Taylor Swift always focuses on the future, so why is she suddenly so concerned with recreating the past?
The promotional efforts for Lover, the seventh album from Taylor Swift, have been underway throughout 2019. As Rolling Stone pointed out in extensive detail, Swift and her team have been keeping her name on the tip of everyone’s tongue for the better part of the last year. You may not have caught every headline related to the pop superstar’s career, but you saw something, and that is more than can be said for most album rollouts.
But the most surprising news from the world of Taylor Swift came last week, just hours before Lover hit stores. In an interview with Good Morning America, Swift said she is committed to re-recording her first five albums. She even cited November 2020 as a start date for the project.
According to Chart Beat, Taylor Swift’s first six albums (including 2017’s Reputation) have sold a combined total of 30 million records worldwide. That number is nothing short of outstanding, and its the result of numerous top ten hits spanning the last decade of music. There are songs on every album that virtually everyone knows, and many continue to garner airplay or licensing deals to this day.
So why the redo? What value is there in re-recording something already so successful that everyone knows of its existence?
Some may think money is the motivating factor, but in reality, Swift is making this decision based on principle. Swift has long been an advocate for artists being allowed to own their masters. In other words, she believes artists are entitled to own the music they create. However, in the world of major labels, ownership of music often goes to or is at least split with, the company putting out an artist’s music.
In July, Swift’s former label, Big Machine Label Group, sold to superstar manager Scooter Braun for $300 million. Swift wrote on her blog about how this decision left her feeling hurt and betrayed, in part because it meant another person other than herself would own her music and be able to do with it whatever they pleased.
Swift’s decision to re-record her first five albums is the perfect act of revenge. As long as she doesn’t violate the terms of her original deal, re-recording songs would allow Swift to own the masters of her songs. That would enable Swift to have control over the use of her music, as well as help her earn more from sales and streaming related to that material. The new versions would also make the original recordings largely obsolete, which would leave Braun with recordings that have less value than they did at the point of purchase.
The most likely reason Reputation, Swift’s sixth album, is not included in her current plans is likely due to stipulations in her recording contract with Big Machine. Generally speaking, most contracts prevent artists from re-recording their music until two years after their contract expires and five years after the material was released. If the same terms are in Taylor’s deal, Reputation won’t be available for recreation until 2022.
Whether or not Swift sees her plan through remains to be seen. Other stars, including Def Leppard, have taken similar approaches to reclaim control of their music. If Swifts does re-record her records, we may see renewed demand from artists worldwide for ownership of their creative output.
We spend so many hours scouring the internet for great reads on the music industry that it’s a little impressive our eyeballs haven’t melted out of heads just yet. Still, every once in a while we stumbled across something that makes all the effort worth it, and this week that honor goes to the following blog from photographer Jarle H. Moe. Enjoy.
THE CONTRACTS
The last couple of weeks, the matter of photo contracts once again has been debated. First came Jason Sheldon’s blog post, calling Taylor Swift out on her hypocrisy when attacking Apple for demanding musicians give away their music for free while doing the exact same thing to concert photographers in her photo contracts. If you’re reading this, you’re probably well aware of that whole ordeal, so there’s no need to get into it further other than to say that I fully support Sheldon’s views.
His post made some waves, the latest being The Washington City Paper refusing to sign Foo Fighters infamous contract. Honorable as it may be, as pointed out by Kevin Bergin, their way of solving the problem, will make matters even worse for concert photographers. Petapixel’s Michael Zhang calls the decision a brewing revolution in the world of concert photography, but, I’m not so sure. Right now, it’s “viral”, so there is an immediate payoff, but, as soon as the story fades, so does the will to make change among the decision makers. After all, this is not the first time we’ve seen an “internet riot” against photo contracts, and yet, they are breeding. Well… except in Norway, but I’ll get back to that.
