Scooter Braun tried to have a ‘mature & private’ phone call with Taylor Swift

Taylor Swift returns home from Gigi Hadid's birthday in New York

I’ve been wondering since Sunday if Taylor Swift’s anti-Scooter Braun Tumblr post was about anything other than her martyr complex and Taylor simply being “in her feelings.” As in, I wonder if Taylor is trying to play out some kind of business strategy where she makes the Big Machine sale so toxic for Scooter Braun that he has to sell the music label sometime soon. It could be, but after all of the controversy, I would expect that IF Scooter sold the label – and thus, Taylor’s masters – he would be able to fetch an even bigger price tag than what he paid ($300 million). So if Taylor’s original intention was a business play to eventually buy back her masters… she failed? Because she just increased their worth.

Speaking of, TMZ tracked the Amazon sales of Taylor’s album since Sunday and her old albums have been on Amazon’s “Movers and Shakers” charts for the past 48 hours: “Four of her old albums… saw significant spikes in CD purchases … with a couple of them even climbing to the top spots on the ‘M&S’ list. Taylor’s debut album, “Taylor Swift” peaked at #3 Monday in digital sales — up 471% –and her fourth studio album, “Red,” peaked at #4 — up 433%. Two of her other Big Machine albums — “Fearless” and “1989″ — saw surges of 221% and 88%, respectively.” More money for Scooter Braun (and Taylor too, let’s be honest).

Something else I was thinking about: Scooter could totally license Taylor’s music for an assortment of projects she doesn’t approve of now. I expect to hear a lot of vintage Swift music on Keeping Up with the Kardashians. Hoping to avoid that, Scooter is apparently seeking a private audience with Taylor:

Scooter Braun took the first step in trying to reach out for communication with Taylor Swift to try and resolve their differences, but she’s apparently not interested in talking it out. Sources connected to the deal tell us Justin Bieber’s manager reached out through mutual friends Monday morning to engage in a “mature and private” phone call with Swift.

We’re told Braun was eager to explain his position to the “ME!” singer, and also discuss the shock over her reaction to the deal’s public announcement. We’re told Braun is genuinely “shocked” by Swift’s public reaction, and is “very hurt” by the entire situation.

He is confused as to why Swift would attack him when she knew all along his investment company was in the running to purchase Big Machine Records and own her masters. Our sources say Braun wants to discuss with Swift about the business aspects of the purchase, and to make sure she knows he’s a big fan of the “You Need to Calm Down” singer. We’re told he wants Swift to understand the main reason he purchased her catalogue is because he believes in her music and in her future.

[From The Blast]

He wants to clear all the air via a phone call? Kanye says hi. Yael Cohen Braun better record the phone call just in case, I’m just saying.

Seriously, Taylor’s Summer Beefs always involve furtive phone calls and Taylor misrepresenting what she knew and when. I wonder if Taylor will continue to block Scooter’s calls in the long-term. I also wonder if this Summer Beef is being extra-hyped because her new album is coming out and nothing moves Taylor-albums like her fans seeing her as the biggest victim ever.

Carus's Palisades Village Opening Gala

Photos courtesy of Backgrid and WEN.

Related stories

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

183 Responses to “Scooter Braun tried to have a ‘mature & private’ phone call with Taylor Swift”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Emily says:

    If she refuses a phone call, than she’s being petty. I always thought she was some sort of business genius but she obv can’t keep her personal drama separate long enough to hear Scooter out. Maybe has a better deal for her than Big Machine did.

    • Kittycat says:

      Clearly she is upset.

      In what universe do you have a conversation with someone when you are mad?

      • Arizona says:

        when you’re a grown-up you do it all the time. 🙄

      • olive says:

        @kittycat i have to do it at work all the time. we all do. so much for taylor being such a brilliant businesswoman when she apparently can’t even set aside her emotions to handle an important business phone call.

      • CROWHOOD says:

        Literally 80% of my conversations at work are with people who have upset me or will be upset with me at the end of my conversation (auditor life). It’s called employment, business, functioning in society, etc. Seems much better for her to have that conversation with her tumblr fans than the person she’s upset with. Seems so logical.

      • FC says:

        @kittycat When you’re an adult professional and there are literal millions on the line.

      • Kittycat says:

        @ARIZONA @olive I have worked in many corporations.

        The worst thing to do is talk to someone while upset.

