Catalogs and Cash:

Tag: masters rights

  • Taylor Swift, Big Machine, and Shamrock: what the catalog sale taught the industry

    No catalog sale in history generated more public attention than when Big Machine Records sold Taylor Swift’s master recordings to Shamrock Holdings. Golnar Khosrowshahi, founder and CEO of Reservoir Media, reflects on what the saga actually taught the music business in her conversation on Billboard’s On the Record.

    1. It exposed the gap between financial investors and music companies

    The sale drew a sharp public line between two very different kinds of buyers operating in the catalog market. On one side: financial investors like Shamrock whose primary interest is cash flow acquisition and return on investment. On the other: music companies and labels with active platforms, artist relationships, and a long-term stake in how a catalog is managed. Most catalog deals happen quietly between industry insiders. This one played out in public, and it forced a mainstream audience to reckon with the fact that music rights can change hands without an artist’s involvement or consent.

    “It started to shed light on this bifurcation — those with platforms who are in the business of preserving legacies, and those in the business of cash flow acquisition.”

    2. The deal structure Swift signed was standard at the time — and that’s the point

    Swift was a teenager when she signed with Big Machine. Under the terms of her deal, as was typical for record contracts of that era, the label retained ownership of her master recordings. There was nothing unusual or predatory about the arrangement by the standards of the time — which is precisely what made it such a powerful moment for public education. Millions of people who had never thought about music rights suddenly understood that an artist could pour years of creative work into recordings they don’t own.

    “It was within Big Machine’s right to do with the catalog what they wanted to. That situation put a spotlight on the fact that Taylor Swift did not own her own masters.”

    3. Re-recording only worked because of who she is

    Swift’s decision to re-record her entire back catalog as “Taylor’s Version” was audacious — and it worked. Fans switched en masse to the new recordings, effectively diminishing the commercial value of the originals. But Khosrowshahi is clear-eyed about why: Swift had spent years building one of the most devoted fan bases in music history, and she had the direct relationship with those fans to make her case and be believed. Almost no other artist could pull off the same move. The lesson isn’t that re-recording is now a viable weapon for any artist — it’s that it was viable for her specifically.

    “That artist has completely changed the structure of how you connect with your fan base. She’s already talking to an existing group of people who are just out there supporting her.”

    4. It accelerated the shift to more artist-friendly deal structures

    In the wake of the Swift situation, major labels began adding re-recording restriction clauses to new contracts — but they also began offering more favorable ownership terms to attract and retain artists. Today it is increasingly common for artists to receive deals where ownership reverts to them after a set period, or where they retain a meaningful equity stake from the outset. The next generation of catalog sellers will be artists who actually own or co-own their masters — a very different market dynamic from the one that existed when Reservoir started.

    “Nowadays we’re seeing much more artist-friendly deals — artists getting record deals where ownership reverts to them, or they get to own 50% of it.”

    5. The broader catalog market barely felt a ripple

    For all the public drama, Khosrowshahi says Reservoir felt no direct impact from the Swift situation on its own deal flow or valuations. The catalog market was already heating up for structural reasons — streaming growth, institutional capital, and a finite supply of premium assets. The Swift saga added mainstream visibility and public education, but the underlying market dynamics were already well in motion. If anything, the attention it brought helped normalize catalog investing as a concept for a wider pool of potential buyers and sellers.

    “We didn’t feel any impact. It was a perfect storm of who was involved and the impact on someone with such a huge fan base.”

    Based on Golnar Khosrowshahi’s appearance on On the Record, Billboard’s music industry podcast.

  • Masters vs. publishing rights: what’s the difference and which is more valuable?

    If you’ve ever read a headline about a music catalog sale and wondered exactly what was bought and sold, you’re not alone. Golnar Khosrowshahi, founder and CEO of Reservoir Media, broke down the distinction clearly in her appearance on Billboard’s On the Record — and the difference matters more than most people realize.

    1. Masters and publishing are two completely separate assets

    When an artist records a song, two distinct sets of rights are created. The master recording — the actual audio file you hear on Spotify — is typically owned by the record label that funded the recording. The publishing rights cover the underlying composition: the melody and lyrics written by the songwriter. These can be owned by a publisher, the artist themselves, or split between multiple parties. Every catalog deal involves one, the other, or both — and the price reflects which rights are actually on the table.

    “You can sell your publishing, which is the songwriting rights. Those are two different things — masters versus publishing. A lot of people want one or the other or both.”

    2. Publishing has historically been the safer bet

    In the early days of the catalog market, publishing rights were considered far less risky than masters. Masters required active marketing investment — vinyl releases, promotion, physical product — while publishing generated royalties more passively every time a song was performed, streamed, or licensed. For investors who wanted steady income without operational complexity, publishing was the cleaner bet. Today, Khosrowshahi says the two asset classes trade at roughly equivalent multiples — but the underlying operational demands remain very different.

    “In the early days, the publishing was far less risky. Today I would tell you that these assets are trading at par.”

    3. Owning masters means running an active business

    Buying master recordings isn’t a passive investment. It comes with real operational responsibilities: releasing vinyl, running marketing campaigns, pitching music supervisors, and managing a recorded music roster. Reservoir maintains entirely separate teams for its publishing and recorded music businesses precisely because the work is so different. Anyone looking to acquire masters needs to honestly assess whether they have the infrastructure and expertise to actively manage that catalog — or whether they’re better suited to the publishing side.

    “Publishing is more like ‘I want checks to come in the mail.’ Masters are ‘I’m out there, I want to market, I want to make it more valuable.’”

    4. Who owns the other side of the rights matters too

    If you buy publishing rights to a song, you’re now in a long-term relationship with whoever owns the masters — and vice versa. Khosrowshahi says Reservoir always investigates this before closing a deal. Are the masters owned by a major label with resources to keep marketing the music? Or are they sitting with a smaller label that may not be around in five years? The quality and commitment of the party controlling the other set of rights has a real impact on how much value a catalog can generate over time.

    “We definitely look at who owns the masters — are they going to keep doing any job? Because that’s what you really want to know.”

    5. Taylor Swift’s situation clarified everything for a mainstream audience

    When Big Machine Records sold Taylor Swift’s master recordings to Shamrock Holdings without her consent, millions of people suddenly understood — viscerally — why the masters vs. publishing distinction matters. Swift had signed her deal as a teenager, which was standard practice at the time: the label funded the recordings and retained ownership. Her decision to re-record her entire back catalog as “Taylor’s Version” was an unprecedented response, and it accelerated a broader industry shift toward more artist-friendly deal structures where ownership eventually reverts to the artist or is shared from the outset.

    “That situation really put a spotlight on the fact that Taylor Swift did not own her own masters — and nowadays we’re seeing much more artist-friendly deals at these record labels.”

    Based on Golnar Khosrowshahi’s appearance on On the Record, Billboard’s music industry podcast.