Taylor Swift ‘sad & grossed out’ that Scooter Braun purchased her masters

Celebs pose at the 2019 Time 100 Gala

After a quiet spring and early summer, sh-t got real over the course of 24 hours, starting on Sunday. This is, I’m convinced, the Big Summer Story. There are lots of moving parts and back and forth between the players, so I’m breaking up the story into several posts. This is the first. On Sunday morning, trade papers & the Wall Street Journal broke the news that Big Machine Label Group had been bought by Ithaca Holdings LLC, which is owned by Scooter Braun, manager and Svengali to artists like Justin Bieber, Kanye West and Ariana Grande. The purchase price was for “over $300 million.” Big Machine’s most valuable holding is, without a doubt, the masters of Taylor Swift’s first seven albums. Taylor left Big Machine in November, 2018, when her contract was completed with Reputation. Lover (her latest album) is part of her new contract with Universal Music Group, and her new contract allows her to retain ownership of her masters. Shortly after the news of Big Machine’s sale broke Sunday morning, Taylor posted this to her Tumblr:

For years I asked, pleaded for a chance to own my work. Instead I was given an opportunity to sign back up to Big Machine Records and ‘earn’ one album back at a time, one for every new one I turned in. I walked away because I knew once I signed that contract, Scott Borchetta would sell the label, thereby selling me and my future. I had to make the excruciating choice to leave behind my past. Music I wrote on my bedroom floor and videos I dreamed up and paid for from the money I earned playing in bars, then clubs, then arenas, then stadiums.

Some fun facts about today’s news: I learned about Scooter Braun’s purchase of my masters as it was announced to the world. All I could think about was the incessant, manipulative bullying I’ve received at his hands for years.

Like when Kim Kardashian orchestrated an illegally recorded snippet of a phone call to be leaked and then Scooter got his two clients together to bully me online about it. (See photo) Or when his client, Kanye West, organized a revenge p0rn music video which strips my body naked. Now 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.

This is my worst case scenario. This is what happens when you sign a deal at fifteen to someone for whom the term ‘loyalty’ is clearly just a contractual concept. And when that man says ‘Music has value’, he means its value is beholden to men who had no part in creating it.

When I left my masters in Scott’s hands, I made peace with the fact that eventually he would sell them. Never in my worst nightmares did I imagine the buyer would be Scooter. Any time Scott Borchetta has heard the words ‘Scooter Braun’ escape my lips, it was when I was either crying or trying not to. He knew what he was doing; they both did. Controlling a woman who didn’t want to be associated with them. In perpetuity. That means forever.

Thankfully, I am now signed to a label that believes I should own anything I create. Thankfully, I left my past in Scott’s hands and not my future. And hopefully, young artists or kids with musical dreams will read this and learn about how to better protect themselves in a negotiation. You deserve to own the art you make.

I will always be proud of my past work. But for a healthier option, Lover will be out August 23.

Sad and grossed out,
Taylor

[From Taylor Swift’s Tumblr]

Let’s just focus on the business side of this story at the moment – it’s completely awful that Taylor was never given the chance to buy her masters, and it’s completely awful that her first seven albums – her blood, sweat and tears for more than a decade – are the “property” of men who buy and trade her work without any input from her. That sucks. It’s really awful. The fight for one’s masters is something I first heard about with Prince – he waged the war to own his masters for years, and few artists actually do own their masters even today.

But people are wondering about several things. One, Taylor Swift HAS $300 million. She could have conceivably bought Big Machine herself. I know it was more complicated than that and that if she wasn’t offered the chance to buy her masters outright, she probably wasn’t given the chance to make a bid on the label either. But that’s the thing – her dad was always heavily involved in Big Machine. As it turns out, he was a major shareholder. Yael Cohen Braun – wife of Scooter Braun – noted in her clapback: “Your dad is a shareholder and was notified, and Borchetta personally told you this before it came out. So no, you didn’t find out with the world.” Which was enough for Taylor’s rep to issue the one statement in defense of Taylor’s post/Tumblr essay, this People Magazine article:

Taylor Swift‘s rep is doubling down on claims regarding how the singer found out about Scooter Braun’s $300 million purchase of her music catalog. A source close to the deal tells PEOPLE Swift, 29, was given a courtesy note on Saturday by Big Machine Label Group from founder Scott Borchetta. TMZ reported that Taylor’s father, Scott, is on the board of directors of Big Machine Label Group and “has known about the deal for at least a week.”

However, a spokesperson for the Grammy-winning artist refutes TMZ’s claim telling PEOPLE, “Scott Swift is not on the board of directors and has never been. On June 25, there was a shareholder phone call that Scott Swift did not participate in due to a very strict NDA that bound all shareholders and prohibited any discussion at all without risk of severe penalty.”

The spokesperson adds, “Her dad did not join that call because he did not want to be required to withhold any information from his own daughter. Taylor found out from the news articles when she woke up before seeing any text from Scott Borchetta and he did not call her in advance.”

[From People]

People Magazine slid that in, didn’t they? “A source close to the deal tells PEOPLE Swift, 29, was given a courtesy note on Saturday by Big Machine Label Group from founder Scott Borchetta.” They slid that in with quotes from Taylor’s rep. Was Taylor given a “note” about the sale on Saturday? The thing is, even if she was, that’s still f–king rude and awful. It just doesn’t go along with her “I just found out!” story.

Bieber braun

Photos courtesy of Backgrid.

Related stories

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

164 Responses to “Taylor Swift ‘sad & grossed out’ that Scooter Braun purchased her masters”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Moses says:

    Telling a woman she can “earn back” piece by piece her own stuff, thereby extending the relationship, is some abuser tactic BS. I’ll side with Taylor on this one.

    • OSLO says:

      Thank You

    • Anatha A. says:

      Only that this is how music companies have always worked. They pay in advance, so that artists can record music and get promotion, before they ever make money. In return for that they own the masters that were done with their money while the contract lasts. For every artist that makes money for them – like Taylor Swift – there are 100 artists that cost them money. That’s how they work.

      Are you mad at Michael Jackson for buying the Beatles-catalogue from their record company and outbuying Paul McCartney?

      • Moses says:

        Yes, actually, that does anger me. Before masters are sold, they should be offered for a FAIR, reasonable bargain to the artist who created it. And none of this “I’ll let you own an album for each new one you make me.”

      • minx says:

        Yes, I definitely thought it was gross that Michael Jackson owned the Beatles catalogue.

      • Lightpurple says:

        Lots of people were angry about Jackson buying the Beatles catalog because of what he then did with it.

      • Tiffany :) says:

        The Beatles is a horrible example and disproves your point. YES people were pissed when Michael Jackson started putting Beatles songs in Nike ads. It’s an example of what can go wrong when masters are sold to disinterested 3rd parties.