        Moat people know that.

      • Izzy says:

        It’s called adulting. Taylor should try it sometime.

    • Digital Unicorn says:

      Taylor is not a business genius, she does however have very smart people around her, mainly her father.

      • roseplot says:

        +1 and I find it very odd that her father has not been talked about more in this drama. Her father knew exactly was going down with Big Machine. I wonder how she is dealing with him?

      • JayCie says:

        Her father didn’t take the phone call regarding who was buying, and if he did, it would be considered insider trading if he told her. However, she did state in her Tumblr post that she knew Big Machine was for sale, so she knew that her masters were to be sold. Scott told her in advanced in the amount of time it was legal to tell someone who is not a share holder Scooter was the buyer. She is not mad about people selling her masters she is mad at Scooter was one of the three people who bought it. I think she should have taken this as an opportunity to reach out privately and try to get more in copyright and royalties, but she took a petty route, and decided to cyberbully, because that is the only reason why she aired this on Tumblr to begin with.

      • runcmc says:

        @Jaycie

        Lmao girl that is NOT what insider trading means. Like not even remotely.

      • Kebbie says:

        @Jaycie Insider trading is when you buy or sell stock in a company after receiving inside information that you know will cause it to increase or decrease in value. It doesn’t apply here. Big Machine Records is a private company, it’s not on the stock market.

      • Hollz says:

        Kebbie, insider trading was the wrong word. But it would be a violation of the NDA he signed if he told her anything about the phone call.

    • Lightpurple says:

      Scooter Braun would not be offering her a deal in a telephone conversation.

      • Emily says:

        But a telephone conversation could lead to meetings and lead to a deal. Social media squabbles won’t create a better outcome.

      • MissMercury says:

        @Emily- No she will never get her masters back she is signed to another record label. Those stay with Scooter now.

    • Tiffany :) says:

      What good would a phone call do, though? She doesn’t owe him her time.

      • lisa says:

        He, in all honesty, he doesn’t owe her his. He is in business. You don’t get to pick who a company sells to or who buys it. There are Million on the line. And does anyone think that Scooter will forgo this investment because Taylor Swift didn’t want him to be the buyer?

      • Kittycat says:

        @Lisa the investment he purchased depends on her being popular

      • Sticks says:

        @Tiffany:)
        Agree. A phone call would do no good. And she doesn’t owe him one. Also, if she feels he was somehow associated with the drama with Kanye/Kim then it’s only that much more reason a phone call would be a bad idea and he may be operating in bad faith.

  2. Arizona says:

    The more this goes on, the more spoiled and petulant she seems. I’m sure she’s bummed about not owning her masters, as she should be, but it really seems like she’s just playing the victim card because she’s ultimately mad they were sold to Scooter. Her whole message is just annoying about it.

    • Lee says:

      I totally agree and I am bummed to see so many people still falling for her fake attitude.

    • C says:

      She will always act like she’s a teenager 🙄
      Btw, her father signed the contract when she was 15. He knew about this deal….she needs to talk to him.

      • Aims says:

        Agreed C. If she wants to be mad at someone be mad at her representation. They’re the ones who are supposed to have her interest. She is the perpetual victim and frankly, it’s annoying. She’s almost 30. It’s time she puts on her big girl pants.

      • lisa says:

        I wonder if over the years if they could have renegotiated the contract. This not a new thing. It happens to all artist.

  3. Moses says:

    Scooter instagrammed that he “bought Taylor Swift.” Not her music, HER. If she doesn’t want to talk to him, she has plenty reason.

    • Gigi says:

      He never said that. Justin Bieber did a dumb pic post! Artist need to learn to make better deals. She has a rich dad and not a good lawyer. Prince showed the way

      • Moses says:

        Actually no…you can google this. He didn’t make the original post (his friend did) but scooter later posted it to his own Instagram stories and took it down shortly after.

      • Christina says:

        Gigi, EXACTLY!!!

        The music business is a business. Her music, like Prince’s, and the Beatles, is worth a lot of money as long as people are alive who know these artists and want to buy their music. Prince was successful at reclaiming his work. Taylor Swift needs to see a psychologist to work on her impulse control. She has a right to be angry, but she has to accept that this is a business, and the only way to win is to work through it. If you are going to lash out, get something done with it, like Prince did.

