Spot the difference, across the board

NPR reported this morning that Taylor Swift plans to get into the studio soon to start recording new renditions of her song catalogue. That's her entire catalogue -- six albums' worth of songs. She plans to re-record everything from her tenure with her previous label. That contract has concluded, and she couldn't get her master tapes back from the label, so she's going to release new versions of those songs.

How would the mechanics of Taylor's effort work, do you suppose? Sure, other bands have recorded new versions of their hits. Blue Öyster Cult, Squeeze and The Ventures are just three bands that come to my mind who've done that. But those were collections of their best-known songs. But this is the first example I've heard, of an artist re-doing an entire back catalogue. Will Taylor's new label release those versions to the market, and sticker them as "deluxe editions," "special editions," or some similarly coded phrase to let fans know, "These are the versions that Taylor really would prefer you buy"?

I take this as she’s not doing new ‘stylistically different’ versions of all the songs, just re-recording them all in the same style they were originally released?

If that’s the case:

I envision the rolled-eyes of a lot of ‘anything for a paycheck’ studio musicians and producers going through the painful motions. And I envision at some early stage in the process even Taylor saying to herself “this is stupid, I’m outta here”.

Why would any fan really want this? This is not a good form of narcissism. I think she’s made some pretty smart pop records....Let them stand and spend your time constructively recording new material!

> I take this as she's not doing new 'stylistically different' versions of all the songs,
> just re-recording them all in the same style they were originally released?

The NPR piece didn't specify. I'm sure you're right, if she tries to replicate her original releases, it's just going to make her look narcissistic and rather greedy. On the other hand, if she tries to update them, she'll have to come up with some pretty remarkable revisions to make it seem worth the effort. Even then, I don't see her coming up with versions that are so utterly different and so thoroughly improved that it makes listeners "forget" the originals.

I'm reminded of Prince's "new master" release of "1999" -- an ultimately foolish attempt to come up with a new version of his classic single, in the hopes of undercutting Warner Brothers' opportunity to reap a new harvest of profits from his work during that titular year. What a waste of effort.

I have never heard Taylor Swift, but I glanced through this story on The Guardian and apparently, a really bad person [Justin Bieber's manager?] is now in control of her hit catalog. A person who she has a blood feud with for some reason. It was suggested that the feeling is mutual. In that light, I kind of get the tactic though we all know it'll end in tears. Bands usually do this late in the game to compete with their label holding the masters for lucrative synchronization rights. Or where the money is in music now. In the case of Taylor Swift, it's more personal.

Some bands do this to circumvent licensing payments back to the copyright holder if they want to release a compilation on a different label. For example, Visage licensed their Polydor masters for a greatest hits CD that contained material from their entire career from their early hits to their late period flowering - but the limitation was for the physical CD. Polydor wanted more than the band could afford for the digital and streaming rights, so on those platforms, the current band re-recorded that material. As a Visage nerd, I was excited to hear the then-current [pretty hot with Robin Simon on guitar] version of the band tackling "classic" Visage material, so I liked it from that aspect.



Post Edited (08-23-19 09:00)

Former TP subscriber [81, 82, 83, 84]

[postpunkmonk.com]
For further rumination on the Fresh New Sound of Yesterday®

Hah! I was just shopping in Akron last weekend and came across "1999: The New Master" on CD-5 and will listen to it and report back with my findings… Girding my loins now.



Former TP subscriber [81, 82, 83, 84]

[postpunkmonk.com]
For further rumination on the Fresh New Sound of Yesterday®

Good god! And I'm NOT invoking James Brown, there. For what it's worth, "1999: The New Master" was definitely the worst thing I have ever heard with Prince's name on it! Eccccch! A total mess of throwing everything but the kitchen sink into a composition that had no such needs. The haphazard Latin rhythms bolted onto the song certainly won't bring Sheila E. to mind! Some of the other "mixes" were the worst sort of chore to endure. It was all just scandalously awful.



Post Edited (09-05-19 16:40)

Former TP subscriber [81, 82, 83, 84]

[postpunkmonk.com]
For further rumination on the Fresh New Sound of Yesterday®

> Bands usually do this late in the game to compete with their label holding the masters
> for lucrative synchronization rights. Or where the money is in music now.