I, A PHOTOJOURNALIST
At its core, concert photography is two things at once: art and journalism, or rather, photojournalism. Most concert photographers work for some sort of outlet – i.e., they are photojournalists. While that’s not a label all concert photographers embrace (or even know about), they should. I see myself as a photojournalist and fully adhere to the responsibilities tied to that label. When I post photos, they are the truth, or at least as close as I can get to it, strictly following the guidelines of the Ethical Code of Practice for the Norwegian Press in all my editorial work. Nothing is added or removed, nothing is changed for better or worse. My photos are first and foremost journalistic work, and my audiences can trust that I do not deceive them in my photos.
But, I also see myself as an artist, and care just as deeply about my art as any musician about their music. The greatest challenge to concert photography, in my opinion, it to make art of reality. Not just documenting reality, but showing the world the hidden aesthetics in it. In many ways, it’s a lot like street photography. If it’s staged or “photoshopped”, it loses its value. It’s no longer art in reality. Of course, making art for art’s sake (l’art pour l’art) with the tools available to you, isn’t a bad thing, and I know a lot of concert photographers doing just that, but I’m a journalist. To me, the real world is enough. And, if you are working for an outlet of any kind, you should feel the same way. People reading a newspaper, magazine – or even a music blog, are expecting trusting that you show them what the concert was really like, not how good you are at Photoshop. Your readers are expecting the truth.
I, AN ARTIST
The discussion regarding photo contracts, seem to be centered around the idea of the concert photographer as an artist. A photographer, an artist in his own right, should be able to control (and get paid for) his own work. Handing out a contract demanding the photographer to sign away or limit those right, is disrespecting a fellow artist. While I, as an artist, fully support that notion, I believe that journalistic integrity should come first. The problem with the above, is that not all concert photographers care enough about their work (or monetizing upon it) to defend their rights as long as they get to shoot their favorite band. There’s also the problem of some people viewing an artist as somewhat larger than life, where you, as a concert photographer, are lucky to be even in their presence and should adhere to their contracts (rights grab or not) out of sheer honor.
An artist can be manipulated and bullied into giving up his rights. However, if you have any journalistic integrity at all, it doesn’t matter who you are shooting or what artistic aspirations you may or may not have. One of the most important tenants of journalism, is the idea of a free press. That means, as a photojournalist, you can not allow any company, person or artist to decide what you can, or can not capture or publish. Then the press is no longer free, but dictated by external forces. In a free democracy, the public needs to be able to trust that the press acts as a free agent, without any constraints or limitations exerted by external forces.
IT’S ALL ABOUT CONTROL
Artists (and their managements) will always try to control what the press publishes about them, and while I completely understand the want to control an artist’s image, it is not for the artist or anyone else to decide as long as we live in (and want to continue living in) an open, free democracy (hell, in the age of smartphones and great pocket cameras the whole idea of trying to control image to that extent is, honestly, just silly, as photos will be captured anyway – but they will always try). We, as photojournalists, should treat musicians just the same as we would a politician. If a politician openly tried to control the media in the way some musicians are, it would be a scandal, and yet there’s not any real outrage. Sure, the artistic photographers are angry, but that’s about it.
Concert photographers seem to worry most about the rights grab aspect of some contracts (and, to some extent, the limitations on reselling photos to other outlets), and sure, I totally get that. The Taylor Swift photo contract that [re]ignited the discussion this time around, was mainly criticized for being a rights grab contract. And yes, I like so many others, feel that a rights grab contract is disrespecting me as an artist. That said, my main ‘beef’ with photo contracts, isn’t the disrespect of me as a photographer, but rather the attack on my integrity as a photojournalist. The same contract stipulates that photos shot at the concert may only be used once and only until the end of 2015 online. In my opinion, that’s an attack on my integrity – and in extension, the free press.