      • Tiffany :) says:

        Prince is such a horrible example. He was wronged, seriously wronged! He fought back in the limited ways he could, but at GREAT expense and effort. He should never have been put into that position.

        The idea that musicians have always been screwed over by executive greed, therefore, it is OK for other artists to also get screwed over is twisted thinking.

      • lisa says:

        Music artist get screwed over by the industry. Just as athletes get it from the Team Owners. The only way to change is to band together and create some kind of organization that protects them. Get a law or something to protect them. But all of these people want to be a STAR. They want their music head in mass so they sign these contracts for the moment. Forgetting that there are many years ahead. But they want fame. And for now, this is the road to it. Not fair by any means. But still the road.

    • Arizona says:

      it was his friends congratulatory post that he stupidly shared on his Instagram story. let’s at least get the facts right.

      • OriginalLala says:

        It was a gross story and it was gross that he shared it – really gross message that he sent with that

      • Moses says:

        Yes Lala! He shared it, he obviously agreed with the sentiment. It was gross all around.

      • Arizona says:

        I agree. all I’m saying is that people need to not twist things.

      • Moses says:

        It’s not twisting anything to say scooter instagrammed it…because he did. I wouldn’t blame him for his friend posting it because none of us is responsible for our friends’ behavior. But he shared it to his own Instagram. Clearly he didn’t see how problematic it was to say he “bought” a woman.

      • EMc says:

        And I believe its this right here- this “owning a woman” mentality that she is so disgusted by and angry about. Whether he created it, or liked it and shared it, she knows this is how he and his group behave and I dont blame her for not wanting him to have any control of her or her masters.

      • Sticks says:

        @EMC I think you’ve nailed it.

    • Janie says:

      Remember when Ariana Grande fired him for a hot minute? What was that all about? Idk he’s pretty sketchy.

  4. Erinn says:

    I know everyone likes to cheer on anyone who stands up to/against Swift … but that Yael woman seemed to be just as childish and petty as Swift is called. I don’t understand the cheering bad behavior on when it’s related to someone we deem to have bad behavior. If Yael could have kept her comments related directly to the situation it’d be one thing- but she had to get that dig in about dropping friends. This woman is no better than anyone else involved. It was the same with the Kardashian’s – they’re hellspawn any day of the week until they pull their trash out and use it against someone people don’t like. And the burden of proof regarding full recordings vs perfectly hand selected clips is SO low when it’s in a situation like this. Pulling things out of context can set a scene, but it doesn’t definitively prove much. When chunks of recording are missing that should ALWAYS be suspect- especially when people call for a full recording to be released and it somehow is never produced.

    Now. If Scooter and Taylor want to make this work – they’ll have a meeting and work out a deal. I understand why she’s angry about this – and maybe I’m just a grudge holding bitch. But I fully understand where she’s coming from in this situation. Does it mean she’s legally entitled to her music? Not really. But that’s a screwed up system effecting SO much of the industry. It doesn’t make it ‘right’ just because it’s widespread. You can’t say that she had a chance to buy her music out when the old owner talks about her EARNING each album back with an additional album – that’s clearly just to boost up the amount that the company is worth in the deal, and I highly doubt they were interested in making sure the new buyers would stick to that deal.

    Everyone involved is messy af. But my god – how is a GROWN man who goes by freaking SCOOTER still not personally speaking about any of this? Why is he allowing TMZ and his wife to do his work for him? That’s an extra level of embarrassing to add to this shitshow. And let’s not forget that the absolute mess that is JBiebs isn’t partially due to Scooter having him slave away as a child.

    • Arizona says:

      I think that I don’t like anybody involved in the story at all, but Taylor is coming across poorly to me solely because of how she went about this and what she chose to say in her message. I feel a great deal of sympathy for her that all of the work that she put in is not owned by her. however, that wasn’t what she chose to focus on. instead she chose to focus on how she claimed she’s being bullied and all of the other nonsense. making it all about poor Taylor who is always picked on by people, like she’s an underdog when she hasn’t been one for about 10 years now, and never acknowledging the bullying that she herself does (the whole Katy Perry thing is now because the media was pitting women against each other? okay Taylor).

