Starting in 2021, Taylor Swift began re-recording some of her old albums. She did to because her old masters were caught up in label bureaucracy, which many fans personally blamed on manager Scooter Braun. In the years since she's re-recorded her albums Fearless, Red, Speak Now, and 1989. She's also expected to release two more "Taylor's Version" albums for her projects Taylor Swift and Reputation.
Each of the re-recorded versions have performed very well commercially. The first three all reached number one on the Billboard 200 and 1989 (Taylor's Version) which was released just last week is expected to join them. Speak Now (Taylor's Version) already has one of the biggest first-week sales numbers of 2023 so far and 1989 (Taylor's Version) is expected to join it. But perhaps even more importantly, the re-recordings have replaced the original albums in many fans streaming diets. That's where labels have stepped up in an attempt to prevent artists from doing something similar in the future.
Labels React To Taylor Swift's Re-Recordings
According to Billboard, the success of Taylor's versions has scared some major labels into amending their contracts with artists. Many are trying to get guarantees that an artist can't re-record their material for 10, 15 or even as long as 30 years after departing from the label. The process of re-recording material has been generally somewhat rare in the music industry. But Swift could prove to be a trendsetter which clearly has labels scared.
Swift surprised rap fans over the weekend with her 1989 (Taylor's Version). She got Kendrick Lamar to re-record his notorious verse from their collaborative single "Bad Blood" for the project. She initially only re-recorded the solo version of the song for the first release of the re-recording. But she quickly followed it up with a special deluxe edition. That version featured even more tracks, including a redone guest spot from Kendrick. What do you think of labels reacting to Taylor Swift's re-recordings? Let us know in the comment section below.
[Via]