Taylor Swift is the queen of pop and has many accolades to prove it: her Era’s Tour is the highest grossing concert tour of all time, she has 14 Grammys and 58 nominations, and is the female artist with the most charted songs. Her success alone is very impressive, but one thing that has recently made Swift stand out amongst other artists are her re-recorded albums.
In 2019, Taylor Swift left her record label, Big Machine Records, after it was bought from Scott Borchetta by Scooter Braun for $300 million. This was the beginning of a legal battle as Swift found out, with the public, that the master recordings of her first six albums were sold to Scooter Braun. Swift felt betrayed because she already viewed Braun as a bully and would never have willingly sold her masters to him. She attempted to purchase her masters back, but Braun offered “unfavorable conditions,” leaving Swift unable to own the masters to the music that she had spent years creating. Not owning the masters to her music meant that Swift had no control over how her music was played, copied, or distributed. She was also not allowed to play her own songs live. Although Braun had nothing to do with the creative process of Swift’s songs, he now had complete control over them.
Taylor expressed her frustration toward Braun and Borchetta through Tumblr posts and asked her fans for help by encouraging them to “Please let Scott Borchetta and Scooter Braun know how you feel about this.” In response to these posts, Kelly Clarkson provided Swift with some advice. She suggested that Swift re-record the songs that she did not own the masters to, create new album art, and create an incentive so people would buy the new version. Clarkson claimed that she herself would buy all the new versions “just to prove a point.” Taylor Swift did exactly that.
In August of 2019, Swift announced on Good Morning America that she would be re-recording all of the albums that she did not own the masters to. She added “(Taylor’s Version)” to the end of all of her album and song titles and encouraged people to stop supporting the original versions and only stream and purchase the new recordings. She also provided an incentive for her fans to exclusively support the re-recorded albums. With each re-release, she includes songs that she describes as “from the vault.” These are songs that she wrote at the time of the original release, but did not make the final album. Since she had created a loyal fan base of “Swifties” over the years, this project has been very successful.
Because of her loyal fanbase and the new features of the re-recorded albums, Swift has greatly decreased the value of Braun’s $300 million investment. Although this has ultimately worked out positively for Swift, should this whole legal situation have been allowed in the first place? Why should other people be allowed to own the creative work of another artist? Scooter Braun took complete control of the songs Swift had written about her own life and she had no say in the matter. Her consent was not required for the purchase and she was taken advantage of because of this. Swift tried to spread awareness about the dispute she had been in so that other artists could avoid similar situations, but maybe music artists should be better protected so that their art is not stolen by other people.
Hi Shelby!
I loved reading this article. As a long-time fan of Taylor’s music, I love explaining this situation to people when confusion arises about the purpose of the re-recordings. Taylor Swift has her faults and pitfalls, namely with the ways she squeezes money out of her fans with exclusives and deluxe versions and every special edition you can imagine for merchandising. However, I think her re-record project is such a wonderful example of an artist overcoming art crime and opening doors for so many other songwriters to do the same. Taylor has championed being a songwriter, and a deeply autobiographical one at that, for her entire career, but getting her foot in the door involved entering into a contract that gave ownership over her original masters to the record label. This is unfortunately the case for so many artists, as they have to sacrifice their rights to their own art just to be able to create more. Since she was blocked from purchasing her original masters, despite having more than enough money, Taylor found a way to devalue the albums she did not own, all the while creating an even deeper relationship with her loyal fanbase. Personally, I’ve really loved seeing the rollout of these re-records, because I can listen and notice subtle differences in the production of songs I know so well. Having the unheard “vault tracks” come out with each re-record has also given fans something new and exciting along with the overall symbolism of the project. Great article!
Hi Shelby!
I heard about this story recently and am glad someone posted it here, it makes for a great art crime. The loophole Taylor Swift found in the intellectual property system and how she exploited it points out just how backwards the system is. Copyright, as it stands, protects owners, not creators, which poses a challenge to new artists trying to form a base for themselves. All they really can do is entrust their work to a record label and hope to obtain the fame necessary to buy their rights back. The only way around it is either Taylor’s rerecording and remarketing method or Prince’s betting on yourself from the beginning, neither of which seem fair to the actual artists making the music.
Hi Shelby, beyond a so-called “swiftie” I loved reading your article. Although I had some sort of an idea that it was better to listen to “Taylor’s Version” as opposed to her original songs I never really knew why. The fact that Scooter Braun went to the extent to offer Taylor “unfavorable conditions” makes me so sick to my stomach and I feel as though this entire essay is part of a broader picture of how men are incapable of letting women succeed and money will always come first. However, Taylor Swift almost proves history wrong. Taylor Swift is such an icon to all girls ALL over the world and Scooter Braun wil never be able to get half the amount of fame and/or influence she has around the world. Regardless of the money I think you made a really good point about the fact that her talent can not just be copy and pasted and within the battle between Taylor and Scooter Taylor and HER TALENT will without a doubt win.