      I also don’t buy the argument that it matters whether they release the full recording or not. they released the segments that specifically showcased the points where Taylor contradicted her previous statements. That’s all they needed to do. and Kim has been more or less silent on it since, while Taylor continues to twist the story and will not really address what she said in the phone call that people took issue with.

      my biggest problem with Taylor is that she has lied and manipulated situations enough that I don’t trust her version of events. I am ambivalent about Kim and I really have always thought Kanye is trash. (and yes, the Kardashians lie and manipulated stuff all the time – but Taylor did actually say what was on the tape. the audio wasn’t altered.)

      • Erinn says:

        I had replied to this, but it got eaten. So instead of writing out a huge comment I’m just going to say that I still think it’s incredibly suspicious that Kim went silent after calls for it to be fully released. If it was something that would benefit her, we would have seen(heard) the whole thing. I’m not saying that they cut up what she said and strung it together to make it sound like she said something she didn’t – but I’m willing to bet there were things said during the conversation as a whole that don’t exonerate Kimye.

        I don’t blame you for not trusting her full version of events – but I just find that both parties are equally suspicious when it comes to that scenario specifically.

      • Bo Peep says:

        @Erinn @Arizona I’ve always wondered about the chopped up recordings and how long it took for them to be released, even though it would have been more beneficial for the Ks to respond sooner.

        Is it possible that Kim did not release the whole recording because of legal ramifications?

        I understand that the reason the recording is assumed to be legal is because Taylor was on speakerphone and other people in Kanye’s studio were speaking loudly enough to be overheard on Taylor’s end. Would the legality of releasing the recording change if at some point, the other people left and they could no longer be heard on Taylor’s end?

        I understand that the states in which both parties were in when the call was recorded was never released, so I’m assuming legality mainly from the “no expectation of privacy” standpoint.

      • Arizona says:

        My understanding is that they took so long to be released because they tied it to an episode of KUWTK. Kim had a whole episode about how upset she was with Taylor, and how she had her on tape – and as soon as the episode finished, Kim released the videos on Snapchat. So this way, she got people interested in reading the article where she first mentioned them, then she got more eyeballs on her TV show, and then she got eyeballs on her Snapchat. Like most things Kardashian, it is smart marketing and also shady.

        I personally think Kim felt like she had dunked on Taylor, so then she was done with it. Knowing Kanye, it’s entirely possible that he said other things in the conversation that weren’t flattering to him.

        Kim also mentioned that Taylor’s lawyers threatened her to not release the tapes, but nothing ever happened – which leads me to believe it was legal through whatever loopholes Kim found. And I would imagine Kim checked that before she ever brought it up publicly.

      • Bo Peep says:

        @Arizona I know Kim tied it to KUWTK and a Snapchat account that she just made (which I agree is shady and smart, since she got a bunch of new followers that way). I still feel like the KUWTK plug seemed like a Plan B after they missed their ideal response time.

        Kim had to try and revive interest in the issue by shilling it in Rolling Stones before the KUWTK episode came out. Few people read her RS coverage and the ones who did didn’t believe her. The same day Taylor made a big splash by snuggling with Tom Hiddleston on the beach and all the headlines went to that. Kanye was already seen as a liar or delusional at best by her fans, his fans, and the general public. If Taylor hadn’t dedicated her Grammy’s speech to speaking out against Kanye for taking credit for her success after the press around the issue already went cold, the Kardashian clan wouldn’t even have the same angle to work with in their released snaps. And they had no idea that Taylor would make that speech before it was aired. This was already months after the public turned against Kanye.

        I wonder if Kimye missed their ideal response time (within two weeks of the issue blowing up) bc they had to get a legal team to extensively draw out all the loopholes. But the loopholes still don’t allow Kim to release the whole recording.

        I have no doubt that Kanye probably also said things that were problematic and uncomplimentary to the Kardashian image in the uncut recording, but I doubt they actually relate to the lyrics that Taylor approved or contradicted Taylor’s approval. Otherwise, Taylor’s team would have already said so by now.

        TLDR: the uncut recording might make Kanye look bad, but I doubt that it exonerates Taylor or makes her look better.

    • lucy says:

      Well put! I agree with all you said.

    • Meghan says:

      @Erinn I just have to add that the grown man named Scooter in my life decided to fire me on April Fools day, when I had done nothing wrong. He didn’t even tell me, he put my job up on GB and a co-worker told me. When I finally was able to get in touch with him he TEXTED me to say “oh just take the week off.”