      • lolalola3 says:

        Totally agree. While the music industry business model does indeed suck, this is how it works and I’m getting a bit tired of her whining. When I read her saying complaining about a deal she made when she was 15, that is simply bullshit. At 15 she wasn’t legally capable of signing a contract so there was an adult involved–hopefully a lawyer. Maybe it wasn’t explained to her. Maybe the adult didn’t understand it. But then blame the adult not the deal. To read about her constant victimhood is tiring. Louise177 said it. Taylor is a spoiled princess who is actually a bully. Why doesn’t she start her own record company that will let the artists own everything? Oh wait, because that’s too expensive and she wouldn’t make any money. hmmmmmmm.

      • Suz says:

        Friendly reminder to all that Paul McCartney admits that he advised MJ to buy other artists’ catalogs so he could make big money. Paul’s crappy advice backfired on him.

      • Jules says:

        I’m upset about that one too because I once heard that Paul McCartney was nice enough to discuss this with Michael after they had a collaboration and when the Beatles catalog went up for sale, Michael scooped in and bought it out from under Paul, and that’s why a lot of Beatles music is in, like, car commercials. Even though it hasn’t been diluted Michael should not have done that to Paula and had given him the courtesy of trying to buy ‘back’ he’s music before being so underhanded.

    • Louise177 says:

      Sorry but claiming that Taylor is a victim is ridiculous. Most artists don’t own their masters and has been an issue since the beginning of time. So I don’t understand how anybody can claim sexism and bullying. Taylor knew that her masters were going to be sold and even tried to buy them back. She didn’t like the terms and left the label. She’s not on the label anymore so I don’t know why Taylor or anybody else needed to give her a heads up about the sale. To me Taylor sounds like a spoiled princess who is the actual bully.

      • Millennial says:

        The “it’s industry standard” excuse doesn’t mean it’s not an abusive practice. It’s just an industry-wide abusive practice.

      • Miles says:

        And most artists should be able to own the right to their masters. They should have an opportunity to buy them out. Just because that doesn’t happen, doesn’t mean Taylor (and other artists) shouldn’t say something about it.

      • Arizona says:

        it’s not abusive, and we should really stop throwing that word around for every situation that isn’t the best.

      • Tiffany :) says:

        They didn’t offer to let her buy them back. They’d allow her to “earn” 1 for every new album she made, but she knew the man making the agreement was leaving the label (as he is now), so it wouldn’t be enforced. She called it exactly how it is playing out.

        They didn’t offer her the ability to buy them. It’s legal, but morally wrong.

      • Julie says:

        No label offers the artist the ability to buy them back. That’s not a thing. If you want them you reach out with an offer to buy. Taylor doesn’t mention doing this.

      • Tiffany :) says:

        Julie,
        That’t not true that it is “not a thing”. Not everyone gets the option in their contract, but some do. Many artists don’t have enough money to buy back the masters, but that isn’t true in Taylor’s case. They should have tried to negotiate with her.

        ” Recording agreements don’t automatically come with the right to buy back masters; that clause is usually included via a good music attorney that knows to negotiate for it. However, many artists that have buy-back rights included in the contract don’t get to exercise those rights due to lack of funds. ”

        https://www.forbes.com/sites/legalentertainment/2016/11/18/checkmate-frank-ocean-goes-independent/#6059ebf6c45a

      • Bella Bella says:

        At least her masters exist. The master of my first album disappeared when the record label, which was affiliated with SONY, shut down. “No one” knows what happened to it. What a loss. So many people involved — a full orchestra and choir and three soloists. It was a complicated recording and the likelihood that it will be rerecorded is slim.

    • Arizona says:

      I think it’s gross that she’s not allowed to own her masters, especially because she contributed so much work to her music unlike some other artists. however, I still question her version of the vents in terms of finding out, and I think it’s rich that she addresses this on social media knowing that the swifties will attack scooter Braun and then complains about being bullied online. per usual, I think Taylor switches the situation so that she looks the most beneficial, even when it’s already sympathetic to her in the first place.

      • Miles says:

        Bingo! You nailed it.

      • C says:

        👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻100% right!

      • Jamie says:

        I tend to agree with this. Especially since she brought Kimye and Justin Bieber into this. WTH? There really isn’t a reason to drag them into this when the failure to allow her to purchase her own masters is something everyone – Swiftie or not – would sympathize with.

        I tend to think she did that part to create more drama that would keep her in the press for longer than the story itself would. After all, she’s got an album coming out.

      • Arizona says:

        I don’t judge her for wanting control of her work.

        I judge her for the entire post being about how Scooter Braun made poor Taylor cry, and “incessant, manipulative bullying” and “revenge porn” and “illegally recorded phone call” and all the other buzzwords she threw in there so that people knew that Taylor was bullied. Her post was ultimately about being mad that the masters were sold to Scooter Braun because he’s mean to her. Not really about not having her masters. It’s a dog whistle to her fans to get them to bully Scooter, Justin, Kim, and Kanye. That’s how she’s “employed her main power base” – by siccing them on people who she believes have wronged her. That’s BULLYING.

        Taylor Swift is one of the most powerful recording artists currently. But she makes it sound like she’s this beaten down underdog all the time, which is not accurate.

      • Anne Call says:

        Yeah, the guy who made a nude deeply creepy model of her and presented to the world as art, shouldn’t be dragged into it. Ugh. Let’s try to be consistent in our feminism people. Kim and Kanye are garbage trump supporters and terrible people.

    • bored at work says:

      THIS!!!

      • Emily says:

        Yes!

        If this was about transforming the recording industry than I would side with Swift, who is a great business woman in her own right. Yet, she decided to make this about her personal drama, weakening her argument and making herself look childish. She knew the masters would be sold, she just doesn’t like the buyer.

  2. effy says:

    Scooter’s wife said the absolute truth about Taylor Swift:

    “And girl, who are you to talk about bullying? The world has watched you collect and drop friends like wilted flowers.“
    “Beyond that, it’s easy to see that the point of putting this out was to get people to bully him. You are supposed to be a role model, but continue to model bullying,”
    “He’s a manager, not God. He cannot control the action of other humans, even ones he manages. Don’t blame him because Kim caught you in a lie, it’s embarrassing I know – but adults own up to their mistakes. We learn and grow from them, we don’t divert blame and blur lines of reality to suit our needs.”

    AMEM SISTER!

    • Darla says:

      My guess? There are a lot of PR people posting in comments on this story today.

      • OSLO says:

        I think i agree with you Darla

      • effy says:

        What? Lol I always comment here!
        I just can’t stand her, almost 30yo and always playing the victim. Why write about how “he bullied her for years and made her cry” (her fans are the biggest bullies out there and she does nothing about it)? Why mention Kim Kardashian (she won’t never let go the fact that she was caught in a lie)?

