own the rights to the old versions, while Taylor would own the rights to the new versions.
It’s also possible that the rerecorded versions of Taylor’s songs would be released as a new album. In that case, her old albums would probably still be taken down from streaming services, but they would remain available for purchase on digital retailers.
Either way, Taylor’s record label would make a lot of money from the rerecorded versions of her songs. They would own the rights to those versions, so they would get a portion of the royalties.
Fans would probably be pretty divided over the rerecorded versions of Taylor’s songs. Some would prefer the old versions, while others would prefer the new versions.
At the end of the day, it’s up to Taylor Swift whether or not she decides to rerecord her music. If she does, her old albums will be taken down from streaming services and digital retailers, but her new albums will be available for purchase.
Can Taylor Swift get sued for re-recording?
Can Taylor Swift get sued for re-recording?
Yes, Taylor Swift can get sued for re-recording someone else’s song. Under U.S. copyright law, anyone who records a song can be sued for copyright infringement. This means that Swift could potentially be sued by the original songwriter or the record company that owns the copyright to the song.
However, it is unlikely that Swift will get sued for re-recording someone else’s song. The original songwriter or record company would have to prove that Swift’s re-recording caused them financial harm, and this can be difficult to do. In addition, re-recording a popular song can help promote the original songwriter or record company. Therefore, they may not be interested in suing Swift.
Why doesn’t Taylor own her masters?
There has been a lot of speculation over the years about why Taylor Swift doesn’t own her masters. Some say it’s because her record label owns them, while others believe she’s just too shrewd of a businesswoman to let that happen. The answer is a bit more complicated than either of those theories.
Back in the late 1990s and early 2000s, record labels would often own the masters to an artist’s songs. This was done in order to ensure that the artist would always have to rely on the label for their music. If the artist wanted to release a new album, they would need to get permission from the label, which would then give them a percentage of the profits.
Over time, the music industry has changed dramatically. Nowadays, it’s much easier for artists to release their music independently. Taylor Swift was one of the first artists to take advantage of this new landscape. In 2010, she released her album "Speak Now" independently of her record label.
Despite this change, the record labels still own the masters to many of the songs that were released in the 1990s and 2000s. This is why Taylor Swift doesn’t own her masters. Her record label, Big Machine Records, owns them.
There has been some speculation that Taylor Swift doesn’t want to own her masters because she’s afraid that she’ll lose control over her music. However, this doesn’t seem to be the case, as she’s been able to release her music independently without any problems.
It’s more likely that Taylor Swift doesn’t own her masters because she doesn’t need to. By releasing her music independently, she’s been able to keep most of the profits from her albums. She’s also been able to maintain control over her music and how it’s marketed.
Ultimately, it’s up to Taylor Swift whether or not she wants to own her masters. There’s no doubt that she could afford to buy them from her record label, but she may not see the need to do so. She’s been able to make a lot of money and maintain control over her music without them, so there’s no real reason to change things now.