      He was visibly upset when I showed up to work the next day, but I had done nothing wrong. His reason? My cousin (his nephew) took a job at a competing company.

      • Erinn says:

        I have not met a Scooter who is a great person haha. The only one I know of in real life was a cheating asshat to his wife.

      • Arizona says:

        Are there lots of grown men being called Scooter as adults?! I have never encountered one!

      • Erinn says:

        LOL, apparently there are too many. When I’d first heard of the one I know of I was like 12 and I remember thinking “what a stupid name”.

    • GenericUserName123 says:

      Yes! If this situation were happening to literally anyone else, a lot more people would be on their side. Taylor isn’t perfect, but many celebrities that get the stamp of approval here have done much worse. It makes no sense!

      • Lyhnn says:

        @Erinn
        I do feel bad she doesn’t own her masters but Yael had every right to say what she said. Taylor is using her fans to bully them including their children which is unacceptable when this could have been private. She is not the victim here it was a business deal. I am sick of her perpetual victim hood and like Kaiser said she does this every time she is promoting an album so it becomes harder to believe her because it feels like a gimmick (that has worked for her). I just wish she would let the music speak for itself and not use drama to sell records.

    • Tiffany :) says:

      I totally agree, Erinn.

    • Kitten says:

      You know I agree, Erinn.

  5. Leesa says:

    Leaking the fact that he tried to call her about it and intimating that she was too petty to pick up is super mature and private of him.

  6. Chisey says:

    I 100% believe she’s being so public with this to sell her new album. I know I’m less excited for this new album than I was for past ones because I don’t love the direction her music is going, and her last single/music video was pretty poorly received. But now she’s changing the narrative from whether her Pride video is problematic to artists’ rights, an area where she comes off much better, with a large helping of ‘let’s defend Taylor from the mean record execs by buying more copies of this album than we did of the last!’ I honestly don’t think it’s a terrible strategy – there are people who are mad at her and take Scooter’s side, but were they going to buy her album anyway? I’m curious to see how it plays out.

    • Tater tot says:

      I agree with this too. That, and the fact that she is coming out with FOUR different types of albums for her fans to buy… she’s making sure her album is #1. It’s weird because her fans do come through even when the public is MEH about it.

  7. ds says:

    I just don’t get this – if someone you know, who, as others he’s worked with point out – usually defends you or at least tries to make everyone get along with your pov, buys the label that has your masters – wouldn’t a collaboration and a contact with that person enable you to open a path or strategy for getting your masters back in the future? I didn’t know much about this guy before this story, I’m just wondering if they would probably be willing to settle her rights not right now but in the years to come that could benefit them all?

    • Miles says:

      He literally has a picture of the Famous video playing at a concert up on his Twitter. Then he put on Instagram story a picture his friend posted about how he bought Taylor Swift. Clearly he cares so much about her.

      • EMc says:

        This, Miles. He’s attempting to change his narrative by having his friends (Demi, Justin) coming out on his behalf but I believe he is every bit as disgusting as Taylor suggests he is, and theres a good reason she doesnt want him to have a single finger on any of her stuff.

      • Arizona says:

        I’ll be honest that Demi and Justin’s opinions don’t matter much to me here, because they’ve both openly disliked Taylor for years (I think because of Selena?).

      • ds says:

        I have no idea what the guy is about, that’s why I’m asking. I’m specialized in copy right law. (To be fair EU based, not USA law nor Anglo – Saxon) so I always want to ask questions when we’re on copyrights subject cause it irritates me when misinterpreted. And as I said I don’t know anything about this dude, so I just wanted to see if she’s being a fake victim here (she is most of the time) or actually a damaged party.

  8. Jessica says:

    Our culturally ingrained biases against women always reveal themselves in moments like these. Interesting. (No, I am not a Swift fan, and not everything has to be or should be filtered through the lens of fandom.)

    • Chaine says:

      Exactly.

    • Arizona says:

      I really don’t think this is a sexist issue just because she happens to be a woman. my issues with it are directly related to how she had handled situations in the past, it’s pretty specific to her.

      • Miles says:

        You’ve literally been in these comments left and right talking about everything she’s done in the past meanwhile ignoring the other side that isn’t any better and is actually worse.

