This isn't about art, it's about business and spite. And she's somehow savvy enough that she's winning on both fronts.
Thomas Flood
___________________________________________
Right the fuck on. Solipsism personified. She and Fogerty should do a duets album. Which would mean fuck all alongside Miley Cyrus doing it with him. Or anyone else. Because Cyrus is SO much more authentic and interesting.
Hugo Burnham
P.S. ANYone who writes, "I have an IQ of..." is a cunt.
Rich Nisbet just proved it.
___________________________________________
"Two shots is pussy"
— The Deerhunter
Tom Lehr
We tried to re-cut the vocals on The Fray's first hit Over My Head (Cable Car) once they got their deal with Epic, as a demo this song was garnering them much unsigned success already at radio in a few markets, just because of word of mouth and buzz. No matter how hard we tried we could never beat the vocal I recorded under the gun in 30 minutes for the demo, so we kept the demo vocal and put it on the album, went on to be a smash. You can't predict when lightning is going to strike, capturing lightning in a bottle is impossible unless it just happens. That is the beauty and the mystery of recorded music and the magic of a moment captured in the studio.
Aaron Johnson
___________________________________________
The Taylor Swift email took me back to your podcast with Steven Wilson, where he said these re-masters/re-records should only be for the fans and as part of box sets. David Gilmour distanced himself from Pink Floyd's 1980's "comeback" album A momentary Lapse of reason because it was "too 80's"
In the recent Later Years box set they released a significantly new remix version, took out much of the synth drums and replaced them with real drums, less processed vocals etc. But didn't do it as a separate money making exercise, they included it in a bigger money making box set, but one bought only by the fans. they also released it on spotify
over time I was not a big fan of the original, for the same reasons, but having both and having listened to the original non stop when it first came out, it is still my go to. the "new" version is an interesting tchotchke, but as Steven Wilson said, its the ones you grew up with that remain in your memory
Richard wilberforce
___________________________________________
I agree with the majority of your opinion. That said, the algorithms work for playlists they serve. However, the consumer gets the choice on their personal playlists. Hence, the algorithms will send it to fans.
I believe most fans will listen to the new version and in most cases keep the version they have. The misnomer is that playlists are where the money is. However, personal playlists become the soundtrack to people's live. That is where the money is and should be every labels, artists, and managers end game.
Allen Kovac
___________________________________________
on a related note, I find it quite annoying that Apple music has so many re-recordings. Many 50's and 60's artists re-recorded their hits, and I have yet to find one that is better than the original. Does anybody want to hear the re-recordings? Some of the re-recordings are marked, but some are not, and always bums me out when I find re-recordings on playlists.
Keith Cahoon
___________________________________________
I like the comment referencing the quote from Quincy, which I'd not heard before - it applies way beyond just music, doesn't it ---- when money enters the room, God leaves the room.
R. Lowenstein
___________________________________________
Hi Bob, I'm probably late weighing in on this, seeing the re: mailbag, but two other examples not brought up yet:
1) Rick Derringer "Rock and Roll Hoochie Koo". I once bought a compilation album of his specifically for that song. The voice and all the parts were identical but lacking the spark, spunk and magic of the original. It wasn't hard to draw one's own conclusions and figure that a contractual issue left him void of the rights to put the original on the album. I won't question anyone's right to attempt an identical studio recreation of their own music but in that case, there should have at least been a disclaimer for the true fan, the non-music biz insider.
2) Ozzy Osbourne - His beloved first two albums were victims of an unthinkable evil worse than the subject matter in Osbourne's lyrics - an uprooting and excavation, with the bass and drums re-recorded because of a contractual dispute with the original musicians. Although the players, Robert Trujillo (now of Metallica) and Mike Bordin (Faith No More) are tremendous, it was a terrible let down to hear scab tracks. Bordin has diplomatically expressed regret loudwire.com/mike-bordin-re-recording-drums-ozzy-osbourne-albums-f-ked-up/ without naming culprits even thought it's quite obvious (a certain spouse/manager who recently lost her daytime talk show after showing her - let's call it "racial insensitivity").
Don't f—k with the original music.
Alex Skolnick,
Brooklyn
___________________________________________
I am a Taylor fan all the way and a rock and metal guy, the rest of the way, with Taylor she can Play her own instruments, write, Sing, she's the entire package, I haven't heard the whole version but what I heard of it is a matured voice, the instruments sound muffled on some tracks like today was a fairytale, the riff seems to be in the background where as on the Valentine's Day soundtrack it's very in your ears. I'm not going to completely crucify her for this, she gave us bonus content which I feel holds up and just aren't throw away songs. She sent my record store autographed cds of folklore, I was allowed to buy two, I'm going to get the cd version today and listen that way and we will see, but so far the instruments just sound buried to me.
