Following Taylor Swift's re-recording project, musicians are reclaiming their work

Australia Broadcast Center

24-05-2025

Pete Murray would prefer it if you didn't stream one of his biggest hits.
The Australian musician has been in the industry for more than 20 years, and his hit single Better Days is one of his most recognisable songs.
But recently, he announced that he'd prefer fans not to play the original song, because he has a new version available.
In April, Murray announced on social media that he was releasing a new version of Better Days (Pete's Version), and that he was now an independent artist, rather than signed to a label.
"You might not be aware that I don't actually own a lot of my older, classic songs," he wrote.
"I believe it's important for all artists to own their own recordings, and so this is the first of a series of 'Pete's Versions' of some of my biggest songs that I'll be releasing in the coming years."
Sound familiar? Musicians re-recording and releasing new versions of their work isn't new.
Taylor Swift's re-recording project is one of the most well-known examples of this. And many musicians have been emboldened to follow her lead.
"Taylor did it and I was thinking, 'Wow, that's how you do it,'" Murray says.
In 2019, Swift's former label, Big Machine Records, announced that the company had been acquired by businessman Scooter Braun's Ithica Holdings.
This deal sparked years of discourse about the rights of musicians when it comes to owning their work.
Swift, one of the world's biggest pop stars, was quick to express her anger over the move as it meant her original masters were sold to Braun.
"Scooter has stripped me of my life's work, that I wasn't given an opportunity to buy. Essentially, my musical legacy is about to lie in the hands of someone who tried to dismantle it," she wrote in a lengthy statement on Tumblr.
Swift left Big Machine Records in 2018 and signed to Republic Records, owned by Universal Music, in a joint deal with Taylor Swift Productions.
Following the public battle with Braun, Swift began releasing re-recorded versions of her six previous albums. These new albums were identified as 'Taylor's Version', so fans could support Swift and the purpose of her re-recording project.
It's a move that music journalist Nic Kelly says empowered Swift's fans to protest on her behalf.
Musicians re-recording their work in a bid to claim ownership back feels modern, but Swift wasn't the first.
The Everly Brothers were superstars in the 1950s, and the duo had two studio albums with Cadence Records. But when their contract expired in 1960, they left and were signed to Warner Brothers Records.
The deal, worth US$1 million, was the biggest record deal in music history at the time.
Under Warner, the Everly Brothers released a studio album in 1964, The Very Best of The Everly Brothers, which included not only their hits recorded under Warner, but re-recorded versions of their earlier hits originally released with Cadence.
Legally, there was no restriction on them re-recording. And it meant the re-recorded versions of their hit songs were competing with their first two records owned by Cadence. The label struggled to compete and eventually closed in 1964.
Thanks to this, the risk of artists re-recording their old songs was identified, and soon clauses were added to contracts to avoid this happening in the future.
So how can musicians today, like Swift and Murray, re-record their previous work if they don't own the masters?
Joshua Yuvaraj, a senior law lecturer at the University of Auckland, says it's complicated.
For artists like Swift and Murray, who write their own music, it can come down to who owns the master recording of the original work, and who owns the copyright to the song.
"There are two different copyrights … One is when the artist writes the song, there is a copyright applied to that.
"But there's also a copyright in the recording when the song is made in the studio with the artist, the producers and so on," Yuvaraj says.
The master is often owned by the recording label, while the composition (melody and lyrics) is copyrighted separately.
Murray knows this law all too well, and he was forced to wait five years after his contract ended before he could start re-recording and re-releasing his earlier songs.
The deal Murray signed nearly 20 years ago meant his record label owns his masters.
It meant the masters recording was paid for by the label, and it put Murray into debt with the record company that took his entire contract to pay back.
He realised that in order to earn enough money to cover those costs, he would need to keep touring.
"I was at a point where I'd have to call my agent and say 'I need more money, book me more shows'.
"I thought, 'If I don't change this soon, I'm going to be doing this for the rest of my life'," he says.
He does receive small royalties from those masters today, but he still doesn't own them.
"That was the hard thing to accept … I just thought 'It's not really a fair deal'."
Journalist Nick Kelly says the publicity around artists taking a stand has prompted change.
"We are seeing a massive shift towards artists retaining their independence, retaining ownership of an autonomy over the way they're perceived, and the way that they are marketed.
He says that historically many recording contracts included large profit cuts for the label and not the musician.
"A lot of it [the cut] can be 85 per cent … and it doesn't feel like the record label does 85 per cent of the work.
"The cut these record labels take from some of these deals is enormous and doesn't feel justifiable," he says.
In recent years, more well-known musicians have come forward with their record label horror stories.
When Chappell Roan won her first-ever Grammy award for best new artist earlier this year, she took the opportunity to campaign for better working conditions for emerging musicians.
"I would demand that labels in the industry profiting millions of dollars off of artists would offer a liveable wage and health care, especially to developing artists," she said.
Joshua Yuvaraj says while there are clearly systemic issues within the industry, he believes healthy dialogue is crucial.
"Without demonising these record companies and streaming companies that do play vital roles in the creative ecosystem, we also need to acknowledge that artists need to be taken care of," he says.
With more high-profile cases of re-recording occurring in recent years, some record companies have responded.
It was reported in 2023 that major labels such as Universal Music Group, Sony Music Entertainment and Warner Music Group were overhauling their contracts for new artists.
These updates to contracts allegedly included longer periods before re-recording would be allowed, with some timeframes reportedly up to 30 years.
Kelly isn't surprised.
"It shows that they're definitely feeling the impacts of these re-recordings and loss of income."
He says it reflects the deeper wounds between some artists and record labels.
"It raises the bigger question for me of, 'Why do artists want to re-record in the first place?' and that onus comes down to the communication between artist teams and record labels.
"The label does need to make money, so they can re-invest into developing new talent.
"I think that's a good ecosystem, but it should be fair for everyone."
Murray believes there's room for improvement across the music industry. "How many artists have tried to sue the record label over years of trying to get out of deals because the deals have been terrible?" he says.
He wishes he could have given his younger self some advice.
"I believe that you should own your master … because you control it and you own it.
"No one can take it from you."
He says if labels prioritise fairer deals, the long-term results will be beneficial.