        She doesn’t have to talk to a guy who publicly has a picture of a naked wax figure of her on his Twitter. She doesn’t have to talk to a guy who publicly shares an Instagram story saying he bought her. She doesn’t have to talk to people that are trying to say she doesn’t understand “business,” as if they’re calling her stupid meanwhile she’s one of the more powerful woman in the industry. The whole ordeal about her not having her masters is not misogynistic. Absolutely not. But it’s everything else surrounding the situation that is.

      • Arizona says:

        You’ve been in the comments just as much sharing your opinion. I’ve also stated that I don’t really care for anybody in this story.

        I like Taylor enough, and have bought all her albums, but I think she’s problematic a lot of the time and rarely gets called out on it. She IS one of the most powerful women in the industry – and yet she acts like she’s not. If she wanted to make this just about not owning her masters, I’d be behind her 100%. Instead she wanted to make it about being bullied.

        She doesn’t have to talk to Scooter. She also didn’t have to post her blog post. Shrug.

      • oh-dear says:

        This is a sexist issue. Women haven’t owned the music catalogue of men they have been predatory or predatory-adjacent to. Men get to do that to women. Women very rarely ever get the financial and cultural capital to own their success, especially in the entertainment world.
        There are two layers to this specific cituation. First, Taylor indicated she has an issue with Scooter owning her music because of how he has behaved toward her (specifically with regard to Kanye’s song famous). She is now in a position where her music can be used by and for them. That would make me uncomfortable and upset too.
        And second, NOW that she is in a position to be able to bid on her music, she wanted a chance to do it with them further leveraging her.

      • Arizona says:

        it is not a sexist issue. it happens to artists of all genders. if this only happened to female artists, it would be a sexist issue. Taylor being a female does not automatically make it sexist.

      • Ashby says:

        @Arizona :
        Taylor Swift is certainly no saint, but who is really…Kanye, Kim K., Scooter, his petty wife, Justin Bieber, Demi Lovato???
        Regardless, I can’t stand Swift’s music, never purchased anything of hers and probably never will, but this Scooter guy saying that he bought Taylor Swift is outright disgusting.
        Shame on him and all those that defend such awful behavior by a nearly 40 year old man.
        Patriarchy is really strong, especially in these TRUMP days.
        Grow up Scooter and all of his henchmen and women!

      • Arizona says:

        @Ashby As I’ve said repeatedly, I don’t really like any of the players in this situation. (I also don’t think his wife was being petty, Taylor blasted her husband and she’s having her address and phone number shared and people are talking about her kids – I think she was well within her right to respond.) Taylor is not a saint, but she wants people to believe that she is. LaineyGossip said it perfectly today – even when she’s right about an issue (artists owning their masters), she ends up being wrong (framing it as a bullying/sexist issue).

        He didn’t say he bought Taylor. One of his friends did a post that said that, that he briefly (and stupidly) shared to his Instagram Stories and then almost immediately deleted.

        The patriarchy is not strong here. It’s irritating that people are turning “artist doesn’t own their masters” into a feminist/sexist issue. It’s not. It’s an industry and artist issue, but this crap happens to male artists just as much as female artists. Heck, two of the most well known cases involve Prince and Paul McCartney!

      • London says:

        Arizona,I don’t think I could disagree with you more. I worked for record labels for over 26 years and I can’t even begin to describe the level of misogyny that goes on daily. For absolutely sure female artist are treated a lot worse than their male counterparts,I’ve seen that almost daily. I can’t go into details for the obvious reasons and although I’m no fan of Taylor Swift’s music,I believe every word she says in regards to this issue. I used to fight the battle almost around the clock and I made very little headway,which I truly regret,but it was like pushing water up the hill. Outright horrible and toxic atmosphere,especially for women.

      • otaku fairy... says:

        “I can’t go into details for the obvious reasons and although I’m no fan of Taylor Swift’s music,I believe every word she says in regards to this issue.” Pure class. For real. Thank you for understanding the fact that your having exposure to inequality and abuse within an industry, organization, or culture doesn’t give you the right to go around violating the privacy of other women and girls or repeating every rumor you’ve heard/ projecting serious experiences onto them without their consent just because ‘it’s a gossip site, y’all!’ THAT’S being a good ally. So many people pretend not to get this.

        Also, it’s awesome that you put forth the effort to use the place you did have in the industry to stand up to misogyny.