Philip Brooks
___________________________________________
Dead right Bob.
You do it once, and move on. Like The Edge says, U2 records are never finished, they're released. Tay Tay's revisionist exercise is hubris writ large.
Brandon Gallagher
___________________________________________
The past is the past, and that's where it belongs. "Re-visiting" makes no sense to me. Don't look back, look ahead.
Craig Anderton
___________________________________________
Bob, I have to call attention to this ignorant, sexist, elitist quote from your reader Randy Scott:
First, Taylor's fans are not hard-core audio files. A 22-year-old girl, listening to an Swift album on computer speakers or earbuds, genuinely cannot tell the difference between the original album and the re-recording. And a large percentage of music listeners today, especially Taylor's fans, are exactly the same. They are not listening to her music on vinyl, through expensive sound systems to catch every bit of fidelity in the recordings. They just aren't.
A 22-year-old WOMAN (a 22-year-old is NOT a girl.....)can't tell the difference between the two recordings, but an aged male boomer can?? And someone can only truly appreciate music if they listen on vinyl......give me a break!!! This type of attitude makes me want to PUKE!
Signed,
Emily Dalton Delisi
A 34 year old woman who has listened to and appreciated ALL music in ANY format since age 7
___________________________________________
"A 22-year-old girl, listening to an (sic) Swift album on computer speakers or earbuds, genuinely cannot tell the difference between the original album and the re-recording."
Oh, thanks, Randy, for letting us all know what girls aren't capable of.
I could have at that age, no question in my mind.
I'd like to close with every profane version of "bugger off" and "STFU" ever uttered, but I'm trying to have better manners than that.
Ugh.
CK Barlow
___________________________________________
My big two on Fifteen are the title track and You Belong With Me. I get goose bumps and a little verklempt when the hooks to Fifteen come in and the bridge of You Belong With Me totally breaks me up.
The new versions not so much.
The urgency and plaintiveness are just not there. Too smooth, too polished, no angst. Her voice doesn't break or warble where it's supposed to.
They are good and I'm quite sure nobody but us music heads could tell the difference but I can hear it.
Even though I went looking for them I can say with high confidence that if I heard either tune randomly I'd notice it.
Now can't wait to hear what she does with your song Bob!
Don't quit your day dream!
Dan Millen
___________________________________________
I mostly agree with your comments. I'm of the opinion some classics probably could be improved on. Whether this should be attempted or not is something you could argue until the cows come home.
One album that immediately came to mind is Metallica's And Justice For All. While it's a classic and captured a moment in time for the band I'm sure there's more than one person that would like to hear that album with the bass added back in. Of course you're going to have people that love it exactly as it is and who believe it should not be messed with but i think it would be an intersting experiment.
Chris Xynos
___________________________________________
Did you read The New York Times' critics round table "Fearless" discussion/dissection today? I said to myself, "This is ripe for parody" but then I realized it was without changing a word.
As for the 134 IQ Nesbit Trump voter. Okay, he's smart. Therefore something else is wrong with him.
Michael Fremer
___________________________________________
Re: Rich Nisbet. For someone who clearly thinks he is one smart cookie, his command of the English language is lacking. Bob Lefsetz did not say "Everyone" who voted for Trump is ignorant. As you quoted "no different from the ignorant following Trump". Big difference.
Rick Klufas
___________________________________________
"A song I wrote is on a Grammy nominated album, my band backed Alice Cooper years ago, I know how to build a house, I've owned and operated a Life Coaching practice for 40 years, I have a wife, 3 kids and an IQ of 134. AND I voted for Trump. "
Life coach? I hope this douche is coaching an incredibly tiny team. Who brags about their IQ?
Ike Marr
___________________________________________
Rich Nisbet is a nitwit
Justin Gray
___________________________________________
Bob, it's not just the recuts that shortchange and mislead fans, it's also the faulty digital remasters of analog classics. It took three or four iterations to achieve faithful CD remastering of Motown singles. Until those were finally done right, people were buying junk. I don't know if Capitol EVER got the Beatles right.
I've shipped over 100 Discogs LP orders since I set up shop on that site last October. Practically no one buys CDs there. It's all vinyl.
Paul Lanning
___________________________________________
What's wrong with me that I find this the blandest possible pop music and find them both equally unlistenable?
The adoration of Taylor makes as much sense to me as Alec Baldwin's fawning over Barry Gibb on a recent podcast.