And, it’s spreading, because of course it is. They always want more control, and will take it if they can. Now, we’re seeing more and more artists putting limitations on how we photograph them, as well. Only shoot the left side of the face, or from the waist up. The newest instance I’ve read about, is artist Lily Wood demanding no photos to be shot in profile or overview (unfortunately I have no link to back this up, as it was discussed on the closed Concert photographers group). The worst contract I’ve come across, was when Crystal Castles played in Bergen a couple of years ago, with a contract demanding photos to be pre-approved by their management before publishing. You give them the finger, and theywill take the hand. Now that right there is a scandal. Yet, nothing went ‘viral’ back then.
With this in mind, it baffles me to see not only concert photographers, but also major newspapers and outlets signing photo contracts. Where is their journalistic integrity? If a politician demanded to be only photographed in a certain way or that photos be removed after a given period of time, it would be unacceptable, so why is it any different for artists?
BUT WHO GETS CONTROL?
Of course, photos also have a historic value, and should be allowed to live on for future generations to see. They are what lives on when the present has passed. They are history. Having anyone try to control what lives on or not in the way many, if not most, contract tries to, gives artists and their managements power over history that they should not have. One of the most important and recognized concert photos of all time where Johnny Cash is flipping off the camera at his Folsom Prison San Quentin concert, imagine if a contract had been signed, and his management for some reason or another, didn’t like what they saw (or didn’t see it at all, but the photo could only be printed once). Imagine what we, and history, would have lost! It is not for you, me, or any one else to decide what will be important to history. Securing free speech (including as photographic documents), is also securing our history and legacy. Censorship should not be accepted regardless of who tries to impose it. You, as a concert photographer photojournalist, should have enough integrity to not let yourself be slave to the despotic whims of an artist or their management. They may deny us getting in, that’s their right, but when they let us in, they may not dictate how we chose to shoot or how we chose to publish.
If more, if not all, concert photographers identified as journalists and with the ethics that follow in their work, photo contracts would be a thing of the past. Signing a photo contract should be unacceptable, not because it’s disrespecting you as an artist, but because it’s a violation of the ethics you follow as a journalist. So stop thinking about yourself primarily as an artist. You are a [photo]journalist. You may create art, but it’s more to it than that. You are a part of the freepress. Encourage new photographers to identify as journalists. Make the journalism be as natural to our profession as the artistry, and heed to the obligations that come with that label.
GET YOURSELF SOME INTEGRITY, IT’S CHEAP!
And you know what? It actually works! The Norwegian press as a whole, has made a joint statement to never sign any contracts put forward by artists or their management pushed forward by concert photographers, as can be read here. In Norway, most concert photographers are, in essence, photojournalists and identify more or less as such. And because of that, we are part of the press. We are not 100 concert photographers, but 7000 journalists. Together we have a powerful voice. We generally do not meet any photo contracts, and the few we do, never gets signed. And because of that, contracts get fewer and fewer. With the press associations and unions behind us, we actually have a powerful voice against such demands, and the contracts get dropped (though, it has to be said that the local promoters have done tremendous work as well in that regard, but without all of the press acting like a collective, they would have no incentive to waiver the contracts). The aforementioned Foo Fighters contract? Guess what: that was not presented to the photographers in Norway. I can’t even remember the last time I “had” to sign a contract. That’s what having some integrity gets you.
Jarle H. Moe is a photographer based in Norway. You can find more of his work and writing on his website and blog. You can also connect with him throughFlickr, Twitter, and Instagram. This article was also published here.
Hello, everyone. We are thrilled to have you join us. This post is more of an editorial than a column dedicated to advice, with a focus on the NFL and the way they’re trying to change live music through contract negotiations over the 2015 Super Bowl halftime show. It may not seem like the kind of thing that applies to bands working out of basements, but it does, and if nothing changes it could make an impact on festival and large event planning moving forward.
This blog exists to promote the future of the music industry, and to do that we need input from people like you and your music-loving friends. If you have any questions about the content in this article, or if you have an artist you would like to see featured on this blog, please contact james@haulix.com and share your thoughts. We can also be found on Twitter and Facebook.