    • Tater tot says:

      Yeah, no. This is not a specific women’s issue. It’s not a Taylor Swift issue. Artists have had this issue forever, think Paul McCartney, Cher, and Prince. Just because I have different opinions from you, that is not internalized misogyny.

      Miles, you’ve been in these comments just as much though?

      • Jessica says:

        @Tater Tot: Cool story bro.

      • Tater tot says:

        @Jessica Ahh love your attitude girl, nothing beats a rude person in a celebrity gossip site 😂

      • Jessica says:

        I guess “yeah, no” was super friendly and not at all dismissive? And calling me “girl”? Hm.

        I don’t share your take on this. That doesn’t make me “rude”. It’s not that serious. Have a lovely evening (seriously).

    • Kit says:

      Also agree. Makes me queasy.

    • Carrie says:

      This.
      He’s trying for himpathy

      People need to read Down Girl by Kate Manne so they can learn all the ways women are held down and then manipulated to feel shame, them blamed for being upset for mistreatment or worse – abuse.

      Look at Bieber’s father and tell me he is aware of women’s rights and what they go through. Reread Cara’s response to Bieber. Look at Scooters behaviour and actions throughout his career too. The women they married enable their misogyny – they do not know better or they do know and don’t care.

      I’m not at all a Swift fan, but she was absolutely right to speak out on this and to do so publicly will help women everywhere I hope. It’s past time. Times Up and Me Too happened and might be worth revisiting, for some, if a book suggestion doesn’t appeal.

  9. Ronaldinhio says:

    Fundamentally she is a recording artist who was paid, and well paid, to write those albums. Part of the deal was that she did not own the masters.
    Each of us do things which with the benefit if hindsight we would wish we had not.
    I hate the idea that what Swift did was some form of high art and that she is being particularly manipulated in this situation.
    She never owned the masters and still doesn’t. This was ever the case.
    This is a fabricated fuss to seem more victimised….I truly don’t understand why anyone buys into her world view. She is a white women from an affluent family who has been incredibly fortunate in her life and career. I have no understanding how her worldview as one of identification with victim is acceptableto others. I believe she is pushing for what she wants by any means necessary. I respect being a hard negotiator but I don’t respect playing the victim – there are so many actual victims around without any of your privilege.
    I wish she would grow up. I find this tiresome.

    • boz says:

      Totally agree. And lest we forget : Swift is still receiving the same millions and millions of dollars from her royalties as before.

    • JayCie says:

      Correct. She didn’t lose anything because she never had it to begin with. This is a girl, who at 14 no one wanted to sign her, and her father had to buy a stake in the company to even get this deal. Taking her on, when larger recording companies passed, was a great risk. She succeeded when many people failed. For every TS out there there are thousands that fail. Record companies put the money upfront, give them studio time, hire musicians, engineers, and promoters to sell their album, and take most of the risk. Their reward is ownership and ability to do license their material as well as royalties. TSwift was writer, recorder, and even some producer rights to her songs, and always will have those. There is a lot that is wrong in the entertainment industry, but Swift was never a victim in this situation, and can only benefit off of the passive income she will accrue.

      • oh-dear says:

        I do think she lost something though – the person who has control of her masters is a person who has been an active misogynist and allied with Kanye. I think she is afraid that Kanye will have access to her songs now. She clearly stated that she was specifically bothered by Scooter owning them, and by the deal she was offered to take ownership. Both those things are problematic.
        Also, she isn’t complaining about the fact that she didn’t own them while she was building her career, but she is highlighting the fact that now 2 men who have been problematic to her own her music.

      • tangerinepill says:

        She will still need to approve any of use her recordings. When you license music, you need both the Master Recording Rights & the Synch (Publishing) rights. So while you will always have to license the Synch rights, you don’t necessarily have to license the Master side (if she chose to say do her own rerecord, for example).

    • olive says:

      agreed. this is how the recording industry works – they took the financial risk of her first album failing, but it succeeded, so they get the payout. and she KNOWS this too, she’s just manipulating how this is presented to the world. that she can’t even stick to this one issue and had to bring up being “bullied” by kanye in her tumblr post – she just wants to be a victim, over and over.

