Pete Murray would prefer it if you didn’t stream one of his biggest hits.
The Australian artist has spent over two decades in the music business, and his popular track “Better Days” stands out as one of his most well-known tunes.
But recently, he announced that he’d prefer fans not to play the original song, because he has a new version available.
Pulling a Swiftie here
In April,
Murray shared the news on social platforms.
He announced the release of a new edition of “Better Days” (Pete’s Version) and mentioned that he had become an independent artist instead of being signed with a record label.
“You might not be aware that I don’t actually own a lot of my older, classic songs,” he wrote.
I think it’s crucial for every artist to have ownership of their recordings, which is why I’ll be launching a series called ‘Pete’sVersions.’ This will feature new renditions of some of my most popular tracks set to release over the next few years.
Does this sound familiar? Re-recording and releasing updated versions of their music isn’t an unusual practice for musicians.
Taylor Swift’s re-recording project
One of the most prominent instances of this can be seen here. Many artists have felt encouraged to emulate her approach.
“Murray comments, ‘Taylor pulled it off, and I thought to myself, “That’s how you get things done.”‘”
Swift paves the way
In 2019, Swift’s previous record company, Big Machine Records,
stated that the firm had been purchased by Scooter Braun’s Ithica Holdings business
.
This agreement ignited years of debate regarding the rights of musicians concerning ownership of their creations.
Swift, among the globe’s premier pop celebrities, swiftly voiced her displeasure regarding the decision since it resulted in her initial recordings being transferred to Braun.
Scooter has taken away everything I’ve built, which I never had the chance to purchase. In essence, my musical heritage will soon be controlled by someone who attempted to destroy it.
she wrote
In an extensive post on Tumblr.
In 2018, Swift departed from Big Machine Records and entered into an agreement with Republic Records, which is part of Universal Music Group, alongside a pact with Taylor Swift Productions.
After her highly publicized feud with Braun, Swift started unveiling remastered editions of her first six albums. She labeled these new releases as “Taylor’s Version,” allowing supporters to back Swift and contribute to her initiative for re-recording her music catalogue.
This action has been seen by music journalist Nic Kelly as empowering Taylor Swift’s fan base to rally in her defense.
This is a very simple way for these fans to engage in activism. They aren’t concerned with the record label; their focus is on supporting the artist.
Re-recording their music to regain control isn’t new, despite feeling contemporary;Swift wasn’t the pioneer of this approach.
Early risk
In the 1950s, The Everly Brothers achieved superstar status, releasing two studio albums under Cadence Records. However, once their contract ended in 1960, they departed from Cadence and joined Warner Brothers Records instead.
This agreement, valued at $1 million, stood as the largest recording contract in musical history up until that point.
With Warner Records, the Everly Brothers issued a studio compilation in 1964 titled ‘The Very Best of The Everly Brothers.’ This collection featured both their recent hits produced for Warner as well as new recordings of their previous successes that were initially released through Cadence Records.
From a legal standpoint, they faced no restrictions on re-recording their music. This led to newer renditions of their popular tracks going head-to-head against their initial two albums, which were controlled by Cadence Records. Struggling to keep up with this competition, the record label ultimately shut down operations in 1964.
As a result, the potential for artists to re-record their past hits came to light, leading to the quick inclusion of provisions in agreements designed to prevent such occurrences moving forward.
A re-record loophole
How can contemporary artists such as Swift and Murray remaster their earlier works if they do not hold ownership of the master recordings?
Joshua Yuvaraj, a senior law lecturer from the University of Auckland, indicates that it’s complex.
For musicians such as Swift and Murray, who compose their own material, the situation often hinges on the ownership of the master recordings for the initial works, along with the rights to the compositions themselves.
There are two distinct types of copyright… One applies when the musician composes the song.
“However, there is also a copyright for the recording when the song is produced in the studio with the artist, the producers, and so forth,” states Yuvaraj.
The owner of the master is usually the record label, whereas the composition (the melody and lyrics) has separate copyright protection.
Murray understands this legal intricacy thoroughly, and had to endure a waiting period of five years following the conclusion of his contract before he could begin re-recording and re-releasing his initial tracks.
The agreement with my record label was made about 20 years back… It wasn’t the best deal for me, but they were fantastic at the time and it kick-started my career.
The agreement Murray entered into almost two decades ago resulted in his record label owning his master recordings.
This indicated that the master recordings were financed by the label, which left Murray indebted to the record company. As a result, his whole contract went towards settling this financial obligation.
He understood that to make sufficient funds to meet these expenses, he had to continue his tour schedule.
I reached a stage where I had to contact my agent and tell them, ‘I require an increased budget; schedule more performances for me.’
He mentions, ‘I realized that if I didn’t alter this situation soon, it would consume the remainder of my life,’.
Today, he receives modest royalties from those works, yet he remains without ownership of them.
That was difficult to come to terms with… I simply felt ‘This isn’t quite a fair arrangement’.
Fighting for fair
Journalist Nic Kelly states that the attention surrounding artists making a stance has led to alterations.
There is a significant trend toward artists maintaining their independence, keeping control over how they are seen and presented, as well as managing their own marketing.
He mentions that traditionally, numerous recording agreements featured substantial revenue shares going to the labels rather than the musicians.
Much of it—the cut—can amount to about 85 percent… yet it doesn’t seem as though the record label puts in 85 percent of the effort.
He mentions that the portion taken by these record labels from certain agreements is huge and seems unjustified.
Recently, numerous renowned artists have shared chilling tales of their experiences with record labels.
When Chappell Roan secured her inaugural Grammy Award for Best New Artist earlier this year, she seized the moment to advocate for improved work environments for up-and-coming artists.
She stated that she would insist labels in the industry, which profit millions from artists, should provide a livable wage and healthcare, particularly for emerging artists.
Joshua Yuvaraj states that although there are evident systematic problems within the sector, he thinks constructive conversation is essential.
He states, ‘While we shouldn’t vilify these recording companies and streaming platforms that play crucial roles in the creative industry, it’s equally important to ensure that artists receive proper support.’
Record companies hit back
In light of numerous prominent instances of re-recording cropping up recently, several record companies have taken action in response.
It was reported
In 2023, Universal Music Group, Sony Music Entertainment, and Warner Music Group began revamping their agreements with emerging artists.
The modifications to the agreements apparently entailed extended durations before rerecording could occur, with certain limits supposedly reaching as long as three decades.
Kelly isn’t surprised.
This indicates that they are certainly experiencing the effects of these re-recordings and the resulting loss of income.
He states that this reveals the more profound rifts between certain musicians and recording companies.
This larger question arises for me: ‘What motivates artists to re-record their music?’ The responsibility lies with both the artist’s team and record labels to address this.
The record label needs to generate income in order to reinvest and nurture emerging artists.
I believe this is a solid ecosystem, however, it needs to be equitable for all individuals.
Murray thinks there’s ample opportunity for enhancement throughout the music sector. He questions, “Over the years, how many musicians have attempted to take legal action against their record labels to escape agreements they found oppressive?”
He hopes he could have offered his younger self some guidance.
I think it’s important for you to have ownership of your master… since you maintain control over it and possess it.
Nobody can snatch it away from you.
He states that if labels opt for more equitable agreements, the outcomes in the long run will prove advantageous.
If you take care of artists, they’ll want to stick around and collaborate with you… I believe this is crucial.