Earlier this week, The Wall Street Journal reported on a new development surrounding next year’s Super Bowl halftime show that sent a bit of a chill down my spine. I didn’t plan to write about it at first, but the more I thought about it the more it drove me insane.
The NFL has not paid the acts who performed during the annual halftime show for many years, but this year they’ve also begun asking the talent under consideration for the high-profile gig to pay to play, according to people familiar with the matter. The acts currently being considered are Coldplay, Katy Perry, and Rihanna, but none of that really matters right now because the offer being presented is a far more intriguing story. In my opinion, it is not only a bad idea for the Super Bowl, but if carried out it could set a very dangerous precedent in live music industry.
Since 2012, the annual ad revenue the NFL receives from the Super Bowl has been north of $240 million. In 2015, it’s likely that number will swell to $300 million or more, and it’s not hard to understand why. Every year, without fail, the biggest game in the NFL is also the most watched sporting event every single year, drawing over 111 million viewers in 2014 alone. Viewership like that equates to historically high ad rates, which in turn leads to growing income.
This year, 30-second advertising spots sold for $4 million. When Bruno Mars and Red Hot Chili Peppers hit the stage for the halftime show, they commanded the screen for about twelve minutes, which equated to almost $100 million in exposure (based on the advertising rates). In the mind of the NFL, that is lost potential revenue, and now it seems they want to make a change.
To quote WSJ direct: “While notifying the artists’ camps of their candidacy, league representatives also asked at least some of the acts if they would be willing to contribute a portion of their post-Super Bowl tour income to the league, or if they would make some other type of financial contribution, in exchange for the halftime gig.” There is no mention of how much that percentage will be, nor is there any mention of using the money received for anything other than widening the NFL’s income stream.
This is a clear cut example of corporate greed, and it’s not all that different from the way many labels take advantage of artists. The idea that ’the company does more for the talent than the talent does for the company’ is the same kind of backwards thinking that has ruined countless careers and relationships over the last 60 years. Katy Perry, Coldplay, and Rihanna are not artists in the mind of the NFL as much as they are untapped revenue streams. They’re not people, just commodities, existing to fill a demand the league apparently feels is taking away from their right to advertise. It’s not enough the performance happens under a title like ‘the PEPSI super bowl halftime show,’ even though Pepsi Co probably paid far more for that placement than any other advertiser buying a spot that particular year.
The most absurd part of this entire offer is the request that artists consider sharing a portion of future tour income. It’s no secret that appearing on the Super Bowl leads to an almost immediate jump in sales on tour revenue, but that does not mean artists are indebted to the NFL as a result of that boost. If someone got on stage at halftime and fell flat on their face, resulting in lost future profits, would the NFL be responsible for recouping the lost sales? No. And they would counter sue if anyone who tried to claim something different. That’s how bullies work. They lay claim to what is not theirs and go out of their way to ensure everyone around them feels as small and insignificant as possible.
One could argue that these new requirements help ensure the world never experiences another Janet Jackson fiasco, but that event happened ten years ago. Could the NFL still be so frightened by pop music that they feel such requirements must be implemented to ensure the cleanest, most family-friendly event possible? If so, why are Rihanna and Katy Perry contenders for next year? Coldplay are the only artists on the current short list who offer the kind of generic pop sound the league seems to desire, but they’re also the furthest thing from a ‘football band’ at radio today. Their music is good, but it’s not exactly the kind of thing that one would listen to when headed into battle (or celebrating a major victory).
What concerns me even more than the offer being presented by the NFL, however, is what will happen to the live music industry in the event no one fights back. It’s not hard to imagine major festivals and events taking cues from the NFL’s negotiation tactics and seeking new ways to raise revenue. Festivals may not have the millions of viewers the Super Bowl presents, but it can put artists in front of well over a hundred thousand people who may otherwise never see them. That reasoning is already being used to not pay many mid-level artists, so why not extend it to the headliners? Some may fight, but if they want to play in front of those crowds they will have to bend to the will of the people booking the event.
