Why Taylor Swift re-releasing ‘1989,’ on October 27 continues her punk spirit against the industry

As someone who has been on both sides of the industry, running a small independent record label for a few years and being a music journalist for a few years more, I can’t help but applaud the absolute “punk” spirit of Taylor Swift. I’m happy to hand over my “indie credibility” card from my wallet, but Swift’s approach to dealing with the dreaded “industry” pitfalls has been nothing short of remarkable - and a testament to just how savvy she is.

The re-recording marks the fourth “Taylor’s Version” of her back catalogue, which first began with “Fearless (Taylor's Version)” back in 2021 when she announced that due to a legal battle with Scooter Braun regarding her masters, she would instead re-record those albums herself - to not only profit from what is effectively her own songwriting but in a more shrewd move to devalue the worth of the original masters of the original recording of “Fearless,” “Red, “Speak Now” and now “1989.”

Rewind though - if you’re a Swiftie, this is all common knowledge, right? But spare a thought for those who might not be familiar with the legal wranglings that occurred between Taylor Swift, her original label Big Machine Label Group and Scooter Braun’s Ithaca Holdings. It’s acted once again as a cautionary tale about songwriters' rights, the difference between signing to a label and licensing to a label and the aptitude of Taylor Swift and her team regarding her revenue streams.

Tensions between Taylor Swift and Scooter Braun occurred before the sale of her first six albums; Swift had criticized Braun in the past for his management of other artists, such as Justin Bieber and Kanye West and cited issues including the public feud with Kanye West and the way she felt Braun and his clients treated her.

The acquisition of Taylor Swift’s first six albums by Scooter Braun.

To her horror, in June 2019, Big Machine Label Group, the record label that held the rights to Taylor Swift's first six albums, was sold to Scooter Braun's Ithaca Holdings for a reported $300 million. This sale included the rights to Swift's master recordings, which meant that Braun and his company now owned the original recordings of Swift's music.

Swift expressed her outrage over the sale on social media, accusing Scooter Braun of bullying and orchestrating a smear campaign against her, believing the sale of her master recordings to Braun, whom she saw as an antagonist, was a betrayal by her former label and created a sense of powerlessness over her own music. 

Her big issue though came in the form of the ownership of her previous releases - Swift claimed she was not given the opportunity to buy her master recordings before they were sold to Braun's company, feeling that she was not given a fair chance to acquire her own work added to her frustration.

It raised the broader issue of artists' rights and ownership within the music industry. Swift argued that artists should have more control over their creative work and the profits generated by it, drawing praise from other artists with her stance surrounding music ownership and the value of artists' intellectual property.

Revenge, re-recording and devaluing her previous works

In response to the situation, Taylor Swift announced her plan to re-record her first six albums, starting with "Fearless." Re-recording allows her to create new versions of her songs, giving her control over the new recordings and the ability to license her music in different ways.

That means that going forwards, any form of “exploitation” (it is a music term I’m afraid) of the first six albums Taylor Swift released is not so lucrative given the huge sales figures that “Taylor’s Version” editions of those works. For those wishing to license a song, or form a sync deal for her works to appear in areas such as in-flight entertainment or advertising, companies are more likely now to tap into the “present” zeitgeist of her fame, rather than the “muddied” versions that Ithaca Holdings own.

This is the coup d’etat against Scooter Braun and hitting him where it hurts - the purchase of a series of assets that were thought to appreciate in value, only to depreciate given newer, fresher versions of those recordings wholly endorsed by the artist herself - reclaiming her work rather than “dealing” with those unsavoury moments you read about in the record industry. In the end, Braun had to be content with selling the masters to Shamrock Capital in October 2020.

It’s also incredibly forward-thinking for Swift and eschews this idea of a “manufactured” pop star; taking the onus of her own music, her own licensing deals and where her music is to be used while sinking the value of those previous works is perhaps one of the most punk things she could do. Not that I’ve ever seen Taylor Swift flipping someone off, but metaphorically speaking, she’s done just that with these re-recordings, while Braun has to content what he can do with the works, given reissues aren’t really going to cut it.