Jump to content

Charts Discussion - Stream the #1 WW smash Grammy Winner God On Me


Miaou
 Share

Recommended Posts

The Fame Popster 401
2 hours ago, thetea said:

they probably will. unpopular opinion, but i don't see why she wants to own her master recordings. most artists don't own their own masters and they still have a lot of freedoms over their music as the creator. i love her pettiness though and her followthrough to spite someone, i would do the same in the situation:icant:

As long as artists fully understand record labels pay artists to record music for their label (literally such a simple concept), nothing more, nothing less, I don't see the problem with record labels owning masters at all. The problem is most recording artists think they're ~*special*~ and somehow above selling their labor like the rest of us :billie: 

That said, I do think business-minded artists owning their masters and licensing their recordings to record labels should be the norm. I see a lot of value in continuity of ownership and we can't be certain labels will always exist as they do now. That's why I'm pretty sympathetic to Taylor and Radiohead (who begged for their masters because they felt EMI was a sinking ship and bought back their masters after they were right and EMI imploded). 

Sorry for the tl;dr, I love this sh-t :icant:

Edited by blue
  • paws up 5
  • thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, blue said:

As long as artists fully understand record labels pay artists to record music for their label (literally such a simple concept), nothing more, nothing less, I don't see the problem with record labels owning masters at all. The problem is most recording artists think they're ~*special*~ and somehow above selling their labor like the rest of us :billie: 

That said, I do think business-minded artists owning their masters and licensing their recordings to record labels should be the norm. I see a lot of value in continuity of ownership and we can't be certain labels will always exist as they do now. That's why I'm pretty sympathetic to Taylor and Radiohead (who begged for their masters because they felt EMI was a sinking ship and bought back their masters after they were right and EMI imploded). 

Sorry for the tl;dr, I love this sh-t :icant:

i agree with this. she signed her own contract which meant she didn't own her masters. it's good that newer artists like olivia rodrigo own their masters and sign better deals but i'm wondering what the label gets out of it now that they don't even have the masters. if taylor was offered to buy her masters for 300m like shamrock holdings did or whatever their name is, could she even afford it with a net worth  of 360m. could she pull 300m out of her a** that fast

Link to post
Share on other sites

Moderator 3,690
7 minutes ago, blue said:

As long as artists fully understand record labels pay artists to record music for their label (literally such a simple concept), nothing more, nothing less, I don't see the problem with record labels owning masters at all. The problem is most recording artists think they're ~*special*~ and somehow above selling their labor like the rest of us :billie: 

That said, I do think business-minded artists owning their masters and licensing their recordings to record labels should be the norm. I see a lot of value in continuity of ownership and we can't be certain labels will always exist as they do now. That's why I'm pretty sympathetic to Taylor and Radiohead (who begged for their masters because they felt EMI was a sinking ship and bought back their masters after they were right and EMI imploded). 

Sorry for the tl;dr, I love this sh-t :icant:

I mean Record Labels are companies and artists have to understand that releasing music is not always profitable for the Record Company and that some artists are a liability/negative profits for the label. However Taylor was the main money makes for Big Machine and at some point her masters were 80% of the companies worth. Also Taylor was willing to buy her own masters, but she just was never given the fair opportunity to do so. So I am not that sympathetic towards Scooter and Scott as they knew that Taylor was not going to be happy and they should have known that Taylor was willing to go to great lengths to deny Scooter her work. 

  • paws up 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Just now, Joesuda said:

I mean Record Labels are companies and artists have to understand that releasing music is not always profitable for the Record Company and that some artists are a liability/negative profits for the label. However Taylor was the main money makes for Big Machine and at some point her masters were 80% of the companies worth. Also Taylor was willing to buy her own masters, but she just was never given the fair opportunity to do so. So I am not that sympathetic towards Scooter and Scott as they knew that Taylor was not going to be happy and they should have known that Taylor was willing to go to great lengths to deny Scooter her work. 

i wonder how she's going to do the remasters. will she stay the same for all of them, or change things up. i can imagine movies wanting to use the old version because she switched up the new version, but i can also see movies wanting to use the new version because they like it better. what do y'all think

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Delusional said:

I wouldn’t be surprised if she owns a few Fortune 500 companies on the side and no one knows. That girl can make money I’ll give you that 

spacer.png

she's a very smart businesswomen. i honestly wouldn't be surprised

  • paws up 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Moderator 3,690
25 minutes ago, thetea said:

i wonder how she's going to do the remasters. will she stay the same for all of them, or change things up. i can imagine movies wanting to use the old version because she switched up the new version, but i can also see movies wanting to use the new version because they like it better. what do y'all think

She will definitely try to stay as close to the original as she can. The main point of the remasters is that people would stream them not the originals so they have to be similar.

  • paws up 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...