      • runcmc says:

        Or some people are sick of Taylor Swift’s BS. I know I am. And I comment here a lot too.

      • TQB says:

        i’m not a PR person and i co-sign every word effy wrote.

    • Wow says:

      Right? Her catalog is 80% songs where she is bullying ex’s, old friends and industry peers.

      I can’t bring myself to care about this. Her crying bully is projection at its finest.

      • K-Peace says:

        Yeah, i’m a frequent commenter and i’m sick of Taylor’s always-playing-the-victim crap. She’s a big bully herself, and still can’t get over Kim showing the world that she’s a liar. Scooter’s wife’s message was spot-on.

        And this is just the way the music industry has always worked. It may suck and be fundamentally unfair in some ways but, it’s the industry she chooses to be a part of and which has made her hundreds of millions of dollars.

      • Lila says:

        This! While I can appreciate that she has aided actual victims of abuse at times (Kesha springs to mind), Taylor is so quick to make any narrative into her being bullied that I don’t care anymore.

        Maybe her next album can be “The Girl Who Cried Wolf.”

    • Laura says:

      Scooter’s wife is right about Taylor though, she really has no right to complain or talk about bullying because she has bullied people for years. Maybe this is karma for all of the bullying and girl-on-girl hate that Taylor has spread. When she’s the one getting bullied, she suddenly doesn’t like it anymore. Most of Taylor’s songs were about all of the guys she dumped and used. Now that the cards have turned against her manipulative ways, she is trying to expose Scooter online so that he can get bullied online. Her whole blog post is very targeted against Scooter, instead of making it about changing the manipulative industry practices so that more artists can have creative liberty. I’m not sympathizing with Taylor because it sounds like she just wants revenge against Scooter. She is making this about herself and playing the victim instead of trying to do good for all artists who are in a similar situation.

  3. virginfangirls says:

    Swift often bullies those she thinks have done her wrong, frequently her exes, through her songs. But her victims don’t retaliate, likely because they are too classy to air their dirty laundry for all the world to see. The people she’s dealing with now are not remaining silent. Besides Kenya, Taylor is not used to the public getting the other side of the story, but we all know how that ended for her. I imagine that at 15 she had little choice but to sign a contract like she did where she gave the rights of her songs away, & would do it again if she could see the future & knew the outcome. Where would she be otherwise? Her songs she wrote in her bedroom would likely still be there, never heard.

    • duchess of hazard says:

      @virginfangirls – That I don’t get. Yes, Swift signed a contract at 15 but her parents were rich – at least rich enough to get her a lawyer (Scott Swift worked at Merrill Lynch and wasn’t poor) – how did she get a record deal that was so disadvantageous?

      • Julie says:

        It’s not disadvantageous, it’s a better than average deal.

      • holly hobby says:

        There were stories where her father bought into a record company so his baby girl can get her career. He’s a major shareholder so please.

    • Wow says:

      Yeah, Taylor entire history is her giving her side of a twisted story with 80% of it omitted crying wolf.

      I’ll wait until more information comes out. Trust is earned and Taylor Swift has dragged and bullied so many people for years I just cant bring myself to believe anything she says anymore. Probably 80% of those masters are songs where she is bullying people. Her entire musical career is based on songs where she bullies people. She has “look what you made me do.” As an actual song lyric like she wrote the theme song for the abusers playbook.

      Actually, I’m fine with her not owning her catalog of nasty, invasive, bully songs she writes about friends, ex, peers….. basically anyone who has the misfortune of coming into contact with her is at risk of being in one of her songs with no way of escaping her narrative having to be haunted by those songs forever. So yeah, i guess even if she isn’t lying which I find unlikely, i don’t care if she lost her masters because the majority are bully anthems and i can’t care about her feelings that she doesn’t control her bullying songs.

      • holly hobby says:

        Those songs will not stand up to the test of time. It is outdated.

      • Laura says:

        Her exes and former friends have all been bullied and haunted by the songs that she wrote about them without their permission. Now that Taylor is the one who has to suffer the consequences and her bullying songs are being taken away, she is crying for help and saying that she’s the victim.

        How can she even call herself the victim when her songs were written about the exes that she dumped and used?

  4. Millennial says:

    I think the drama around this has focused too much on Scooter Braun (and that’s largely Taylor’s fault to be fair). The real person who screwed her over was Scott Borschetta who has known her half her life and who she made very, very wealthy. He probably owed her a bit more than selling her masters to someone she didn’t like/arguably took part in her 2016 takedown

    • Lauryn says:

      This!

    • Emily says:

      Yes! It’s Borchetta who screwed her. I doubt Scooter bought the label to spite Swift.

    • Lynne says:

      He wanted swift to sign another contract because the sale price would have gone up significantly, much higher than 300M. She didn’t, he was pissed and sold it to Braun. That is why she didn’t buy it. She wasn’t given the opportunity.

    • Tiffany :) says:

      This.

      There’s a sad side to the music world where executives buy, sell and bundle artists together. The big fish are what allow the little fish to get sold.

      I do think that Borchetta had a vendetta (couldn’t help myself) against Taylor. He could have gotten his $$ from her for her masters, and she has deep pockets, so he could have price gouged her. But then he wouldn’t have been able to off load all of his other little artists that don’t have as much value. I think this is part business, part spite.

      • Humbugged says:

        Little artists like Reba ? Or Jennifer Nettles

        Borchetta has been wanting to sell for a while with him staying on in a minority role which also seems to have pissed Taylor off ,as her and Scott originally fell out about her direction (going exclusively pop) .He spent last year padding the label by folding in some of the other Nashville indys into BMR and ended up with Tim McGraw,Reba ,Nettles and a bunch of other big names on his roster boosting the selling price .

      • Tiffany :) says:

        I was thinking of BMR artists like Payton Smith, Noah Schnacky, Dan Smalley, etc. Without bundling those artists into a larger deal, Borchetta/BMR would have eaten the investments they sunk into those artists.

        If you want to call Reba “little”, that’s up to you.

  5. runcmc says:

    Based on the way she portrays her perpetual victimhood and the fact that she uses lies to push her agenda (which makes her truthful statements hard to believe too), I’m not really going to judge on the face of what she said. I look forward to reading the follow up articles with more information! This story doesn’t seem as cut and dry as she’s trying to make it sound.

    Edit: for example the way she portrays Kim Kardashian exposing her as a liar, and the way she portrays Kanye West’s music video which was absolutely not “revenge p0rn”

    • Lightpurple says:

      West’s video was rape fantasy. I can’t stand Taylor Swift but what that man did to her, Rihanna, Anna Wintour and Amber Rose in that video was disgraceful

      • runcmc says:

        I am not defending the video at ALL, I’m just saying she’s misrepresenting it to fit her current narrative. This is the problem with swift though- she *was* victimized in that video. Kanye showed his disgusting lack of respect for women’s bodies and privacy. But it was not revenge p0rn or a “rape fantasy”- it was Kanye humiliating people he dislikes by exposing their bodies and claiming art. It wasn’t even sexualized IMO. Just stark.