I love Taylor Swift’s music, but I have never actually understood the difference between the old versions and (Taylor’s version). After reading this, I will definitely only be listening to Taylor’s version to support her individually. It is crazy to think that she could spend a whole lifetime writing songs about her life, only for someone else to own them and control them without her permission. I admire how she didn’t just let it go, but instead decided to re-record her albums to take back control. Adding the vault songs to entice listeners to listen to her music is such a smart way to give her fans something new while making the original versions less valuable. It also makes me wonder why artist’s don’t have more protection over their work in the first place. Her story really opened my eyes to how unfair the industry can be and how important it is to stand up for what you believe in, even when it is difficult.
Hi Shelby, I loved reading your article. I am a big Swiftie and saw the Eras Tour in June 2023. I knew that everyone hated Scooter Braun, but I did not know the severity of the situation. The music industry is cutthroat, and it’s crazy that her own masters were sold. This article also reminds me about what we have been learning in class with copyright culture. It is a ruthless industry, and even though it was her music, she didn’t technically own it. My mom’s company actually had to work with Scooter Braun once, which blew my mind because I always imagined him as a villain straight out of a movie. Taylor Swift’s approach to this whole thing was exceptionally admirable. I remember when she first announced she was going to re-record all her music, and the news left everyone stunned. After the first re-recording was released, it became clear that the “(Taylors Version)” was going to be extremely successful. I’ve even seen people with tattoos that say “TV” or “(Taylors Version).” It just shows how powerful and influential she is. The rerecording of her music has led to great success for her, but I don’t believe something like this should have even happened. Taylor Swift is an artist, and she should have the right to own her artwork. Nonetheless, it seems to have worked out for her in the end. Now, all the Swifties just wait around for her to finally announce the re-recording of her Reputation album.
Your article does a great job of explaining the situation Taylor Swift went through with her masters and how she turned an unfair legal battle into a massive success with her re-recordings. It’s inspiring to see an artist reclaim control over their work in an industry that often prioritizes profit over creativity. I believe that Taylor Swift’s approach not only highlights her resourcefulness but also exposes the flaws in how the music industry handles ownership of creative work. Record labels holding so much power over something as personal as an artist’s music feels outdated and exploitative. I think her success with “Taylor’s Version” could set an important precedent for other artists, showing them that there are ways to take back control, even in an unfair system. While it’s clear that artists like Taylor have the platform and resources to fight back, the issue also underlines the need for better protections for all musicians. Artists shouldn’t have to rely on massive fan bases or public support to ensure they retain ownership of their own creations. Taylor’s efforts may encourage a shift in the industry, making labels rethink their practices and, hopefully, lead to reforms that prioritize the rights of the creators. In all, I believe that Taylor’s story is a powerful reminder of how important it is to protect artistic integrity.
Hi Shelby,
This is a very interesting topic, and it was cool to learn more about it because I lived through this major drama on social media however, I didn’t ever dig deeply into it. This situation, however, did pop into my mind as we discussed copyright laws in class. As you said, Taylor Swift is a success story of rebelling against these large labels and the shady laws they have developed, but sadly enough I know so many smaller artists don’t have the same turnouts when this happens to them. It is so cool that Taylor Swift did this and enlightened people on the hardships of being in the music industry and how greedy people are in Hollywood in general while completely surpassing the $300 million dollars that Braun made off of her music with all of her recent endeavors and re-recorded albums.
Great article, Shelby! As a Swiftie myself, I found it really interesting to delve deeper into the discussion surrounding artists’ rights over their own music. I think it is absurd and unethical how the artist who created the music may not have guaranteed access to control how, when, and where it is played. The fact that all of Swift’s hard work and dedication was suddenly controlled and owned by someone she did not want to is shocking. I actually did not know that it was Kelly Clarkson who encouraged Swift to rerecord her old music, so that was a fun fact to learn. I think it was a masterful move on Swift’s part to take advantage of the situation and make even more money and gain more recognition than ever before. However, I do not think this should even have been a problem she had to encounter in the first place. I firmly believe that the artist should have complete ownership of the music they create, and that also goes for other types of art too. The artist is the one who created the piece into existence, dedicating countless hard-worked hours to create. The fact that this is even an issue today is disappointing.