It’s almost terrifying to think, but it’s entirely possible that the fate of live music negotiations moving forward could be in the hands of Coldplay, Katy Perry, and Rihanna, but in a way it’s also true. If they do nothing and allow the NFL to steamroll their future revenue in exchange for twelve minutes of screen time they are not only selling themselves short, but making it okay for other corporations, sponsors, and booking agents to take advantage of talent. It’s up to them to take a stance, and something tells me they will. I hope so, at least.
Hello and welcome to another week of music industry insight and advice here on the official blog of Haulix. It’s the first week of June and we are kicking off our content with our second collaborative piece with Daniel Alvarez, attorney at law and music business aficionado. We will be working with Daniel a lot in the months ahead, and we think the perspective he has on the business today is one that can aide both artists and industry professionals. If you have any questions about the content of the blog, or if you would like more information regarding the distributional services offered by Haulix, please email james@haulix.com and share your thoughts. You can also find us on Twitter and Facebook.
If I were designing a business industry that consistently favored one party over the other, I would be hard pressed to plan anything better than the music industry. Take young business-naïve, creative types with big dreams on one side and add ultra-sophisticated business-savvy folks with high-powered attorney on the other and what do you get? What it looks like the first time you get your label contract!
It’s supposed to be one of the highlights of your music career but in reality it is the perfect storm forming against you. The thing is, you are the only one that doesn’t know it and they are counting on that. The answer is to fight fire with fire or in other words, get your band an entertainment lawyer!
Now lets be realistic, just because you have an entertainment lawyer doesn’t mean that everyone on the other side will be scared or that the deal you’ve been offered is going to get 100% better. What will happen is that you will know what you are getting into. Would you ever sign a 35-page contract without understanding what is in it? Well that happens every day. In fact, I can point to a band on Warped Tour this summer that did that this year. That is the worst thing you could do. Don’t be that band.
Additionally, an entertainment lawyer helps level the playing field. The other side now understands that you won’t get the wool pulled over your eyes. They might not admit it, but when you show up prepared with a representative who will advocate for you a label is on notice. Artists think that if they try and negotiate the pieces of a contract, they will lose their deal. They won’t. Someone who knows what they are doing can and should get you some edits on the contract. It happens all the time. Just keep your expectations real.
Once you get through your initial label contract, don’t fire your attorney. Keep him or her really close! Loosing contact is a rookie mistake. There will be tons of things you need to call them for. Having a strong relationship makes the flow of business easier. If they are used to working with your label from previous experience they will have a lay of the land.
Artists always tell me they think they can’t afford an attorney. My response is always the same – can you afford not to have one? You either pay a little now, or keep paying a lot through the life of a really bad contract. You’ve heard the stories of the artist who sells thousands of units, but has no payout. Those are not made up. They are real. Don’t be the next version.
To accentuate the point, I hope you have noticed that I continuously am referencing not just a lawyer, but the fact that you should get an entertainment lawyer. If you don’t know one or can’t find one, a normal business attorney is better than going at it alone. I would prefer you find someone who is versed in the nuance that is entertainment law. To the untrained eye, what is normal inside a music or acting contract may seem odd and something unreasonable. You don’t go to a ear, nose and throat doctor when your foot hurts do you? We all have our areas of disciplines, make sure you find the right entertainment lawyer.
So, do you need an attorney? Clearly I think they should and need to be part of your overall team – management, booking agent and entertainment lawyer. Other people are clearly apt to negotiate on your behalf but to think that negotiation is all an entertainment lawyer does leaves you intellectually short. An entertainment lawyer understand, contracts, asset protection, copyright, intellectual property, employment law and business law among the many areas an artist’s business life touches. You and your manager should be well versed in those areas, but the reality is that you probably are not. An entertainment lawyer is a vital part of a long and successful music career!