        And Taylor has a legitimate gripe with him!!!! But the gripe isn’t “they exposed me for lying and also revenge p0rn” because that’s not what actually happened. It’s like she’s allergic to the truth, which is annoying because if she told the truth I would be 100% on her side. When you bundle in lies with truth it makes it hard for people (well, me- I only speak for myself) to support you.

      • Anne Call says:

        It was disgusting and anyone who defends Kanye loses any argument about TS.

  6. D says:

    Now we’ve got Demi, Todrick, and the ex CEO of the Oprah Winfrey Network in on this…

  7. Steph says:

    And i want to add that only female singers started unfollowing scooter.

    • Tater tot says:

      That list was completely false. Adele and Beyonce don’t follow anyone to begin with. Rihanna never followed him either. Her fans lie just as much as she does.

  8. Darla says:

    Prince famously said “If you don’t own your masters, your masters own you”.

    We saw this all go down with Prince, and that’s when he changed his name.

    For what it’s worth (nothing), i have been trying to say for years here that Kim and Kayne set her up and the tapes were edited and that’s why Kim refused to release the entire tape when Taylor challenged her to. The BTS stuff with these other men I did not know about though. How terrible.

    • Arizona says:

      it honestly doesn’t matter if the video was edited because what she said wasn’t, and it clearly contradicted her previous statements. The only lyrics that she could still cling to was being called that bitch, but if you listen to the whole video he clearly said something about making her famous based on her comments. I’m so sick of this idea that because the video wasn’t the full hour long conversation that means that what she did get caught saying on camera wasn’t accurate.

  9. Peg says:

    At the end of her post, she was not too upset to put in a plug for her new album.
    Beebs posted an apology to Taylor on Saturday saying Scooter told him not to post that picture.
    If Kim did not produce the receipts, your lie would still be believed.

  10. Neners says:

    I’m sorry but I side-eye pretty much anything Taylor says at this point. And this narrative of a struggling artist clawing her way from humble beginnings rings false all things considered.

  11. minx says:

    Team Taylor on this.

  12. Lauryn says:

    The music industry is notoriously ruthless . I feel for Taylor as this was a terrible wake up call to the fact that no one can be considered friendly/“family” when business is involved. I don’t really get what she’s trying to obtain by making it public though… guilting Braun into selling her the masters? I think it was childish and immature of him to mock her when the whole Kanye thing happened but I don’t really think he’s out to get her or humiliate her like she implies in the post, it was just an incredibly juicy business opportunity for him.

    • Arizona says:

      I don’t know that he did really mock her. We don’t know what they talked about in the Facetime video between Justin, Kanye, and Scooter. All we know is that Justin screenshotted it and put the caption as Taylor Swift what up – so it could just be that Justin was the jerk, not Scooter.

      Scooter doesn’t strike me as a great guy (any adult who is called Scooter gets a sideeye from me), but as far as I can tell he’s been a good, supportive manager to Ariana and Justin. Shrug.

  13. minx says:

    😂😂😂

  14. Chisey says:

    The offer to “earn back” her old music with new music is some indentured servitude BS and I don’t blame her for being pissed about it. My understanding is that the “courtesy note” was a text that she didn’t see until after she heard the news from public outlets. I’m inclined they can both be right on this one – he sent the note/text and she didn’t see it. And honestly a text the night before doesn’t seem like something to brag about. The business angle of this controversy is a Swifty feud I can really get behind – it’s a lot more adult and legit seeming to me than hashing our the Kimye stuff for the umpteenth time. And that’s why I’m so baffled by her bringing it in again. So is this Scooter guy the mastermind behind all her woes? Really? These nebulous accusations of bullying just dilute what seems to me to be a very legit point. Either way, I think in squaring up against record execs she’s found a feud I can really enjoy. I’m not particularly worried about the hurt feelings of a millionaire record exec so I say pass the popcorn.

    • Og says:

      “And honestly a text the night before doesn’t seem like something to brag about. ”

      According to Scott B., Taylor pulled a similar move when she signed with a new label – texted him minutes before the announcement hit the news. Obviously more at play here too, but that nugget is being overlooked. A last minute text is rude no matter what, surely.

      • Lucy says:

        She didn’t blindside Scott, which he admits to in his post if you read the whole thing and aren’t just cherry picking to fit your narrative. She told him she was going to seek out other deal options when their negotiations stalled and later gave him a heads up before the news broke.

        That’s quite different to her getting a text at, presumably, 3am which reads, “Hey, hope you’re well. Scooter Braun is buying your life’s work. Just thought you ought to know! :) ” when the story drops publicly at noon GMT.

        It also doesn’t change the simple fact that artists should be given the opportunity to own their work. He wouldn’t give her the chance to own her masters—her entire life’s work. She has zero control over that now. I don’t know how wanting artists to control what’s theirs is a controversial take, but here we are.

      • Julie says:

        Scott has been openly considering selling Big Machine for years now. It was fully expected that he’d sell if Taylor left once her contract was up.

        There’s no way she was blindsided by the sale itself. That’s been coming for a long time.

      • Tiffany :) says:

        Julie,
        She said that she assumed he would sell Big Machine. She said he offered to give her back one of her albums for each new album she recorded, but she didn’t expect him to be at the label for much longer. That is a big trap that artists fall into. They get sold a lot of promises from one exec, then their exec leaves and the exec that replaces them doesn’t follow through on those promises. She was right, clearly.

        Scott betrayed the artists that helped make him his fortune as he walks out the door. Not illegal, but shady and a betrayal of trust.

        “Giving back” masters for 1 album for each new album made would take about 10 years! It wasn’t an offer made in good faith, as he was already planning on leaving the label at that time. He should have allowed her to buy them outright, at a high mark up, of course.

  15. Miles says:

    Everyone involved in this is a mess to be honest. Like on the one hand I sympathize with Taylor because I’d be upset too if someone who took part in the Famous Video now owned my work but that’s where my sympathy ends. She’s going to be fine in the end. Who I feel more bad for are the artists who’s stories always come out about their labels doing them dirty during a time like this only for them to get swept under the rug because either a) no one is focused on them or b) Taylor, for example, gets called a big baby/told to stop complaining and thus the issue as a whole gets swept under the rug. Now onto the players involved. Justin Bieber literally capes for abusers and is a racist so as Cara said he can stop defending men all the time. Scooter Braun is a known POS. Demi Lovato? Always inserting herself into situations that have nothing to do with her….like girl just because Scooter signed you doesn’t mean he can’t be homophobic. The hell. Scott B? He’s a white studio exec. I don’t need to know anymore. Taylor Swift is manipulative and controlling and doesn’t really have much credibility. So……

    I’m thinking back to Hasley’s comment about how women want power to control themselves and men want power in order to control others so while a business deal is a business deal, I find it sad that Taylor wanted control over her work and when she asked to pay for it, she was declined. But someone else, a man, asked to buy it, he was given control over music. So I feel like there’s more layers to this situation that don’t necessarily involve her that have me siding on the artist’s side, if that makes sense?

