The future of rerecords

Record labels are discussing a big change in the world of rerecording albums as the success of Taylor Swift’s “Taylor’s Version” releases increase. With Swift’s fourth re-recorded album released on Oct. 27, “1989 (Taylor’s Version),” record labels are discussing adding a clause to contracts for new signees to ensure that they do not rerecord albums for 10 to 30 years after they depart from the label. In some cases, labels are not allowing for artists to rerecord albums at all.

 The process of rerecording an album was introduced in the 1960s, largely attributed to Frank Sinatra and The Everly Brothers. The Everly Brothers rerecorded their albums after switching record labels, and Frank Sinatra did so after creating a label of his own. Rerecording albums and songs can result in higher royalties when used in commercials, films and movie trailers. Typically, they are done either to make more money or, in Swift’s case, to regain control of the master recordings.

 Master recordings – the original recordings – are important for the artist both for historical and financial purposes. Most labels own the masters of their artists, but artists are finding it more important to own these masters themselves. Pop singer Prince commented on the importance of owning masters for an artist in 1996 in an interview with Rolling Stone: “If you don’t own your masters, your master owns you,” he said. Newer artists, such as Olivia Rodrigo, are making sure their contract states that they own the masters to their recordings to avoid a challenging situation.

 The reasoning behind Swift’s rerecording path was due to her master recordings being sold to Hollywood manager Scooter Braun. When Swift left Big Machine Records in 2019, Scott Borchetta (Swift’s former advisor at Big Machine) sold her original recordings to Scooter Braun behind her back. This led to Swift going down the path to taking back her music. Swift has seen her “Taylor’s Version” rerecordings become even more successful than the originals and cause a resurgence of her popularity far beyond what the albums once were.

 With Swift’s rerecordings, her original albums have seen a drop in revenue. Since “1989 (Taylor’s Version)” dropped, sales of the original have decreased by 44%. By controlling when the artists rerecord their music, or if they can at all, they also control where and who the revenue goes to.

 Swift rerecording her first six albums has arguably been one of her most successful business moves. Each rerecorded album has done better than its original, which says enough on its own. Labels are most likely fearful of their artists going to another label and following in Swift’s footsteps. In an article for Billboard, Steve Knopper wrote, “Today, attorneys are receiving label contracts that expand that period to 10 or 15 years or more — and the attorneys are pushing back … It could have been five to seven years from the release date of the original or two years after the contract expired.”

 Now that things are evolving in the industry, it is creating another step in contracting an artist to a label. Swift could be the last artist to have the freedom to rerecord their music in as little as five years from the original music being released. While record labels fight to have their artists wait, the attorneys will be giving them a run for their money. Swift is once again influencing the business side of the music industry, and time will tell if it is for the better or worse.