Will Taylor Swift’s re-recorded albums set a precedent for the music industry?

Taylor Swift has released Fearless (Taylor’s Version), a re-recorded, 26-track monolith comprising mostly new versions of songs from her original 2008 album (a few are from her “vault”). It’s the first of six, after her masters (the final mix of the album from which all copies are made) were sold to music manager Scooter Braun and then to an investment company in 2020.

Swift has been vocally, vehemently opposed to the sale of her music, accusing Braun of bullying her for years, and making a passionate case for why artists should have first choice over who owns their work.

While re-recorded albums are not a new idea, the success of Swift’s efforts could plant a seed, encouraging other artists to set out their own attempts. Of course, the business of re-recording an album is not simple. Most record deals include clauses that prevent the artist from re-recording for anything between three and seven years after the original release. The artist also has to own the publishing rights to their songs (meaning they wrote the songs themselves) or else fork out in order to get permission from the original songwriter.

However, say the cards fall in the artist’s favour: they wrote the songs themselves and enough time has passed that the re-recording restrictions in their contract have expired. Various factors might motivate them to re-record, from label disputes to dissatisfaction with the sound of the originals. Money, of course, is another motivation, although the process of re-recording would likely be a costly venture in itself.

For fans, it presents something of a dilemma. They might prefer the original songs, but by re-recording them the artist is implying they’d prefer people to listen to the new versions. This doesn’t seem to be an issue for Swift: her fans are currently encouraging each other to “bury” the original Fearless album on streaming services, while reviews to date have praised her for managing to make Fearless (Taylor’s Version) sound astonishingly similar.

Sceptics may also question whether this could unleash a torrent of artists producing sub-par re-recordings just to cash in a little extra from their fans, or else start revisiting music that should be left as it is. If a precedent is set, that musicians should “polish” albums to work out any perceived imperfections, could that distract them from making brand new art? It seems unlikely; Swift’s situation was extraordinary. Instead, the fact that her battle over the rights to her work played out so publicly should hopefully serve as a warning to any grasping industry executives.   

Yours,

Roisin O’Connor

Music correspondent