Van Morrison

"I don't know what else to do," said Taylor Swift in a long Twitter post last week. "I just want to meet just to be able to My Own Music . "

. To play you wanted to be a medley of her hits on Sunday, the American Music Awards, But their old record company had it banned.

Or so they claimed. The label hit back with a statement of its own, saying it had not tried to stop The Show and the Swift-narrative "does not exist".

insults were traded, and finally the settlement was reached.

Big Machine Records, on Monday evening, saying it had agreed "to grant to all licenses of their performances of artists" for "the coming American Music Awards".

It did not Swift from names to mention, But the implication was clear: your performance could go on.

But the second half of The Statement was the really interesting part.

"It is to be noted," said the label, "that The Artist does not need label approval for live-appearances in the television or any other live media.

"Record-label approval is only required for the commissioned artist for the audio and visual recordings, and in determining how those works are distributed. "

In other words, Swift never permit needed to play hits such as Shake It Off, Love Story or I Knew you Were trouble at the AMAs (in each case, performance rights are owned by the publisher, not the record company).

What she could not do, was put online afterwards. And what counts.

in the Past year, 6. 5 million viewers tuned in to watch the AMAs on TV, instead of 9. 15 million a year earlier, But the clips from The Show went viral.

Cardi B has racked up making 28m views on YouTube alone, for Example , that the platform even more valuable for you as an artist, as the TV broadcast itself.

Taylor Swift obviously wants to archive their performance online. But this is where things become difficult.

"If Taylor did not broadcast the execution of their own songs live on a festival that was, it would be no problem," leading Music and entertainment lawyer Talya Shalson says the BBC.

"The Problem in this situation is that, since it is a recorded performance, it would effectively be a re-recording of" The Star -the greatest hits.

"It is very common for labels that deal in a re-recording restriction, which usually lasts three or five years after the end of The Artist ," she explains.

Such a clause prevents The Artist , and your songs, recording, and deliver it to another label, so that the original rights-holders to protect their investment".

A vital bit of background to this story: Swift was the Big Machine in June of this year, after the label was Bieber bought from Justin and Ariana Grande 's manager Scooter Braun for $300 million.

Swift made no secret of her dismay. One of the brown-to-and-from-clients-Kanye West , the tormented has Swift for More Than a decade, they broke the award shows, the scorn of her in his songs and putting on a Show for naked in a Music video.

Swift believes brown encouraged and supported some of these measures, that is why they issued a passionate statement this summer, say they feel "" of brown, control of their back catalogue, every album they released up to the year 2017 reputation.

she called the offer "my worst-case-scenario", that "robbed me of My Life of work"; But later announced that the re-record all your old Music , lowered the value of The Master tapes of brown and his Investment Company Ithaca holdings.

over the summer, you have revealed will begin The Process in the coming year.

"says My contract, starting in November 2020, I can record albums one through five all back," She Said .

"I think it's important for artists to do their own work," she continued. "I'm going to be busy, I'm very Excited . "

(Randomly, apparently without any restrictions of the Big Machine . )

Swift would not be The First artist to record "forgeries" of their greatest hits: TLC, Prince, and Def Leppard have all the tactics to get back the control over your Music .

But their plans apparently in the last week, spurred tussle. In your first statement, Swift said she'd been told that the AMA medley, which could go ahead if they "are agreed, copycat versions of My Songs in the next year".

As a lever, a Large machine seemed to be ready to classify the archive of The Performance as a "new master recording", by Swift, in violation of their contract.

the following is But a "technical argument" the "To My knowledge, is a position that has a label," says The Music -industry lawyer Susan Genco.

she describes the Great machine, original attitude as "Anti-intuitive and against the label of interest", because if millions of people see Swift on Sunday to play, you are likely to go and stream their back catalogue, promoting the name of profits.

In this light, the decision to stop, The Performance seems to be misguided at best, vindictive at worst.

It is an ugly story, And One that is as old as The Music industry itself: A young artist to sign a restrictive contract that it is at the beginning of their career, and the only knowledge of the consequences, if it is to late.

In this case, Swift was to build able to mobilize their fans, who have paid #IStandWithTaylor billboards outside the Big Machine offices in Nashville; and the media, who covered the fall-out in the blow-by-blow detail, until you get the result you wanted (although a planned Netflix-documentation is still in dispute).

As an added bonus, a lot more people now know that Swift performs at the American Music Awards this weekend, to be received where it is due, The Artist Of the decade award.

As Van Morrison once said: "Music Is spiritual. The Music business is not. "

follow us on or on Twitter. If you have a story, suggestion E-Mail.

Source of news: bbc.com