All Too Well (Taylors Version)

The song hasn't even been serviced to Promo Only or Top
Hits U.S.A. and I'm not sure Taylor would allow an edit.

eriejwg wrote: The song hasn't even been serviced to Promo Only or Top Hits U.S.A. and I'm not sure Taylor would allow an edit.

I haven't heard the song, but there appear to be two versions on the "Red (Taylor's Version)" album that just came out, one
running over 5 minutes and the other being the 10 minute version. Is this 5+ minute version just an edit of the longer 10 min.
one?

Technically, the point total for BOTH versions of the song were combined to rank it at #1. The 10+ minute version
accumulated more points, thus it gets "credit" for the #1 spot.

aaronk wrote: Regarding "the labels unwillingness to allow her access and ability to purchase her masters," can someone please point me to some factual info that backs up this claim? As I understand it, Taylor wanted to buy her masters, but the label and her did not come to an agreement. It's unclear to me why, but from the accounts I've read by the former owner of Big Machine, she had every opportunity to own her masters, her materking images/photographs, etc. It sounds to me that she was simply not willing to pay what the label wanted. Big Machine was sold for $300 million, including the T. Swift catalog, which I understand accounted for 80% of the label's revenue.

Same reason Paul McCartney wanted the rights back to his Beatles stuff and Michael Jackson swooped in and bought the entire catalog because he met the asking price.

Taylor has put the spin out that she offered up a "reasonable" amount but was told that it would be tied to producing more albums for Big Machine, each album earning back etc. That's my understanding Aaron.

We are just fans, we have no idea what actually goes on. I am not a Taylor Swift fanboy, I just think she was unwilling to meet the terms that Big Machine put in front of her. When the time came they just took $$$ from the 300 million sale.

Taylor is no different then other artists in past eras who re-recorded hits they lost the ability to generate revenue over/lost rights etc. I would say re-recording her hits actually is getting her WAY more attention and success now then putting out a new album. It is actually backwards of how you think it would go.

Here's the link Aaron

https://inews.co.uk/culture/music/taylor-swift-masters-scoot er-braun-selling-rights-music-rerecording-row-explained-7624 11

Swift had been trying to buy her master recordings from Big Machine for years before this, but founder Scott Borchetta refused to sell unless she signed on with the company for another long contract – something Swift was unwilling to do, as she knew the label was for sale.

Another link directly from Taylor's twitter:

https://twitter.com/taylorswift13/status/1328471874318311425 ?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E132847 1874318311425%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2F d-32028686761606530388.ampproject.net%2F2111152338002%2Ffram e.html

Edited by PopArchivist

aaronk wrote: Well, technically she never "lost the ability to generate revenue." When an artist signs a contract with a record label, the label typically owns the master recording, period, end-of-story. Some major artists have been able to negotiate for master recording ownership, but when an artist is starting out, they don't have that kind of leverage. That doesn't mean the label controls everything. It just means the label makes money off that particular recording when it comes to licensing, especially regarding record sales. (I'm probably oversimplifying, but you get the point.) The artist can still perform those songs and receive songwriting royalties if they also wrote the songs. Now, there are cases when artists signed themselves up for a bad deal and basically get no royalties or licensing from their master recordings, but they can still make money by touring/performing, selling merchandise, etc.

She wants nothing to benefit the guy. So its understandable. You are right the new artists until they are established don't have that kind of pull to ensure they have rights to their first few albums as songwriters.

Edited by PopArchivist