Jump to content
jj200

2020 headliners

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, circus92 said:

Agreed on this - should be minimum 1 guitar band

After a quick check it seems that other than 2009 (Bruce Spingsteen, Neil young and Blur), two of the three haven't been solo artists since the early 90s. I can't work out if there's ever been three solo artists because the shitty article I'm reading gets a bit hazy pre 1990

Conclusion: there will be at least one band!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, zak14 said:

Taylor Swift has just posted this on Facebook 

https://m.facebook.com/notes/taylor-swift/dont-know-what-else-to-do/10156631338812023/

 

very interesting she mentions not being able to perform her old songs for recorded events until November 2020, will this be a dealbreaker for Glastonbury if she cannot get it sorted?

It's only a dealbreaker if she wants it to be.

There's absolutely no obligation on a Glastonbury headliner to allow their set to be broadcast. Most of them will do so enthusiastically, as doing so is basically giving them a free 60+ minute advert on prime time BBC and (usually) great looking footage that they can use worldwide - that being the main compensation that they're usually getting 10-25% of what they'd expect to be paid elsewhere.

It's entirely possible that if she really wanted to play, she could do so without TV coverage. Or only allowed coverage of the songs she has copyright on.

Aside from all that, I've got no idea if the fact that it's UK TV will change anything, as different copyright laws apply here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, incident said:

It's only a dealbreaker if she wants it to be.

There's absolutely no obligation on a Glastonbury headliner to allow their set to be broadcast. Most of them will do so enthusiastically, as doing so is basically giving them a free 60+ minute advert on prime time BBC and (usually) great looking footage that they can use worldwide - that being the main compensation that they're usually getting 10-25% of what they'd expect to be paid elsewhere.

It's entirely possible that if she really wanted to play, she could do so without TV coverage. Or only allowed coverage of the songs she has copyright on.

Aside from all that, I've got no idea if the fact that it's UK TV will change anything, as different copyright laws apply here.

Not entirely sure how it would work either as bands do cover versions on Glastonbury TV coverage, without seeking permission etc, so how can you police her doing those songs?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, strummer77 said:

Not entirely sure how it would work either as bands do cover versions on Glastonbury TV coverage, without seeking permission etc, so how can you police her doing those songs?

I guess - the difference being that we're talking about old songs she intends to re-record and re-release to try and reclaim the rights to.

Whereas a cover version nobody is (re)claiming the rights.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, incident said:

I guess - the difference being that we're talking about old songs she intends to re-record and re-release to try and reclaim the rights to.

Whereas a cover version nobody is (re)claiming the rights.

I’m putting a hex or a curse on Scooter Braun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First I've heard of this Scott and Scooter thing. So did they buy copyright to her early music? If so which albums?

Can you ban an artist from performing a song live when bands cover stuff all the time? Could she just say it was a cover of a Taylor Swift song as a work around (as ridiculous as it sounds)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, a6l6e6x said:

First I've heard of this Scott and Scooter thing. So did they buy copyright to her early music? If so which albums?

Can you ban an artist from performing a song live when bands cover stuff all the time? Could she just say it was a cover of a Taylor Swift song as a work around (as ridiculous as it sounds)

Not just her early music - pretty much everything!  They now own the the rights to her first 6 albums - Lover is the first Album under her new contract.  Scott owned Big Machine Records which has been her label from the start and he has just sold out to Scooter Braun.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, a6l6e6x said:

First I've heard of this Scott and Scooter thing. So did they buy copyright to her early music? If so which albums?

Can you ban an artist from performing a song live when bands cover stuff all the time? Could she just say it was a cover of a Taylor Swift song as a work around (as ridiculous as it sounds)

American copyright law is very complicated. There's a distinction between the recorded works, live performances, and broadcasting rights.

Taylor's old record label Big Red Machine sold the recorded rights (the masters) of all of her music up through and including Reputation (everything except her new album Lover). The new owner of Taylor's music is a group of rich people/investors spearheaded by Scooter Braun, the manager of Justin Bieber and Ariana Grande, among other big acts. Side-note, but very important context, is that Taylor has long claimed that Scooter Braun has persistently bullied her over the course of many years. Google Taylor Swift Scooter Braun to learn more.