Yes, I'm pretty sure that was the motivation to Squeeze, Blue Öyster Cult and The Ventures. All three bands recorded albums of soundalike versions of their best-known songs.

> In the case of Taylor Swift, it's more personal.

Yeah, in Prince's case, it was too. He got loose from his contract with Warner Bros. in the mid-'90s, but his old label still held the masters. A few years later, in 1998, he apparently couldn't stand the thought that his old label -- the label whose hold on his work and career became so onerous to him that he disowned his own name and wrote SLAVE on his face in public -- would spend the upcoming year enjoying a new surge of revenue from one of his biggest hits. So he tried to come up with a new version of "1999" that the public would like even better.

This is a cautionary tale about what happens when you let a grudge motivate you.

> Bands usually do this late in the game to compete with their label holding the masters
> for lucrative synchronization rights. Or where the money is in music now.

>Yes, I'm pretty sure that was the motivation to Squeeze, Blue Öyster Cult >and The Ventures. All three bands recorded albums of soundalike versions of >their best-known songs.

Cracker did something similar, releasing a "Greatest Hits Redux" the same day their former label released their own "Best of Cracker".

Suzanne Vega also re-recorded her past material, though apparently she did so to give said songs a more "intimate" feel as opposed to merely recording soundalikes (though she probably doesn't have much control over her old recordings either).

Of course there are all those "newly-recorded versions by the original artists" (usually mentioned in very tiny print) compilations, but I'm guessing those are done more for flat out cash payments than control of any musical rights (like Irene Cara would get $$$ off every sale of a compilations featuring a re-recorded "Flashdance" that's probably selling in the lower thousands at most).

Some artists just get inspired to revisit/redux.

a few come to mind, but

Bowie made the excellent John, I'm Only Dancing with the Spiders right as Ziggy entered stores. But when he worked it up with his Aladdin Sane band months later, he liked that version better and recorded it. Then he had RCA pull the Ziggy Version and replace it with the Sax Version using the same cat#, so you had to drop needle to know which 7" it was.

In America, we were mostly introduced via ChangesOne - only the first UK pressing of whch had the Sax Version [which in the US was heard on the 1980 K-Tel Bowie].

Robyn Hitchcock did the same thing with his Groovy Decay album, for the exact opposite reason: he decided he didn't like the saxophones on the original release. He re-did the whole shebang three years later as Groovy Decoy. Since then, he's also remixed a lot of his Eighties tracks to be reissued by Yep Roc, mainly to expunge the saxophones. Guess that instrument just isn't his cup of tea.

Kate Bush also decided she didn't like the production on her post-HOUNDS OF LOVE albums and re-recorded most of the popular songs from them on her album DIRECTOR'S CUT.

> Eccccch! A total mess of throwing everything but the kitchen sink into a composition
> that had no such needs.

Very well put, Monk. To me, "1999" isn't just one of Prince's best songs; it's one of the greatest singles in all of pop music. From the way the opening synth riff manages to sound both majestic and fun at the same time, to the way the singers trade lines as if they were handing off the baton in a relay race, to the sheer enthusiasm and energy conveyed in every second, it's all as nearly perfect as anything in pop.

Indeed, that magic was achieved, in part, by leaving things out. The original recording had all the singers harmonizing together on most of the lines; Prince decided to drop out vocal tracks along the way, achieving that playful trade-off approach. I can't tell you how many times I found myself in a car when that song started playing, and someone took up Lisa and J.J.'s line, and then someone else sang Dez's line, and then a third person took Prince's line … the song was an instant call-to-arms and an instant party invitation at once, just like Prince conveyed in the lyrics: "War is all around us/My mind says prepare to fight/So if I gotta die, I'm gonna listen to my body tonight."

As for the "new master," well, Monk says it all. None of that sense of fun, playfulness, enthusiasm or even melody remains. Clearly, Prince believed that in order to justify the new master, he just had to come up with an approach and arrangement that had nothing to do with the original. I'm sure he really wanted to come up with a better version, too, but either he knew in advance how futile it would be, or he realized it in the studio: you just can't improve on perfection. But I guess admitting defeat would've meant just letting Warner Bros. take that new surge of revenue without a fight.