Latest news with #Taylor'sVersions'
Scotsman
11 hours ago
- Business
- Scotsman
Taylor Swift's Versions: did the re-recordings outperform the original works leading to a sale?
Did the Taylor's Version album releases lead to Shamrock Capital's hand being forced to sell her masters? Sign up to our daily newsletter Sign up Thank you for signing up! Did you know with a Digital Subscription to Edinburgh News, you can get unlimited access to the website including our premium content, as well as benefiting from fewer ads, loyalty rewards and much more. Learn More Sorry, there seem to be some issues. Please try again later. Submitting... Swifties have been celebrating over the weekend after news broke that Taylor Swift now owns the masters to her first six records. The deal also sees videos, concert films, album art, photography, unreleased songs from those albums now in Swift's ownership. So, did the practice of releasing 'Taylor's Versions' lead to a drop in revenue for the firm due to dwindling streaming returns? After years of acrimony and re-recording albums to devalue the original masters, Taylor Swift is now the owner of her original recordings. An announcement was made last week (May 30) that the 1989 and Reputation singer had bought the rights to the masters of her original six albums from Shamrock Capital, who acquired the recordings in a deal with Scooter Braun's Ithaca Holdings in 2020. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad However, the original deal was structured to ensure that Braun (and Ithaca Holdings) would continue to profit from her old musical catalogue for many years. This profit stream for Braun was a major point of contention for Taylor Swift and fuelled her determination to pursue her re-recordings. Did the re-recording of some of Taylor Swift's earlier albums lead to Shamrock Capital having no other choice but to sell her masters back to her due to streaming revenue? | Getty Images/Canva/Spotify Consequently, Swift initially declined an offer from Shamrock to partner, stating that Braun's continued financial participation was a 'non-starter' for her. She expressed that she couldn't 'in good conscience bring myself to be involved in benefiting Scooter Braun's interests.' But after several years and back-and-forth, coupled with the successes of Taylor's Versions, the singer bought back the rights for an estimated $300 million to $360 million. This was a direct purchase deal, rather than 'earning back' the rights to the previous works through new album sales. Crediting her fanbase after her victory, Swift stated that she still intends to release the re-recorded versions of her debut album and Reputation, but 'from a place of celebration now.' Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad So, how much of an effect did Taylor's Versions have on the original Big Red Machine recordings, and was it enough to force the hand of Shamrock Capital and, by proxy, Scooter Braun? Did Taylor's Versions earn more streams than her original albums in the end? To compare Taylor Swift's original recordings with her new Taylor's Versions, we analysed Spotify streaming statistics provided by Kworb. We specifically cross-referenced releases that are available on streaming services, encompassing both sets of recordings from her battle for the masters. Fearless Original (Main Version): Fearless - 2,961,959,672 streams Taylor's Version: Fearless (Taylor's Version) - 4,961,308,265 streams Difference: +2.00 Billion streams Red Original (Main Version): Red (Deluxe Edition) - 3,746,587,693 streams Taylor's Version: Red (Taylor's Version) - 6,304,100,156 streams Difference: +2.56 Billion streams Speak Now Original (Main Version): Speak Now (Deluxe Package) - 3,557,666,436 streams Taylor's Version: Speak Now (Taylor's Version) - 3,286,728,208 streams Difference: -0.27 Billion streams 1989 Original (Main Version): 1989 (Deluxe) - 9,130,478,775 streams Taylor's Version: 1989 (Taylor's Version) - 5,252,299,630 streams Difference: -3.88 Billion streams Why hasn't the Taylor's Version of 1989 or Speak Now eclipsed the original versions? There are a couple of key reasons why 1989 (Taylor's Version) and Speak Now (Taylor's Version) haven't yet surpassed the streaming levels of their original counterparts. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad One of the biggest reasons stems from their respective release dates: 1989 (Taylor's Version) and Speak Now (Taylor's Version) debuted in 2023, while their original releases came out in 2014 and 2010, respectively. As two massively popular albums that appeared on countless playlists, the original master recordings have a significant advantage in cumulative streams due to their longer time on the market – for now, at least. For years, the original versions of these mega-hits were the only ones available for streaming, and so they likely reside in countless user-created playlists, curated Spotify playlists, and are the versions people naturally sought out for a very long time. The albums that haven't been eclipsed yet are simply fighting against a longer history of accumulated streams and the immense, enduring popularity that their original versions cultivated over years in a heavily streaming-dominated era. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Given time and continued fan support, it's very possible that Speak Now (Taylor's Version) and 1989 (Taylor's Version) will eventually surpass their original counterparts in total streams, as part of Swift's strategy to re-release her music now that she owns her masters. Did you add the newer versions of Taylor Swift's catalogue to your playlists when they were released, or are you still using the original album versions? Let us know your thoughts on the sale and what you think Taylor will do next by leaving a comment down below.