But back to copyright. Anyone can PERFORM any song at a concert without permission. However, broadcasting falls into a whole separate category of US rights law. So if Taylor told Glastonbury to shut off the broadcast feed during her set, she would be in the clear. Clearly, however, that is not ideal.

Taylor is furious that her arch nemesis now owns her music. It's her worst dreams come true.

Remember how I said that Scooter Braun owns the masters to her old music? A master is a literal recording. It's a static, non-changing audio file, for lack of a better description. One way that Taylor could get some power back in this situation, and something that she's been rumored to be planning to do, is re-record her old songs.  She would then own the rights to the re-recorded songs, and she could sell them, broadcast them, etc. She is legally allowed to do this. It would create a fascinating scenario where Spotify, iTunes, etc. would have 2 versions of all of Taylor Swift's old songs. Scooter Braun does not want this to happen, because Taylor would tell all of her fans to only purchase and stream the new version, not the old versions. Scooter Braun bought Taylor Swift's old masters because he wants to make money, and Taylor Swift re-recording her old music is a threat to that.

(Quick side note. The law that governs re-recording old music is complicated. I also don't know what Taylor's contracts with her old record label say. It might or might not be the case that if Taylor re-recorded her old music, she would have to make it different enough such that a court decides it is it's own piece of work, rather than derivative of the original.)

As Taylor notes in her open letter, she wants to use some of her old music in an upcoming Netflix documentary, and she also wants to be able to broadcast some of her old songs on TV such as at the upcoming American Music Awards, and perhaps Glastonbury. Scooter Braun is saying he will let her do so if she agrees not to re-record her old songs, at least for another year, and she also has to stop publicly criticizing Scooter Braun. Sure, sounds like a quid pro quo to me. #ImpeachScooterBraun.

With this public letter she just put out, she's essentially declaring war. She's hoping that public sentiment turns so strongly against Scooter Braun, and her fans just don't stop annoying/probably harassing him, that he relents. She's also asking other artists that Scooter Braun represents (Justin Bieber, Ariana Grande, etc.) to put pressure on him to reverse his decision. I think Taylor is likely to lose this battle. I think this letter will just serve to piss the guy off even more.

Anyways, will be fascinating to see how this shakes out. I don't think this has any real bearing on whether she plays Glastonbury. If she has to cut the broadcast feed during her set, then they'll do that. That's assuming she's even playing (which is likely, but not confirmed). We shall see what happens!

Edited by Ameeps
  • Upvote 18

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have an upvote for the informative post. Completely unaware of all of that. I think Taylor would put off playing glasto until she was allowed to broadcast a live performance of those songs again though. Crazy how through now fault of her own (that I can see) she's restricted to playing music she wrote! The industry is messed up

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm a huge Chili Peppers fan & only once have I left their gig disappointed. 

IOW '14, Reading '16 & Benicassim '17, I loved. It was only at the O2 in '16 they fell flat for me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

She’s definitely playing the ‘men telling a woman what she can do’ angle. Whilst I sympathise with her, they do own the rights so unless something financially happens she is stuffed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So the third headliner they are still working on could be Taylor or she’s booked and will only televise the new tracks or she not playing due to this and will play BST instead.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think if changes the situation much tbh. BBC could just broadcast a one hour highlights deal of the Lover tracks. The Stones didn't have their full set broadcast did they? Doing that would also give Taylor more ammo and a huge forum to further say how ridiculous the situation is as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, morph100 said:

So the third headliner they are still working on could be Taylor or she’s booked and will only televise the new tracks or she not playing due to this and will play BST instead.

 

Do we reckon Emily's sprogs are Swift-fans? Would make sense that they where pestering for confirmation of Taylor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Ameeps said:

American copyright law is very complicated. There's a distinction between the recorded works, live performances, and broadcasting rights.

Taylor's old record label Big Red Machine sold the recorded rights (the masters) of all of her music up through and including Reputation (everything except her new album Lover). The new owner of Taylor's music is a group of rich people/investors spearheaded by Scooter Braun, the manager of Justin Bieber and Ariana Grande, among other big acts. Side-note, but very important context, is that Taylor has long claimed that Scooter Braun has persistently bullied her over the course of many years. Google Taylor Swift Scooter Braun to learn more.