  16. Jan says:

    Sorry for the unpopular opinion but here goes. Should artists own their masters? Absolutely! Is Taylor Swift a lying, manipulative, bully? Absolutely! Don’t believe a word she says.

  17. msn says:

    I had a very entertaining morning catching up on this drama and I agree… Celebrity Fracas Of The Summer for sure!
    It’s a heinous practice in the music biz to flex ownership of an artist’s output, the days of Prince wearing “slave” on his face and George Michael publicly feuding with their record companies also taught me that top tier artists were still getting caught in indentured servitude -the ingenue who signs a crappy deal is a well-worn trope that undid so many artists I naively thought young singers got better deals.
    So I feel for Tay Tay on this, but maybe more than I should?

    There’s a lot of mud-slinging right now and some of Taylor’s credibility is being dented by claims from Scooter Braun’s wife and the Big Machine Records owner -it’s interesting how The Summer Of Taylor 🐍 has left her vulnerable PR-wise, like as soon as I was reminded of that Kim K/Taylor/Kanye Insta Mess I reviewed how much I can take Taylor’s words at face value -she’s a top tier manipulator after all.

  18. Digital Unicorn says:

    When I saw this I thought ‘ah here she is, the Tay Tay we all know and love’.

    I’ve read the various stories about this and Braun and the label are pushing back bigly. They are saying she had the opportunity to buy her masters but turned it down, maybe it was the deal she said in her post. If that offer they made was legit, I can’t blame her for walking away, it was pretty much a blackmail offer to stay with the label. She will still make money off them as I think she owns the publishing rights.

    I think this little tantrum is more to do with WHO bought the label and not that they ‘stole’ her past from her. She clearly knew Borchetta would sell the label and expected it but again I think her issue is with WHO bought it. Braun is not someone she can manipulate and the fact that she brought up snakegate shows she still has grudge against KK for outing her as a liar and bully. And yes I can believe what she said about him being an POS, there has long been rumours about him (esp around how he enabled Biebers bad behaviour).

    It seems no one really wanted to tell her as they knew she’d lose her sh!t. Also Taylor was NEVER a struggling artist, Daddy invested in the label to give her her career as she couldn’t get a record deal based on her ‘talent’ alone. Taylor often has these ‘moments’ when she thinks she has been hard done by and for the most part she ends up with egg on her face, I don’t think this case is any different.

    • Tiffany :) says:

      I don’t think she would have turned down the opportunity to buy her masters. That doesn’t ring true at all.

  19. Ainsley7 says:

    The note was a text at 9pm. I could easily see her not getting that text. She knew she was being screwed over by the company already. That’s why she left them. I could see her having his number blocked. Her dad knowing the company was to be sold isn’t the same as knowing the company would be sold to Scooter specifically. She knew it was going to be sold and isn’t denying that knowledge.

  20. Allie says:

    All the men in this story are called Scott… Scott Swift, Scott Braun, Scott Borchetta. What the Scott?!

  21. Gigi La Moore says:

    The only thing I find gross is how quick we are to label a woman a victim when something doesn’t go her way. This is tge business and if she disagrees with how it gors, change the laws. I’m over the narrative of every man being evil. He conducted legal business. It is what it is.

    • Coco Puff says:

      I can wholeheartedly agree. Its a valid contract of sale, good gosh

    • Hyacinth Bucket says:

      Taylor’s the one labelling herself a victim.

      • Gigi La Moore says:

        Nope, several commenters are labeling a business deal as being abusive and are also crying poor Taylor.

    • Sarah says:

      “I’m over the narrative of every man being evil.”

      Girlfriend, you are on the wrong website. LOL.

  22. Leriel says:

    I feel for Taylor, she’s an artist (whatever I think about her songs, at least she’s a main songwriter of everything she’s doing), so she feels insanely horrible right now, because she totally lost control over her work.

    But, label invested in her when she was just a teen, nobody knew how this act would turn, and she turned really successful and money- earning, so label CEO clearly didn’t want to lose such a golden fish. Taylor was overplayed in this deal, no matter how dramatic is her statement, but there is nothing she can do about. Label cost is 300 millions, her net worth is not bigger than that, Scooter Braun will not low price, it is crystal clear. For her it’s her personal, it’s art, for Scooter it’s just a pretty nice investment.

  23. leena says:

    How long did she have the contract, was she happy with it all that time, and where would she have been without it? Serious question as I don’t know how these things work.

    Meanwhile back in London a certain actor, soon to appear on Broadway, is quietly smiling to himself.

  24. Lolo says:

    I know there are other artists involved but it does sound like Taylor’s catalogue was the most lucrative asset the label had. If it was split off and sold to Taylor, who obviously didn’t want the whole label (which she would then have to manage) then the label’s value goes down in a potential sale. So even though Taylor is personally messy and frequently a liar, I can absolutely see a scenario where the label refused to split her masters off from the sale of the whole label, or refused to sell her her masters without having her re-signed to create new music (more value for the label) and that’s how this mess started.

    • Tiffany :) says:

      THIS!!!!!!!

      It is Taylor’s masters that contribute the most value to the asset known as “the label”. It’s like trying to sell a sports car and removing the engine.

  25. Caity says:

    Can we please dispel the notion that her wealthy father bought her career. Taylor has both an artist deal and a publishing deal before 15 both of which she walked away from because they wouldn’t let her make her own music.
    Her dad paid $150,000 or 3% of big machine records shareholding. There’s plenty of wealthy men with daughters who want to be famous. Taylor earned her multi platinum success.
    (And I’ve been reading celebitchy for 10 years)

    • Hyacinth Bucket says:

      Taylor has made her career yes but there’s no question her dad’s money got her foot in the door and her early success.

    • holly hobby says:

      If her dad did not purchase a major share in that company, she would be singing in youtube videos right now. So yes his money was instrumental.

  26. Valiantly Varnished says:

    She could have bought her masters. Was it an ideal situation to have to purchase the label in order to do so? Nope. But that’s business. The label was free to sell to whoever they wanted. It happens to be someone she loathes. That’s unfortunate. But she’s not a victim.