There's a certain amount of talent there but really it's boring as fuck.
Reminds me of my early days in the record store world, listening to managers talk about how exciting the new David Sanborn record was. Who gives a fuck? That was garbage.
catmonster
___________________________________________
Spot on Bob. I'm glad you took a stand on this. And it also brings up another huge piece of music industry B.S., and that's the underlying issue here as to whyTaylor Swift did this... she cried like a baby that she didn't own her own masters. Even one of the responders here referred to Taylor's "plight".... LOL! Taylor Swift is rich, famous and successful, in no small part because of her original label, money spent on marketing, branding, touring, major distribution and recording. She signed away her rights to the masters. There's no "plight". The only people to blame here are herself and maybe her manager if she thinks she signed a bad deal. She gave away ownership of her masters in return for a shot at the bigtime and all the aforementioned major expenditures and systems that she could not have achieved on her own. Then, once she got fame and fortune she started to cry because she didn't own it. We've seen this with a number of other big artists over the years. Many of whom I'm a huge fan of... Prince, Don Henley, etc. The list goes on. And the artists convince their fans it's the evil record companies because the contracts are one-sided. What they mean is they had to give up a lot to get a shot at the big time, then once they get it they cry foul. It's ridiculous.
Tony Shore
___________________________________________
"And I don't mean to criticize just Swift here, but people like the Weeknd too, who start off as individuals and then buy into the system to have hits"
Spot on! Well done.
Gregg Watermann
___________________________________________
Money aside, Bob, which is probably a good reason for the existence of my example, think of the original Chuck Berry sides on Chess and the later ones on Mercury. They're all good, but the originals resonate, at least to me, as great. It is, as you say, lightning in a bottle.
Mark Daterman
___________________________________________
Bob!
But what if it's better? Because it kind of is. Really excited for the rest of the new old albums that will follow.
Christian Hanson
___________________________________________
Two words: Copyright terminations.
Songwriters and artists need to learn about them and use them. See how much more willing their record labels and music publishers will be to negotiate once those are put into play.
Sam Jones
___________________________________________
Agree with Jeff Garlin - classic Bob. Spot on and thank you, it made my day. And I could fucking care less about Taylor Swift. I think the early stuff sucks too haha
Zach Steel
___________________________________________
Bob, I love your thoughts on artists re-recording their old works.
I don't know if you are a classical fan but there is an absolutely jaw-dropping example when, in 1982, piano virtuoso Glenn Gould went back and revisited a Bach piece he originally recorded in 1955, The Goldberg Variations.
Bach composed a three minute melody and then challenged himself to write 30 different variations of that melody. When Gould recorded this originally he took the classical community by storm.
You just have to listen to the first minute of each recording to hear the stark difference in interpretation.
1955, technically precise, meticulously performed, the recording that announced Gould as a major talent.
1982, so much more raw emotionally, more thoughtful, more mature. What a transformation.
This is a perfect example of an artist revisiting a previous work because they have something new to say about it. Not a money grab, not trying to restart a career, but an artist who has lived life and evolved and feels compelled to reimagine an earlier recording in a new, breathtaking way.
Thanks for the stimulating conversation and, being a musical obsessive, I hope this resonates with you.
Chuck Woodford
Denver
___________________________________________
You're absolutely right that no one can recreate their original recordings, but there's a completely different way to look at it. My wife and I grew up in The Beatles era, and then the 70's with CSN&Y, JT, Eagles, and Tom Petty. We never paid attention to Taylor Swift when she became popular. Then one night we were watching Netflix and a Bruce Springsteen special that bored us. We decided to watch the Taylor Swift Reputation concert. We were blown away by her talent. It wasn't so much the production numbers, but the solo songs with just a guitar or piano. We found out she's basically a singer-songwriter. That led us to purchase her Folklore and Evermore albums as they were released. They're excellent. Taylor Swift is a truly gifted songwriter, and at times her clever lyrics reminded us of Joni Mitchell.
So, hearing her Fearless album for the first time, when she's a better singer, is a bonus for us. Also, for a money grab, she sure packed on the value. Twenty-six songs, including half-an-album of new recordings, was a great deal for the $13.99 we paid.
Even Folklore and Evermore's total of 35 songs is really three album's worth of material for almost any other artist. The volume of her output is more like Neil Young's than her contemporaries.
Enjoy your writing, even when we just disagree.
Phil Bausch
___________________________________________
The only thing more dependable than "being screwed by big corporations" is doing something bold as a woman and knowing there will be endless men who will happily criticize you for it.
