I agree and I don’t know what the answer is. However, if we said, hypothetically of course, that all new talent was required to have representation when they sign their first deal. The take it or leave it attitude would dry up as labels found no new talent was willing to sign with them. It might make things shift in such a way that labels are competing to get talent instead of talent competing to get signed.
As for how it could be arranged so that all labels could have representation without it costing so much they couldn’t afford it, I’m not sure.
*And, it would have to be representation not on the label’s payroll, directly or otherwise.
Now some trivia: in 1990, the movie Ghost led to a re-release of the original “Unchained Melody” by the Righteous Brothers, which entered the Billboard Top 40 on the U.S. billboard charts. This led to the Righteous Brothers re-recording the song, also under the Righteous Brothers name, which simultaneously entered the Top 40. If I remember correctly, Kasey Kasem was only willing to play one version per week, although he might have alternated between the two.
You’re right, and I thought of that later. Maybe it was only the couple of albums subsequent to his first one that contained solely public domain works.
Artists re-recording old hits has a long and not always respectable history. Usually it involves a performer past his or her commercial prime and no longer under contract getting signed by another label for the express purpose of making sound-alike replicas of their golden oldies.
“Chuck Berry’s Golden Hits”, on Mercury, probably still sells a lot of copies to buyers expecting his Chess originals that were the actual hit versions (though likely many of them can’t tell the difference). Whether Chuck got a better deal the second time around, I can’t say.
Nowadays, you see a lot of budget CDs with titles like “The Best of Earth Wind and Fire”, followed in tiny print by “Recorded Live” - same deal.
My point is that Weird Al’s parodies often are less clearly parodies under the law, since he’ll use them to mock something other than the song or the artist. Even if he would win, he takes the careful route of getting permission to avoid any possible legal battles.
Boy, it sure seems everyone has a personal interest in this feud. As noted, I don’t care, but since I keep getting called out…
No, I don’t listen to the AM radio cut. Because it’s not the real version of the song. I want my funky shit goin’ down in the city, my do goody good bullshit, and I need to know, “who the fuck are you? Who Who?”
Live cuts are different, and a moment’s thinking should see that.
If Led Zeppelin decided to rerecord and release Stairway to Heaven because someone I don’t know is getting money from the original release and they are unhappy, not only am I not buying it, I’d tell them to grow up. Of course, since I already HAVE all their albums, it’s a moot point. As sure as Taylor Swift fans already have her albums.
I noticed the difference between the studio album cut and greatest hits cut of Tull’s Locomotive Breath, and likewise Foreigner’s Long Long Way From Home, and those changes are very subtle. Any re-recording trying to pass it off as “original” is going to be even more obvious.
(1) As I said before, there’s no deception going on here. She’s recording new versions, which performing artists do all the time. Her fans are free to choose what versions to purchase or listen to.
(2) Second, this statement reflects a weird approach to music appreciation. Musicianship is an art. It’s about using one’s body to produce an aural experience. And it allows for infinite variation. Appreciating music is based in the idea that there will be differences. Even a scored symphony won’t sound exactly the same every time through. Do you not listen to live performances? Do you not listen to recordings of live performances? Do you not listen to cover versions? To me, the best thing about music is the communing with another human being who is expressing emself in the moment, not just a lock-step recreation of something that was created before. What a limiting and restrictive and starved attitude towards human expression.
I wouldn’t call it having beefs with people, it’s more that she’ll do what she can to settle things behind closed doors, but if she feels she’s being taken advantage of, she’ll publicly call it out. A good example from a while back, she accused someone of sexual harassment. She did it quietly, she informed the guy’s boss and he was fired. He sued her for the loss of his job, so she countersued him for $1. She won, his case was tossed out.
I’m willing to bet very similar things (both WRT sexual harassment and issues around money) happen to a lot of artists, she’s just not afraid to go to social media with it. Granted, her status in the music community and her wealth, very likely contribute to her confidence. Even she was black listed right now and never made another nickel for anything involving music, she’d likely be set for life. An artist with those means is going to be less willing to rock the boat.
speaking of Led Zeppelin they won a long court battle with the guy in spirit’s estate . (Randy California who died in 97). They said SToH ripped off music from a Spirit song he wrote.
I’m kinda surprised. Look, I’m hardly qualified to judge that kinda of stuff, but to my ear, those songs sound an awful lot alike. A lot more similar than some of other copyright cases where my very untrained ear can’t even figure out what they’re talking about and wonder if I’m even listening to the correct two songs.
“Spirit” was created (1) before sound recordings were protected under U.S. Copyright law; at that time only compositions were protected. And it was created under the Copyright Act of 1909, under which the only thing that was protected was what you actually wrote on the sheet music that you submitted to the Copyright Office.
The sheet music didn’t include the guitar arpeggios, so Spirit couldn’t argue that Led Zeppelin ripped those off—they simply didn’t own any copyright to them.
Now, if that had happened today, it would have been different. First of all, sound recordings have been protected since 1972. Second, the recording can be submitted to represent both the composition and the sound recording, so you don’t even have to submit sheet music and worry about what has been left out of it.
It seems to me to have nothing to do with taking sides, and just that they are fans of Taylor Swift. And so they don’t like it when you insist that her fans would have problems with her rerecording her music or would find her “childish” for wanting to do so. They clearly don’t.
Sure, some may prefer the originals. But, as you say, they already own the originals. So there’s no harm being done. And it’s not like Swift’s actions harm anyone else–both she and this other guy are rich regardless.
You appear to be the odd one out in that you would care if someone you were a fan of were to do the same thing. As people point out, this is exactly why artists sell the “live” version of their album. It is ultimately just trying to make more money off the same song.
Her main feud was with Katy Perry but that is over. Supposed to be for taking some of her backup dancers/singers. Also Kanye West when he got on stage with her at Grammys.
