controversy Archives - Haulix Daily

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.

On PWR BTTM, controversy, and the incredible power rights holders wield in 2017

It took less than a week for the career of PWR BTTM, a two-piece punk band from New York, to unravel. After months of digital hype and an outpouring of support from some of the industry’s biggest influencers, accusations of sexual abuse and predatory behavior brought against PWR BTTM member Ben Hopkins spread like wildfire just two days before the group’s Polyvinyl Records debut was due to be released. As word continued to spread, people and brand associated with the act began to distance themselves, including Polyvinyl Records and any label that had worked with the group prior to the alleged incidents. By Friday, the damage was done. Polyvinyl pulled all promotion for the record, as well as any options to purchase the record online, and all upcoming tour dates were cancelled. The hype train was dead, and so was the career of PWR BTTM.

The fallout from the accusations made against Hopkins happened much faster than has typically been the case in similar instance where allegations were brought against a member of the alternative music community. There reasons for this have already been discussed at length, but the fallout itself is pretty typical. First fans revolt, then any associated acts (tour support) and professionals (management, booking, etc.). From there, labels typically issue a statement and announce their plans to sever ties with the talent. Venues may or may not follow suit as well, depending on the band’s level of success and the aforementioned outcry from fans.

The one new twist in the fallout from such allegations being made did not come to pass until the beginning of this week, several days after the allegations were first made. Polyvinyl, having already pulled all physical copies of PWR BTTM’s debut album as quickly as they could, also scrubbed any digital downloads and streams of the record from the internet. Unless you were someone who received a preorder of the album prior to the events of last week, which likely includes anywhere from several hundred to a few thousand people, you have virtually no way to experience PWR BTTM’s album. More importantly, Polyvinyl has no way to recoup any investment they made in PWR BTTM.

The reason Polyvinyl is able to do this, and as a result make PWR BTTM’s catalog virtually unavailable, is because they own the rights to the music. Most labels own all or at least some of the rights to the music the artists on their roster creates, which gives them final authority on how or if that music is available to the public.

And this is the game-changer. Historically speaking, while many labels would pull an artist’s releases from their store and/or cut ties with talent accused of wrongdoing, most label chose to keep the accused musician’s catalog available on streaming services. This means those labels were quietly making money from any streaming royalties connected to that artist’s music while publicly stating they were distancing themselves from that artist. These actions contradict themselves by placing importance on money and recouping costs rather than doing the right thing by consumers and victims. How can you claim to not be associated with a sexual predator if you are cashing checks that resulted from their art? Everyone knows controversy tends to lead to a bump, so if anything these labels are making more money (at least in the short term) because of these incidents.

By expressing their power as rights holders over the music PWR BTTM made Polyvinyl has taken a stand against abusers and sent a strong message to all other artists worldwide. In a time where the vast majority of musicians are creating everything in the digital space it’s important to understand how handing over control also empowers someone else to delete, erase, or pull your work at their discretion. The alleged actions of Hopkins were unquestionably the lynchpin to PWR BTTM’s undoing, but by erasing their work from the internet Polyvinyl has made what would typically be a short, yet forced hiatus into something that feels much more permanent. Will more labels follow suit? I hope so.