(with all due respect because I'm a big fan of lots you have to say)...my tolerance for old white dudes chiming in on women's careers and creative directions is dwindling. I'd say: less men weighing in on women's choices and more women just doing what they want in regards to reclaiming their power after being fucked over by the music industry time and time again. I am not a Taylor swift fan, but hell- my first reaction to when I read the article about her redoing those songs was feeling hopeful seeing a woman taking the power back. THAT is something to applaud. Because why not? Sure she is rich and doesn't need more money or whatever- but she is a woman who grew up in an industry run and dominated by men. As we see clearly every day, rich and famous (as a woman) doesn't get you far anyways. The shit she has gone through/swallowed to get to where she is....good for her. For me, it's less about the content of the album and more about the action behind it.
-Amelia Davis
Tacoma, WA
___________________________________________
I have to heavily disagree with you on this. As a young woman trying to pursue a career in the music industry, it's incredibly tiring and disheartening to read such an anger driven response. I don't think Swift's recordings are a matter of money, but rather sending a really important message to millions of young girls. You can argue that she signed that deal and knew full well what she was getting into, but I don't think that would be fair considering she was a teenager and most would say yes to a middle aged man offering their dreams on a silver platter. I would argue that it hurt even more because she was blindsided by a man she built an empire with. Now to you, this might just be a "moral scuffle" (which is not yours to/to not accept) and the entire industry is "caveat emptor," but I think it's that attitude that allows for these things to continue. If you're not actively fighting against it, you're enabling it. Rather than put the blame on 16 year old Swift and say that she should've been more careful, why are we not calling out the middle aged man who took advantage of her? I would like to assume you know that this practice of labels owning masters is not right. I would also like to assume you are aware that this practice is slowly starting to change. Do you really think it would've happened if big artists, like Swift, weren't speaking out about it? If she just accepted defeat, this would be a tireless cycle. Regardless of the nitty gritty and the personal issues, I go back to the argument that this is a really important message for young girls, especially those with aspirations of making it in the music industry. I know you think of this as nothing more than a money move, and maybe money does play a part, but she's still reclaiming her life's work. Accepting defeat isn't an option if equality is to ever be achieved in the industry.
And that leads me to this: with all do respect, I don't think this is something you will ever understand because you are a white man in a male dominated industry. You are not targeted, you are not undermined, and you are not taken advantage of because of your gender. If young girls see the most powerful woman in the industry reclaiming what is her's, do you not think this will have a ripple effect? Do you not think this will encourage women to speak louder? Demand better? Be braver?
As much as you are trying to pass this off as a defense of the art that is supposedly being ruined, I think you are just showing an incredibly biased opinion about Swift. Are you upset that you don't like the rerecordings as much or that you have to hear her name be praised in the media for a week?
You can have your opinions, of course. But why validate them by discrediting others? Why can't lifelong fans enjoy this process of watching their favorite artist regain ownership? Why does that make you so angry?
Swift once said there is a different language that we use for women. Men can react and women can only overreact. If you see this re-recording process as merely an overreaction to a bad deal, then I think you are part of the problem.
Best,
Gabby Romano
___________________________________________
There is something just plain wrong about a bunch of men of a certain age weighing in on anything Taylor Swift does. Read her room. Move along.
Donna Westmoreland
___________________________________________
So... I always hated her. But now that these retakes are showing up on Release Radar on Spotify I am listening to her old stuff which I was so disdainful of and realizing (again) that I was wrong and that I am judgmental, self righteous old prick. So for whatever reason she did it. I am happy. And if it makes her feel good, she is the artist, not me, not you. Lighten up Francis.
Michael Becker
___________________________________________
Spot on Bob. I'm glad you took a stand on this. And it also brings up another huge piece of music industry B.S., and that's the underlying issue here as to whyTaylor Swift did this... she cried like a baby that she didn't own her own masters. Even one of the responders here referred to Taylor's "plight".... LOL! Taylor Swift is rich, famous and successful, in no small part because of her original label, money spent on marketing, branding, touring, major distribution and recording. She signed away her rights to the masters. There's no "plight". The only people to blame here are herself and maybe her manager if she thinks she signed a bad deal. She gave away ownership of her masters in return for a shot at the bigtime and all the aforementioned major expenditures and systems that she could not have achieved on her own. Then, once she got fame and fortune she started to cry because she didn't own it. We've seen this with a number of other big artists over the years. Many of whom I'm a huge fan of... Prince, Don Henley, etc. The list goes on. And the artists convince their fans it's the evil record companies because the contracts are one-sided. What they mean is they had to give up a lot to get a shot at the big time, then once they get it they cry foul. It's ridiculous.
