OPINION: I don’t care about “Taylor’s version” and neither should you

By Violet Bouwes-van Nood ‘23

Photo by Violet Bouwes-van Nood

Picture this, it’s a random Thursday afternoon, you open Instagram, and BAM! Every single story is reposting the latest “Taylor’s version” release. I am a hardcore Swiftie (Taylor Swift fan), I have her posters on my walls, I own her music on vinyl and CD, and I know the words to all her songs, but what sets me apart is none of my playlists have “Taylor’s version” of her songs. I don’t think your playlist needs them either. 

“Taylor’s version” means that Taylor Swift owns the masters to that song. Masters are the right to the revenue or royalties that a recording gets when it is streamed online or when the physical version is sold in stores. It also gives the right to decide how it gets used, such as in films or TV shows. 

In 2005, Swift signed a contract with Big Machine Records, giving them ownership of masters to her music. Later, in 2019, it was announced that Scooter Bruan, manager of Kanye West, would be purchasing Big Machine Records. West has had a long feuding history with Swift, starting in 2009 after West interrupted Swift’s acceptance speech. 

This rivalry contributed to Swift’s outrage when learning Braun would be buying her recording company. She took to Tumblr, stating, “For years I asked, pleaded for a chance to own my work. Instead, I was given an opportunity to sign back up to Big Machine Records and ‘earn’ one album back at a time, one for every new one I turned in.”

Swift left Big Machine Records, signing to a new label under which she has released four new albums. She has also released the re-recordings of four of her older albums. Now, however, she owns the masters to these recordings. 

So shouldn’t you switch all the songs in your playlist to keep money out of the pockets of “thieving” Scooter Braun and support the actual artist of the music? My answer is no. 

“She still makes money off her original recordings,” said senior Abby Fisher. Masters are different from publishing rights, because Swift is credited as the artist and songwriter on her original songs she is still able to make money off these albums, so listening to the original version of the song still benefits Swift.

Fisher has been a Taylor Swift fan since she was three years old, though she was originally excited about the re-recordings, her feelings have since changed.

“I think the reason why she has been re-recording has become distorted in recent years,” stated Fisher. 

Even before the release of 1989 (Taylor’s version), Swift was estimated to make 8.5 million dollars a month just from the Spotify royalties of her re-recordings. However, it’s not just the royalties that she has been profiting from. With each re-recording more and more merch has been released. 

For the 1989 re-recording, there were 11 different physical versions to buy, including vinyls, CDs, and even tapes. “It’s clearly just for money,” said an anonymous Swiftie (who wished to remain unnamed due to the controversial nature of this claim). “No one needs like 30 versions of the same album.” 

“With Fearless (Taylor’s version), which was her first re-recording, it captures how she was taking back her albums, it seemed like she was really doing it for herself,” said Fisher. “But now with each re-recording, she’s just hyping it up more and more.” Fisher went on to state it feels like it is now more about releasing as much as possible, whether it’s music she doesn’t have put much work into or more merch. 

Swift is a money-making machine. Her recent tour, The Eras Tour, has made 2.2 billion dollars in the first leg alone, making it the highest-grossing tour of all time. Swift’s net worth is estimated to be 1.1 billion dollars. So, does she really need the extra money she is getting from owning the master for her re-recordings? 

Still, some argue it’s about more than just money.

“I think it’s more morally correct to listen to the re-recordings because she has ownership of them,” said senior Oliver Chally. Chally has only recently become a fan of Swift, starting around 2021. However, he has been to two of her concerts and owns countless amounts of her merch already.

This is a claim that many Swifties make, often referring to her original recordings as “stolen version.” They make the point that an artist should be able to have ownership of their intellectual property.

Swift, however, is not the lone artist who doesn’t own her masters, in fact, it’s quite common. Some notable artists include Drake, Katy Perry, and Bruno Mars. Bruce Springsteen, Tina Turner, Stevie Knicks, and Neil Young even sold the masters to their music. In some cases, artists can make more money if they don’t own the masters of their music.

In short, it doesn’t matter if you listen to “Taylor’s version” or not. They are the work that she owns the masters to, however, don’t feel a need to replace all your music. The version you listen to won’t affect you or Swift in any dramatic way. 

Swift sums up my feelings about her re-recordings perfectly in a lyric from the first track of her seventh album, “It isn’t love, it isn’t hate, it’s just indifference.”