1.8 C
London
Thursday, December 2, 2021

Taylor Swift fights to get rid of the suit




During a quarrel with his record company in the 1990s, Prince wrote the famous “slave” on his face and declared: “If you don’t own your master, they will own you.”

When he tried to control his work, he threatened to make a new copy of his “master” or original song recording, among other strategies. It took two decades, but in the end, Warner Records ceded control to him.

Taylor Swift launched an equally fierce scorched earth war against the private equity funds that own her parent company. It seems that in this case, the pop star will win the battle with the suit.

According to people who have worked with them, the Los Angeles investment fund Clover, founded by the Disney family in 1978, is usually shrewd and meticulous. But Shamrock made a major mistake when agreeing to buy the old master of Swift for $300 million: her promise of revenge.

To recap: Swift fell out with Scott Borchetta, who “spotted” her executive at a bar in Nashville. Borchetta sold Big Machine, the company that owned her owner, to Kanye West’s former manager, Scooter Braun.

Swift was furious at the news of the sale, claiming that it “deprived her” of her life’s work. She announced plans to re-record all the albums they purchased. “This is something I’m very excited about,” the singer smiled brightly with her signature deadly red lipstick. Tell ABC’s morning show When fans are screaming in the background. Unsurprisingly, Braun and private equity supporters including Carlyle will soon want to withdraw from the investment.

According to three persons close to the acquisition of assets, they told potential acquirers when they went around the procurement master that Swift might not really implement her threat, and the publicity caused by her anger would only promote listening to the old catalog. .

“The message to be conveyed is: The controversy is huge for us. Every time she lets us light up on the Internet, people will listen to those songs,” one of the people said. This tone sounds reasonable. After all, will pop stars currently on the charts spend years recreating works from decades ago?

It turns out that Swift’s above-average determination opened one of the most interesting experiments in the history of modern music. One of the most commercially successful artists of the past decade is painstakingly copying her first six albums. There are examples of famous artists recording new copies of their songs, such as Frank Sinatra and Def Leppard. But these cases happened before the era of streaming media. The new version of Swift is now juxtaposed with private equity-owned tracks on people’s phones.

This week, Swift will release her second re-recorded album, which is a copy of the 2012 breakup song Red. It is not clear how much impact the re-recording of the old album like this will have on Shamrock’s $300 million investment. According to people familiar with the matter, if the asset reaches certain targets, the price includes the proceeds paid to Braun and Carlyle. Excluding revenue, the price is close to $250 million.

According to people with knowledge of its finances, the Swift catalog generates approximately $15 in annual revenue. Therefore, Shamrock’s $250 million price is equivalent to 16 or 17 times its historical revenue.

Its long-term value is not only weakened by Swift, but also by her powerful record company Universal.The activity is Red (Taylor version) Covers merchandise collections, autumn TikTok filters, talk shows, and Starbucks promotional lattes sold in stores from Seoul to Mexico City.

Swift’s diligent fan posting Detailed tutorial To prevent tracks owned by Clover from accidentally appearing on their Spotify feed. As the songwriter of her music, Swift can choose to authorize the new version for use in movies and advertisements.

Swift released a new copy of her 2018 album earlier this year FearlessAccording to MRC data, after the initial surge, it is still better than the old version.new Fearless In the week of October 21, it was played 9 million times, compared to the old 6 million times.

“To get the most value from the music assets you absolutely need, if you don’t have the cooperation of artists, you at least need them not to take the initiative to get angry,” concluded a fund manager who bought through the catalog.

anna.nicolaou@ft.com






- Advertisement -spot_img
Latest news
- Advertisement -
Related news
- Advertisement -

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here