Tony Shore
___________________________________________
Couldn't disagree more. The tempo's are the same, the instrumentation's the same, she even made sure her vocal inflections are the same. I'm a MASSIVE fan and I can only just tell in a very few parts (unless you literally play them back-to-back). The only other re-records I've heard are Def Leppard's which are SO obvious. Taylor's approached this on a totally different level.
'Anybody can make a hit with Max Martin or Jack Antonoff', Really, Bob? This is amongst the craziest things you've ever written. I can't believe you really think that.
And you're missing the point in why she's doing it. It has nothing to do with $. She feels incredibly fucked over by Borchetta. This is one of music's biggest 'FUCK YOU's of all time! And it's beautiful to see! (Yes Borchetta didn't do anything illegal - but that's not the point - he could have sold the masters to her and he didn't out of spite, then sold it to one of her biggest enemies!)
Swift won! She's got the world focused on her without even having to write new songs! She dominated last year and now she's going to dominate at least the next 18 months while she re-releases the next five re-records.
I love your writing and I often wonder if it really is because of the 'mean' issue that you have such a blind spot for the greatest artist and music marketer of this generation. It's not too late to get back on team Swift - history will only keep proving her right.
All the best,
John Paterson
___________________________________________
Bob, I gotta weigh in on this. I haven't listened to this, but my understanding is that, besides the bonus material, the majority of the re released songs are very similar to the originals, correct? What about the producer of the original record, Nathan Chapman? Does he receive any credit?
I played on one song on the original, You're Not Sorry. Nathan came to my studio and wanted a different sound and feel for the guitars on that song. But I really just re played his ideas with a slightly different sound. He or anyone else could have easily done the part, i think he just wanted to get out of his head for a minute and hear someone else play. I also played slide one other song, I don't remember the title, but my part (as usual) was "too bluesy" and he didn't use it.
So, I was around a bit while Nathan was making that record, and I'm friends with the other musicians that played on it, all wonderful and talented people.
Here's my point, Nathan deserve a lot of credit for making those first two records, he helped her find her sound and direction, and was smart enough to let it be about her voice and the songs. I know he put a lot of blood sweat and tears into getting that record right, and he's a great arranger.
So, if Taylor is re creating the original arrangements, man, I hope Nathan is being taken care of. Maybe he is, but in this era of very little credits available on itunes or Spotify, I can only hope so.
Best,
Kenny Greenberg
___________________________________________
Dear Bob,
I know you know this, but I co-produced Taylor Swift's debut album, and the EP that followed.
When I saw the title of your email "Fearless-Taylor's Version" I thought, as a longtime reader, (and even with your early TS criticism) that you would come out on the side of the artist, the side of the creator. The woman that wants to own, publish and license her Masters for the rest of her life.
What if you're focusing on the wrong things? Just because the majority of the press gets to focus on the "new version vs. the old" (who cares?), how it's "is it exactly the same" (and it isn't, but so what?) and the money (the fans don't care), you Bob, do not! Because you see all sides. You know how many people listen to you! That's what you do. Take another look. (And btw, please do not ever mention again "trump" in an essay about an artist, ok?)
"Fearless-Taylor's Version" is great. And it would be, even if there was never a first TS album called "Fearless".
It's great because the songs are great, the musicianship is great, the vocals are great. But the press focus has been comparing it to another album from a different time.
I'm not saying it is worse or even better (Daily Beast: "while different from its original, the difference is still clear and the passion behind it palpable"), regardless it's a pure
Yes this record is going to be huge. And that will continue when she re-records the rest, including her debut album. And my producer points (and my co-producer as well) fade away. So what?
The important thing is that she has control over what she created.
There are no italics in emails so I'll say it again: She has control over what she created. She CREATED it.
She doesn't need to file a lawsuit because she doesn't need to. She took matters into her own hands.
There are billions made off the minds of others. There are countless companies (who employ countless people in countless buildings) who profit from some thing that comes from the mind of one person who knows how to take a whisper and turn it into gold.
Swift is one of those alchemists who deserve a second thought, and you are a thinker.
Best always,
Robert Ellis Orrall
--
Visit the archive: lefsetz.com/wordpress/
--
Listen to the podcast:
-iHeart: ihr.fm/2Gi5PFj
-Apple: apple.co/2ndmpvp
--
www.twitter.com/lefsetz
--
If you would like to subscribe to the LefsetzLetter,
www.lefsetz.com/lists/?p=subscribe&id=1
If you do not want to receive any more LefsetzLetters, Unsubscribe
To change your email address this link
No comments:
Post a Comment