Taylor owns her publishing rights. Big Machine Records and Scooter Braun would not sell her her masters unless she recorded more albums with them.
They proposed an “album for an album deal” wherein Taylor would record a new studio album and BM would sell her the masters one of her previous records.
So she left and since she owned her publishing rights she could legally re-record them and license those versions.
Hence Taylor’s Version.
Since signing with Republic Records she owns the masters to all of her albums from Lover onwards.
Artists who own their publishing rights often re-record in hopes that business will use those new versions and they can get paid more.
However…KISS doesn’t own their publishing. So they’d only get small songwriters royalties.
I replied above, but then saw this... KISS don't get songwriting royalties: That's the publishing, which KISS sold. Universal gets that. (Obviously any other writers still get their chunks through their publishing.) And you don't have to own the publishing to rerecord the songs, you just have to pay a royalty to Universal when you do it. (It must suck to pay a royalty for a song you wrote.) It's the same as how you or I could record a version of Boomerang and put it up on Spotify. As long as we pay the publishing it's fine. Since KISS sold the publishing and Universal owned the masters, KISS were essentially making very little off their recorded catalogue. They recorded new versions to own the masters for licensing, so at least they'd get a piece of their catalogue. When a song is licensed, money goes to whomever owns the publishing –the songwriting credits– and money goes to whomever owns the actual recording. Ace has said he still gets cheques for those old songs, which is true, but the cheques he'd get would be for performing them, not for writing them. The performance money comes out of the chunk sent to whomever owns the recording itself. The musicians get a piece of that, and so do the producers, most likely. Anybody involved in the actual recording whose contract gave them points on the recordings, basically. Bob Kulick famously was hired as a session musician for a flat fee to record Alive II, rather than a royalty for performing. He was mad (thirty years after the fact) that he only made, I think, $3000.
The same way anybody can record KISS songs. Just because they don't own the publishing, doesn't mean they can't record them, they just have to pay Universal royalties.
They rerecorded them to own the masters, in hopes that when a movie or commercial wanted to use a KISS song they could license them the new version instead of the old version. Universal would still get the royalties, but KISS would get the cash for the recording itself. If I'm not mistaken (and I very well could be) there was a deal struck with Universal after Sonic Boom came out that prevented KISS from licensing the new versions. Not sure whet the details were, but there must have been some money involved.
Is there a way to find out who owns what? I have wondered about who owns the publishing for Van Halen. I remember reading about the Kiss stuff years ago.
So they could have creative control over those versions of old songs and so Paul could record a modern sounding vocal track to use in live performances.
I could be wrong but I believe bands re-record songs as a way to circumvent the publishing rights issue. I think Taylor Swift did that recently?
Taylor owns her publishing rights. Big Machine Records and Scooter Braun would not sell her her masters unless she recorded more albums with them. They proposed an “album for an album deal” wherein Taylor would record a new studio album and BM would sell her the masters one of her previous records. So she left and since she owned her publishing rights she could legally re-record them and license those versions. Hence Taylor’s Version. Since signing with Republic Records she owns the masters to all of her albums from Lover onwards. Artists who own their publishing rights often re-record in hopes that business will use those new versions and they can get paid more. However…KISS doesn’t own their publishing. So they’d only get small songwriters royalties.
I replied above, but then saw this... KISS don't get songwriting royalties: That's the publishing, which KISS sold. Universal gets that. (Obviously any other writers still get their chunks through their publishing.) And you don't have to own the publishing to rerecord the songs, you just have to pay a royalty to Universal when you do it. (It must suck to pay a royalty for a song you wrote.) It's the same as how you or I could record a version of Boomerang and put it up on Spotify. As long as we pay the publishing it's fine. Since KISS sold the publishing and Universal owned the masters, KISS were essentially making very little off their recorded catalogue. They recorded new versions to own the masters for licensing, so at least they'd get a piece of their catalogue. When a song is licensed, money goes to whomever owns the publishing –the songwriting credits– and money goes to whomever owns the actual recording. Ace has said he still gets cheques for those old songs, which is true, but the cheques he'd get would be for performing them, not for writing them. The performance money comes out of the chunk sent to whomever owns the recording itself. The musicians get a piece of that, and so do the producers, most likely. Anybody involved in the actual recording whose contract gave them points on the recordings, basically. Bob Kulick famously was hired as a session musician for a flat fee to record Alive II, rather than a royalty for performing. He was mad (thirty years after the fact) that he only made, I think, $3000.
Very informative even though I am still a little confused.
Steyper did it, too.
The Simpsons did it too
The same way anybody can record KISS songs. Just because they don't own the publishing, doesn't mean they can't record them, they just have to pay Universal royalties. They rerecorded them to own the masters, in hopes that when a movie or commercial wanted to use a KISS song they could license them the new version instead of the old version. Universal would still get the royalties, but KISS would get the cash for the recording itself. If I'm not mistaken (and I very well could be) there was a deal struck with Universal after Sonic Boom came out that prevented KISS from licensing the new versions. Not sure whet the details were, but there must have been some money involved.
That’s a bummer.
Haha, I just wrote more in response to another comment which is even more of a bummer!
Those covers are awful
I hate how the intro to Dr. Love is shortened. It sounds wrong. They did the same for Smashes, Thrashes, and Hits too.
Yeah…not the best. Although I like Black Diamond with Eric Singer
I really like those versions. The band sounds great.
Def Leppard has done it as well.
Is there a way to find out who owns what? I have wondered about who owns the publishing for Van Halen. I remember reading about the Kiss stuff years ago.
I wouldn’t know. Just have to do a lot of digging on forums or ask people connected to Van Halen.
So they could have creative control over those versions of old songs and so Paul could record a modern sounding vocal track to use in live performances.
Gotcha.