    • Arizona says:

      I mean, presumably she could have bought it, and then sold the label while still maintaining ownership of her masters? Although since she’s the big name and moneymaker for the label, it’s possible no one would have wanted to buy the label without her masters.

    • Tiffany :) says:

      This is not a realistic idea at all. Buying a label also comes with assuming ownership of their liabilities. She would have bought responsibilities and obligations to other artists along with her own masters.

    • Cindyy says:

      Nailed it @valiantly varnished

  27. Serenity says:

    I just get over Taylor Swift never takes accountability for any of the things taking place in her life. She’s always in a state of perpetual victimhood. It must be tiring!

  28. Skeptical says:

    It’s business. I know it wasn’t the deal she wanted, but that’s often how business happens. It’s not like Taylor doesn’t have her own team of skilled and seasoned business managers, either. I’m not suggesting she could have had all the cards here, but she lost the game. I find her assumption that she should be accommodated personally because she’s Taylor and her regression to social media to call the outcome “gross” disingenuous.

  29. Lizzie says:

    i bet my life that she is rightfully mad b/c braun is going to let kanye sample her songs in some kind of sick diss record and she’s not going to get a dime of it.

    • Arizona says:

      oh my god I would die. This is the sort of drama that this summer needed.

    • tempest prognosticator says:

      Ew. That would prove that Braun is everything Taylor said.

    • Cinnamon says:

      From what I understood he isn’t able to do that. She is still the creator of her music and thus still has rights which means that she is forced to work with him but he cannot alter her music.

      • Tiffany :) says:

        No, because the label owns the master rights they can use it however they want, BUT they’d have to pay Taylor as a writer. So she doesn’t have control over artistic decisions to a large extent, but she still would get paid her publishing % for writing the song (aka mechanical royalties). Scooter essentially owns the sound of her voice on those songs (performing rights royalties).

  30. TIFFANY says:

    So we can stop with the Swifty is a screwed businesswoman and admit she has a great team behind that dropped the ball on this. With every multi platinum album and sold out tours no one never started making a play for her masters. They could have and possibly got them. Business is business and when you are not on it, some one will reap your work. As someone who has worked for corporations, this is what happens.

    Taylor is use to getting what she wants.

    And she is straight up born on third thinking she hit a triple. Another issue in time for promoting her album. Timing just works on her side everytime.

  31. Emily_ says:

    If you’ve read anything about Scooter’s career you’ll see his method for success is buying rights to music and managing the artist to the point of internet virality. The curiosity here is why he would want to buy her masters and how he’ll turn it to his benefit when in the past he has used her as an antagonist in to promote his artists.

    If you look up Taylor’s net worth she couldn’t have bought the company without some serious levels of debt.

    • Dara says:

      Scooter didn’t buy Big Machine on his own, he had the backing of another investment firm that brought him on presumably for his expertise in the industry. I imagine most of the money came from them.

      Ever since Taylor left the label last year there was speculation in the business press that Swift herself would pursue a similar arrangement in order to buy a majority stake herself and thus gain control of the masters. I wonder if her team even investigated the possibility.

  32. blinkers says:

    Well she could be fudging the truth to make her victimhood look more dramatic, and it can still be true that she was excluded from making an offer to own her masters. The label wouldn’t be worth as much without her, so maybe he made more money by preventing her from buying her stuff back.

    Prince was the first time I heard about this issue as well. I don’t like Swift or her music that much but I’m happy to see another major artist take up this fight.

  33. DS9 says:

    Taylor is a pro at taking a tiny grain of truth and blowing it into the greatest tragedy known to basic Beckys everywhere.

    I’m sure this is not an above board situation but I also seriously doubt the tears, the gross, the whole poor, disadvantaged Taylor, victimhood cloak she’s wearing like a badge.

  34. Elle says:

    I’m sad and grossed out for her too. Artists should have the opportunity to bid on their masters. It is quite personal for them. And she very likely would have made a different deal if she had signed on at an older age. I feel like the way things unfolded were shady, and It is very possible women face even more of these tactics in the industry. Why would it be immune?
    . It was also reported she legally was not allowed to be brought into the negotiations, and her Father as a shareholder stayed out of the deal. He didn’t want to have to withhold any information from her.

    • Cinnamon says:

      Would she though? I mean these labels take a great risk when taking on unknown artists because they have to put work and money into them and they have no guarantee that the artist will be successfull. Negotiating power comes with proven success.

  35. Birdix says:

    Anyone else think this is manufactured drama to promote both her new album and Scooter’s purchase?

  36. sara6 says:

    I’m not taking the side of an manager who has other people fight for him on social media. And I’m not taking the side of a manager who was called homophobic by a gay black man – Todrick Hall.

  37. Daisy says:

    I’m betting she’ll get her masters by the end of the year and we’ll get picture of her and Scooter with a statement saying they reached a deal and everything is forgiven.
    PS: I believe every single artist should have the right to own their art. But I also believe Taylor is mostly mad her work ended up in the hands of someone who doesn’t worship the ground she walks on; nothing like this would’ve happen if Rob Stringer or whoever bought Big Machine instead. But again, girlie’s contract was up, so it’s nuts and unfair she left but her masters stayed. But again, what is fair in the music industry?

    • Cinnamon says:

      I highly doubt that because it would mean that Scooter Braun wasted a lot of money. I do think they will make up at some point though, they have to because in order to make decisions for her music. It is also possible that I’m underestimating her grudges and she’ll just ignore him and wait until the 35 year mark has passed and she can try to get them back.

  38. T says:

    The revenge porn comparison is tasteless. She has a right to be angry. She should never compare something that is rude and disrespectful to a legal term that DOES NOT apply. Period.

  39. Hyacinth Bucket says:

    I’m completely Team Taylor on this, but it’s just so gross and awful that she’s exploiting Braun’s horrendous abuse (of numerous artists) to make yet another cheap jab at Beiber, Kanye and Kim.

    It weakens her argument and makes her sound like an absolute psycho stalker. Kim and Kanye have nothing to do with this and using a model who resembled Taylor is not “revenge porn.” Why is she pretending it was her body when it wasn’t?

    • Lightpurple says:

      It was a statue of his fantasy of what her naked body would look like in a bed next to him and with rapist Bill Cosby and rapist Donald Trump. Stinks like revenge porn to me.

      • Arizona says:

        Kim, Kanye, and Caitlyn Jenner were also featured in the video. Kanye’s statement was that it was about influential or “famous” figures, not whether they were good or bad. The nonsense with Taylor has been a large part of Kanye’s career.

        I think the video was pretty disgusting, and not art, but it was not revenge porn.

      • Skeptical says:

        Actually, it was an homage to Vincent Desiderio, a great American painter, and art professor. I’m not a Kanye apologist or fan, but he riffed off Desiderio’s work to explore the notion of the constant media and public scrutiny of public persons even when at their most vulnerable when they’re asleep.