The South African
3 days ago
- Entertainment
- The South African
Taylor Swift reclaims her music masters in landmark deal
Taylor Swift, after years of public battles, heartbreak, and determination, now finally owns her first six albums. This move is a masterclass in standing up for your rights, regardless of how powerful your opponents are. 'All of the music I've ever made now belongs to me,' Taylor announced. 'I've been bursting into tears of joy… ever since I found out this is happening.' The saga began in 2019. Scooter Braun, a music mogul, bought Taylor's former record label, Big Machine, according to the BBC . With it, he got the rights to her first six albums. Imagine working for years, only to see someone else reap the rewards of your creations. Taylor called out Braun for 'incessant, manipulative bullying.' She felt betrayed. 'After 20 years of people dangling the carrot in front of me and then yanking it away, I almost gave up hope that it could ever happen,' she wrote. But she never gave up. In music, whoever owns the master recording controls how the songs are used. Want your hit in a movie, advert, or video game? The master owner decides. Taylor always kept her publishing rights, but without the masters, she couldn't call the shots. 'I do want my music to live on… but I only want that if I own it,' she told Billboard. The price for freedom wasn't small. When Big Machine first sold, the catalogue fetched $300 million (about R5.6 billion). Rumours swirled that Taylor paid up to $1 billion (over R18.7 billion), but insiders say that's too high. Still, it's a staggering sum—proof that music is big business. Taylor Swift didn't just sit back. She fought back. She started re-recording her old albums, releasing 'Taylor's Versions' packed with bonus tracks. Fans loved them. 'The success of the Eras tour is why I was able to buy back my music,' she said. That tour raked in over $2 billion (about R37.5 billion) in ticket sales. This victory is a beacon for artists everywhere, including in South Africa. 'Every time a new artist tells me they negotiated to own their master recordings. I'm reminded of how important it was for all of this to happen,' Taylor said. Let us know by leaving a comment below, or send a WhatsApp to 060 011 021 1. Subscribe to The South African website's newsletters and follow us on WhatsApp, Facebook, X and Bluesky for the latest news.
New York Post
3 days ago
- Entertainment
- New York Post
What Taylor Swift buying her masters means for her — and the music industry
By now, we know all too well about the power of Taylor Swift. With her epic Eras Tour alone, the pop superstar went from crashing Ticketmaster to boosting the economy in every city she visited to going around the movie studio system for its theatrical concert film. But Swift's latest power move may be her biggest one yet: The 'Anti-Hero' singer finally bought back the master recordings of her first six studio albums — from her 2006 self-titled debut to 2017's 'Reputation.' Advertisement 4 'All I've ever wanted was the opportunity to work hard enough to be able to one day purchase my music outright,' wrote Taylor Swift in a letter to fans about getting her masters back. taylorswift/Instagram In 2019, Scooter Braun gained control of Swift's masters after he acquired her former label, Big Machine Records, which owned the rights. After attempts to buy back her catalog from Braun failed, Swift began re-recording her albums and releasing 'Taylor's Versions' of them, beginning with 'Fearless' and 'Red' in 2021 and then 'Speak Now' and '1989' in 2023. Then, in 2020, Braun turned around and sold Swift's Big Machine catalog to Shamrock Capital for reportedly over $300 million. Advertisement Five years later, though, Swift's music is now back where it belongs. 'All the music I've ever made … now belongs … to me,' she wrote in a letter to fans on her website. 'Every single era. My entire life's work.' Now, Swift's first six studio LPs have joined her last five recorded for Republic Records under her ownership. 4 Taylor Swift described buying the masters of her first six studio albums as 'my greatest dream come true.' taylorswift/Instagram Advertisement 'To say this is my greatest dream come true is actually being pretty reserved about it,' she continued. 'All I've ever wanted was the opportunity to work hard enough to be able to one day purchase my music outright with no strings attached, no partnership, with full autonomy.' In an Instagram post proudly displaying her albums, Swift simply wrote, 'You belong with me.' It's a boss move that few in the music business — or any other entertainment field — could pull off, but Swift has the big bucks to do it, reportedly paying around $360 million, according to Billboard. 4 Taylor Swift hand-wrote a letter to fans on her website about the importance of getting her masters back. Taylor Swift Advertisement But it's the principle that probably mattered more to Swift than the money. She had already convinced her legions of Swifties to buy and stream the re-recorded versions of her first six albums, effectively devaluing her original masters. In fact, fans were hoping that she would announce the 'Reputation (Taylor's Version)' release at Sunday's American Music Awards. 'Full transparency: I haven't even re-recorded a quarter of it,' she wrote in her letter while revealing that she has already re-recorded all of 2006's 'Taylor Swift.' Swift had started a movement with other artists such as Demi Lovato, Paramore and 98 Degrees following her lead. She even forced record labels to rework and rethink contracts to put stricter limits on re-recordings. 4 Before making her latest power move, Taylor Swift wrapped her epic Eras Tour last December in Vancouver. Getty Images for TAS Rights Management But for Swift, that wasn't enough. At a time when many artists are selling their catalogs for major money — from Bruce Springsteen and Bob Dylan to Katy Perry and Justin Bieber — ownership meant everything to her. This was personal. And while it's not something that every act can afford or demand, it certainly makes a strong statement about the fundamental right of being in charge of the music that you create. For Swift, you can't really put a price on it — and she couldn't just shake it off. As a woman especially, Swift felt bullied by the men in the industry who didn't take her seriously enough and sought to control her. She took a stand against them that, with her enormous influence, greatly impacted and emboldened her largely female fan base. Advertisement As a businesswoman, Swift has always been savvy. And now this will be as much a part of her legacy as becoming the first artist to win four Album of the Year Grammys. She's in her Ownership Era now.