But back to copyright. Anyone can PERFORM any song at a concert without permission. However, broadcasting falls into a whole separate category of US rights law. So if Taylor told Glastonbury to shut off the broadcast feed during her set, she would be in the clear. Clearly, however, that is not ideal.

Taylor is furious that her arch nemesis now owns her music. It's her worst dreams come true.

Remember how I said that Scooter Braun owns the masters to her old music? A master is a literal recording. It's a static, non-changing audio file, for lack of a better description. One way that Taylor could get some power back in this situation, and something that she's been rumored to be planning to do, is re-record her old songs.  She would then own the rights to the re-recorded songs, and she could sell them, broadcast them, etc. She is legally allowed to do this. It would create a fascinating scenario where Spotify, iTunes, etc. would have 2 versions of all of Taylor Swift's old songs. Scooter Braun does not want this to happen, because Taylor would tell all of her fans to only purchase and stream the new version, not the old versions. Scooter Braun bought Taylor Swift's old masters because he wants to make money, and Taylor Swift re-recording her old music is a threat to that.

(Quick side note. The law that governs re-recording old music is complicated. I also don't know what Taylor's contracts with her old record label say. It might or might not be the case that if Taylor re-recorded her old music, she would have to make it different enough such that a court decides it is it's own piece of work, rather than derivative of the original.)

As Taylor notes in her open letter, she wants to use some of her old music in an upcoming Netflix documentary, and she also wants to be able to broadcast some of her old songs on TV such as at the upcoming American Music Awards, and perhaps Glastonbury. Scooter Braun is saying he will let her do so if she agrees not to re-record her old songs, at least for another year, and she also has to stop publicly criticizing Scooter Braun. Sure, sounds like a quid pro quo to me. #ImpeachScooterBraun.

With this public letter she just put out, she's essentially declaring war. She's hoping that public sentiment turns so strongly against Scooter Braun, and her fans just don't stop annoying/probably harassing him, that he relents. She's also asking other artists that Scooter Braun represents (Justin Bieber, Ariana Grande, etc.) to put pressure on him to reverse his decision. I think Taylor is likely to lose this battle. I think this letter will just serve to piss the guy off even more.

Anyways, will be fascinating to see how this shakes out. I don't think this has any real bearing on whether she plays Glastonbury. If she has to cut the broadcast feed during her set, then they'll do that. That's assuming she's even playing (which is likely, but not confirmed). We shall see what happens!

Excellent post - very well explained.

Made my brief explanation look a bit lame 😄

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don’t really know why I’m in here, I just like gossip I guess - pyramid headliners are not something I watch and I have less than zero interest in Taylor Swift beyond that nice goat remix of Trouble (Trouble? I think it’s called that) but the idea of someone not having the rights to their own music is absolutely batshit mental. And Scooter Braun is a colossally weird name, it appears he is a twat.  
 

right, back to poop stories and rock slots, sorry 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, circus92 said:

Doesn’t sound good at all - with Glastonbury being broadcast on BBC this sounds like a major issue to me

not an issue at all. If an act doesn't want to make a deal with the beeb, they don't make a deal with the beeb.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suppose though it is an issue if the main reason big artists play Glastonbury for a much lower than standard fee is the exposure. 

That said, a lot can happen between now and then; a deal could be done, or pressure mounts on Borchetta and Braun to allow her to perform what she wants in front of cameras, or, worst case scenario the BBC only shows the newer stuff 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, eFestivals said:

not an issue at all. If an act doesn't want to make a deal with the beeb, they don't make a deal with the beeb.

Are these two negotiations kept separate then? Make a deal to play Glastonbury, then go to the beeb to see what coverage they can give?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, henry bear said:

I suppose though it is an issue if the main reason big artists play Glastonbury for a much lower than standard fee is the exposure. 

That said, a lot can happen between now and then; a deal could be done, or pressure mounts on Borchetta and Braun to allow her to perform what she wants in front of cameras, or, worst case scenario the BBC only shows the newer stuff 

Yup. I also remember the stones refusing to be shown and now the full set is up.

Things can change. Seems to me like there will be a litigation and a settlement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Smeble said:

She’s definitely playing the ‘men telling a woman what she can do’ angle. 

Don't think it's a game mate. And certainly not one she wanted to be playing. Not cool.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...