        Desiderio said his own work represents a communal sleep — which in a larger sense might represent the sleep of our culture, the sleep of reason.

        I’m aware that Swift’s participation/non-participation has been hotly-debated and that she didn’t see it in that spirit.

  40. DS9 says:

    So long story short, she’s just big mad that Scooter Braun has them, not that they were sold. And Tay Tay fans are upset that she was offered a deal that involved future work (presumably since she doesn’t have the scratch or capital to purchase them outright).

    And instead of releasing a mature, professional response, old girl has gone ham on social media in a manner that resembles the contents of those masters?

    Right or wrong, she still has the emotional maturity of a high school burn book and I don’t think this is going to go as well for her as she thinks.

  41. Emily says:

    Taylor Swift is a great business woman. She knows the contract she signed and admits to knowing that the fate of her masters would be and knowingly walked away. She’s not the first artist to not own her own music. Does it suck and should she have been able to buy them back? Yes. Is it personal? No.

    She shouldn’t have aired her personal feelings about Scooter for pity or bring up all the (perceived) personal slights against her. What did she think she would accomplish in terms of changing the industry?

    This is not a good look for Taylor. She would be so likeable if she dropped the “poor me” and owned her business woman persona.

  42. Wood Dragon says:

    I think all artists should be able to own their masters. They would do a better job generally at preserving their own materials than profit hungry and yet indifferent executives would be. Witness the devastating fire that happened in the 90s at Universal. There was a NY Times article about it: irreplaceable masters were lost due to callous and indifferent storage by corporate execs. All of the masters from Chess Records, believed lost, Ella Fitzgerald, Chuck Berry, Buddy Holly also believed lost, and many more. This includes obscure artists lost to time who may never be rediscovered. It was a devastating article.

  43. DS9 says:

    Is it gaslighting if she well and truly crafted this image herself?

    Taylor isn’t being painted as a forever victim and a passive agreesive bully by others in order to undermine her position.

    It’s her own M.O and plenty of people have the receipts to prove it.

    That’s not gaslighting.

  44. Case says:

    She 100 percent should’ve had an opportunity to purchase her masters, not just “earn them back.” She’s very wealthy and could’ve purchased them, no doubt. I support her on that.

    I hate that she brought up the snake drama again, though. She flat out lied about that situation and threw Kanye under the bus, which really makes me question when she’s telling the truth in general anymore (that, I’m addition to other times she has lied and/or tweaked the narrative). Him featuring her naked body in a video was vile and disturbing, and should’ve been the thing she made noise about all along. But the snake drama is something else entirely – as in, it was drama of her own making.

  45. PurpleHoulihan says:

    Revenge porn is the distribution of sexually explicit images of a person without their consent. It can include edited images. That’s the legal definition. Nudity is considered sexually explicit. What Kanye did could definitely be considered revenge porn.

    And let’s not forget – Kanye released that video while Taylor was preparing for the trial against the DJ who groped her. She was sexually assaulted by a stranger, and Kanye put a naked version of her in his video.

    She’s a victim of sexual assault. A man grabbed her ass and she had to publicly discuss it, and endure a trial against her assailant.

    Quibbling over whether Taylor used the wrong words to describe what Kanye did feeds into the “perfect victim” narrative, where we beat up victims because they don’t do or say everything perfectly. Regardless of her success, Taylor is still an assault victim. And then a man who she tried to build a friendship with used her naked body for his “art” and financial gain. And now, one of his colleagues and BFFs owns her life’s work, because her label sold it to him knowing his connection to Kanye and knowing how she felt about him. That’s retraumatizing a victim for personal gain.

    She gets to be traumatized by what happened, and her trauma is valid. Fame and success don’t protect you from trauma and PTSD, and a famous sexual assault survivor is still a survivor.

    The way some people on this thread are ignoring that fact is infuriating and disgusting.

  46. virginfangirls says:

    Should scientist own their own pharmaceutical drugs, engineers own their own inventions? At first glance it seems obvious that an artist should own their own songs, but songwriters are not the only creators in this world, and people in all kinds of other industries where their endeavors are funded by a big company don’t own their creations either. If someone else is taking the financial risk & putting up the gobs of money, then that’s the deal with the devil one has to make. And in the end, I just can’t feel bad for her. I wish this worry of hers was my biggest.
    Also, the “terrible” thing Taylor said Scooter did was bully her based on a Bieber post, but JB responded that Scooter told him he shouldn’t have made the post. Which makes sense because encouraging Bieber to piss off a bunch of Swift fans would only hurt Bieber’s popularity in turn hurting Scooter’s profits. And the second “terrible” thing Swift claimed Scooter did was the action of Kanye, & it’s a huge stretch to blame someone else for Kanye’s actions. She’s throwing out some terrible accusations about Scooter with no proof.

    • DS9 says:

      She really is the pettiest of petty.

    • Cinnamon says:

      Also her line of argument is extremely fraught since Scooter Braun does not profit from tearing her down he profits from her success. If they want to bring out a greatest hits album Braun profits and that requires public interest in such an album. I mean that guy paid 300 million banking on her success.

    • GenTer says:

      THIS!

      1. When I develop products for companies, I don’t own the rights to my work. Just as many on here who are employees or contractors for a company, I also had to sign a non-compete clause in the event I leave the company.
      2. Just as I think people working “regular jobs” should be compensated fairly, I think artists should be paid fairly, and many are not; however, Taylor’s net worth is listed as $320 M. Scott Borchetta’s net worth is listed as $50 M. (Maybe his net worth will go up after this, but still.) She hardly got screwed over in that department.
      3. The argument was made that Scott Swift didn’t want to participate in a shareholder meeting in which he knew he’d have to withhold info from his daughter, so that also aligns with this not being a huge surprise. He clearly saw something big coming from this meeting re: his daughter.
      4. I think a bigger argument here is how we gauge fair compensation. I don’t know what that gauge is; but I feel like for me personally, this story highlights socioeconomic inequality and the ever-widening gap between the haves and have-nots. We have some big sh*t to work out right now.

      • N says:

        1, 2, and 4 all day. That obscene wealth. Guess they will be the next billionaires since that gang are probably going to be trillions. I find myself only thinking of those points.

  47. HeyThere! says:

    I have always been outspoken about being a Taylor fan from day one. I still am. I am on her side of this and I can’t imagine the frustration she feels. I’m not going to go back and forth with anyone on here. I’m with Taylor. I don’t see where she did anything wrong. I’m aware that she’s not without fault in life but in this situation she did nothing wrong.

  48. Kathryn says:

    VERY few artists are entitled to or own their masters. That’s how music labels work and are so wealthy. Not saying that’s how it should be but it’s the standard. For Taylor to have a fit about this is strange it’s not like 99% of artists own their and hers are locked up and kept away from her. I agree that artists should own what they create and hopefully this will push a larger conversation about the ridiculous contracts labels push artists to sign. However, Taylor has always seemed greedy to me, pushing back on Spotify and trying to get every last cent. This seems like more greed and could have been framed as “let’s have a conversation about masters and who should own them.”

    • TheMartian says:

      It’s just business savvy, not greed. She and her people have a right to act in their own interest and push back against Spotify if they want. However, I think she’s just throwing a fit here because she doesn’t like the idea of Braun owning her masters.

  49. Chrissy S says:

    Until I read the article I thought it meant someone bought their masters degree and she was mad about it.

  50. ikki says:

    As a female artist myself, I’m with Taylor 100%. Scooter and even more so the Borchetta dude are DISGUSTING. They didn’t let her buy the masters because without them the label would be worth MUCH less.

    • Cinnamon says:

      Yes but without a label Taylor would also be nowhere near as successful as she is today. I don’t want to deny the shortcomings of labels but I think painting them purely as bad is not fair either.

  51. Courtney says:

    Team Taylor. Scooter is the worst.

  52. zotsioltar says:

    So we are all going to ignore her history of being awful to others that ‘dont get in line’? The fact that so many people are willing to just believe Taylor given her repeated and proven lies is insane.

  53. Prikalop says:

    common industry practice, she’s not the only one. why did she not bid for it? She can have it back after 50-60 yo for free, thanks to Duran Duran…

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/legalentertainment/2017/06/30/paul-mccartney-settles-with-sonyatv-over-beatles-catalogue/#65423f751f8c

  54. CairinaCat says:

    Oh

  55. CairinaCat says:

    Oh yesssss, Kanye making a diss track using her stuff will give us gossip gold all summer and into fall!!

  56. IE says:

    Did you guys read that scooter liked a picture of him buying Taylor Swift?

  57. JayCie says:

    I find it interesting that Taylor Swift somehow turns up on top of this little temper tantrum. She gets to make a big stink about it and make Scooter the bad guy on SM, so it leaves him with only two options. He wastes 300 mil dollars on buying songs and never letting them see the light of day, or he returns his investment by making 600 mil allowing use of these song for Charmin commercials and Kanye samples, which Taylor will earn royalties and make even more money.
    People seem to forget that she never really had control of her songs, but she always had a piece of the pie with writing and performing royalties.

  58. Original T.C. says:

    “revenge p0rn music video which strips my body naked…at fifteen…value is beholden to men who had no part in creating it..I was either crying or trying not to. He knew what he was doing; they both did. Controlling a woman who didn’t want to be associated with them. In perpetuity. That means forever….But for a healthier option, Lover will be out August 23.
    Sad and grossed out,
    Taylor”

    Oh Taylor Swift, never change! Different male targets, same old written drama/ dog whistles aimed at White women/girls to feel sorry for her and manipulate them into making her even richer. Honestly, she’s a genius at this game. There should be a women’s students course in 100 years about her. I used to think men were her victims but now see that’s not true, it’s White feminism.

    I got my popcorn and slushy ready for the summer of Swift part 2.

  59. Mina says:

    The music industry is shady AF. Artists are under super abusive contracts most of the time, and I do hope that this latest example is used to start going into that world. After Weinstein some things have started changing in the movie/tv business, but it’s kind of shocking that in the music world there’s still so much of this going on and no one has been able to really crack it.

  60. TheMartian says:

    Except for the Kanye revenge porn bit, this has nothing to do about bullying a woman in particular. It’s just business. Happens everywhere to anyone in any industry. She was given a chance to own the masters – by staying with the label for six more albums or whatever it was – but it wasn’t an opportunity to buy outright. She could have schemed and, I believe, easily found financing to buy the company and hence own the masters like Braun did. To me there’s nothing in any of this about bullying a woman for the sake of it. Not a fan of Taylor at all but I can recognise it’s horrible for singer-songwriters on another dimension because their work is so personal.

  61. Cindyy says:

    Sorry, Taylor, but it’s a business. If you want to play with the big guns then don’t act like a kindergartner.

    Would a well-run business work with Taylor to coordinate the transfer of her masters? Absolutely. Would any business transfer the masters to her in exchange for a flat fee? LOL. Sure. Right after they fix world hunger.

  62. shestiresome says:

    @ts: You Need to Calm Down?

  63. Its good as your other content :D , appreciate it for posting.

  64. Arizona says:

    Embracing feminism, which you even admit was likely just for PR, does not mean that she admits when she’s wrong. I’m actually hard pressed to remember a time when she DID admit she was wrong, about anything. She changes her stances in public, but usually just to whatever makes her look the most innocent and worthy of sympathy at any given time.

  65. Ktae says:

    Agree with everything you said. The gaslighting is intense. Sure you can buy your masters back as long as you resign with us and produce more music for us. That alone would make me be done. I’d also like to point out, and I’ll probably get roasted for this. But it seems like Scooter courts musicians with different types of mental trauma or issues. We know Bieber and Kanye have or are struggling, he just signed Lovato. What’s with him and the abundance of clients with mental illness? Easier to manipulate?

  66. KL says:

    No one else has the right to dictate Swift’s feelings, but she does not get to redefine terms and concepts that already in the cultural lexicon. “Revenge p0rn” is an actual thing, with actual victims who suffer under specific conditions, and it’s not a cute look to appropriate a buzzword-y term just so your accusations have more punch to them.

    It’s an even less cute look because this is what Swift has a history of doing: using social justice for personal advantage, not in the interest of universal alleviation of social ills.

    Her misuse of the term doesn’t invalidate her anger or feelings of violation, and it certainly doesn’t invalidate her concerns about her masters. It DOES show her ongoing willingness to tweak a narrative that crucial bit, and I wish she would quit it because even when people like me want to support her, we’re aware she has a tendency to do that.

  67. ME says:

    Ariana Grande stopped working with Scooter for a while and then went back to him. I’m not sure what caused her to leave and come back but it’s interesting.

  68. DS9 says:

    Jay Z had to run Def Jam for 10 years to get his…

  69. TheMartian says:

    @ktae, Pretty sure Tori Kelly doesn’t fit that picture. Earn your masters back by staying with us for x number of albums is a condition made to any kind of artist, male or female. It’s not gaslighting; it’s just business.

  70. blue36 says:

    @ Ktae That’s a good point regarding the types of artists Mr. Braun seems to sign with.

  71. DS9 says:

    This is such an excellent point.

    And to add to it, artists should have more say over their masters but she goes off into ridiculous territory when she implies that it’s because of sexism.

    Sexism is alive and well but invoking it here is nothing more than an obfuscation and a rallying cry for her followers.

    Prince and the Beatles are the two most powerful artists associated with this argument so she can miss me.