    • Christina says:

      Ronald and Tater, yes, this is a very, very typical story in the music business. Taylor is using the ignorance of the public about how it works to her advantage. She can be angry because she hates the man who bought her catalog, but as messed up as the business is, IT’S A BUSINESS. Is there rampant misogyny in the business? Yes! I want her to fight that, but she is calling something misogyny when it happened to Prince, Cher, the Beatles. She is in good company. She and her dad sold her masters when she was 15 because THEY WANTED FINANCIAL SUCCESS in the music industry. If this was about integrity, she’d be writing poetry and singing songs at cafes while working a day job right now.

    • Christina says:

      Ronald and Tater, yes, this is a very, very typical story in the music business. Taylor is using the ignorance of the public about how it works to her advantage. She can be angry because she hates the man who bought her catalog, but as messed up as the business is, IT’S A BUSINESS. Is there rampant misogyny in the business? Yes! I want her to fight that, but she is calling something misogyny when it happened to Prince, Cher, the Beatles. She is in good company. She and her dad sold her masters when she was 15 because THEY WANTED FINANCIAL SUCCESS in the music industry. If this was about integrity, she’d be writing poetry and singing songs at cafes while working a day job right now.

    • Chem says:

      100% agree. I find it insane that she does this, claiming she is a victim, claiming she was bullied, that it’s not bullying, she doesn’t know what bullying is.

  10. Dark and Stormy says:

    Scooter Braun is pretty disgusting and long before this happened he had a terrible rep on other gossip sites for mistreating some of his talent. It’s really too bad he got his hands on her music.

    • dumbledork says:

      What’s funny too, is that the only people supporting him is his wife, Justin Boober and Demi Lovato. Whether Taylor is kind of a dipshit is another story. In this situation, with all the people in the industry agreeing with her, I’m guessing there is more to the story about this Scooter douche. And any guy supporting another guy that likes to depict naked women without their consent or likes to “own” a woman, can eff off.

      • JayCie says:

        I disagree. I feel that there is a silent majority, all of them business moguls who will look at her, and realize that she took a standard business deal and twisted it publicly, in order to manipulate fans and media. This is something that business savvy people don’t do. Universal Music just watched her burn a bridge, and I bet that this will bite her in the end. She is not as powerful as she thinks she is. She is merely a cog in the entertainment machine.

      • holly hobby says:

        Exactly. In business there aren’t permanent enemies. Plus as she ages out and her fans lose interest, her career won’t last either. Sorry she doesn’t have the singing chops and her songs are dumb.

    • Tiffany :) says:

      Yes, Scooter has been problematic for a while now. Bieber has been a mess for years now, and many reports say his over-working/enabling management style contributed.

  11. SamC says:

    Scooter Braun has shown himself to be as immature as Bieber over the years and I’m inclined to believe in some conversation somewhere he did say he “owns” her now, and probably worse. Maybe they did offer her the masters but perhaps was some ridiculous price and/or the additional albums? Mentally have Dr Evil saying “I’ll sell them for $1 billion dollars!”

    And the other business exec coming out yesterday saying Taylor “doesn’t understand business” or something along those lines was just condescending. Like everything I’m sure the truth lies somewhere in the middle but in this instance I tend to lean more towards Taylor.

  12. Lara says:

    I didn’t know her new album is coming out this summer! Now the publicizing of this whole ordeal makes sense: she’s gaining sympathy for her poorly received singles ( and I say this as a general fan of her music, but she always chooses the worst songs as singles.)

  13. Step says:

    People defending scooter are pretty disgusting. I mean look at Bieber, he’s a mess, even Ariana said he was manipulative and treated her badly.

    • tempest prognosticator says:

      I agree. It’s as though their hatred of Swift has rendered them incapable of seeing the other players in this situation clearly.

    • OriginalLala says:

      seriously – This situation for any artist is gross, Scooter is gross (and continues to be gross about this)

    • Carrie says:

      Yes. The disparity between enlightened masses on this matter, vs. this blog, is staggering. This is a serious issue and perpetuating abuse or supporting abusers is not ok. I hope celebitchy catches up.

    • Christina says:

      Personally, I don’t love Scooter or hate TS. My family has worked in the entertainment business for years. It’s a business. TS is manipulating the public. People in the business can hate Scooter all they want. They still need him, because he has the deep pockets. If you want to be distributed, you need to go through a limited number of people. It’s a hard business. My kid is a singer, entering music school, and I’m worried, but I talk to her like I comment here: in the music business, you don’t matter. The money does, so you have to be strategic and take care of yourself. The gatekeepers get a bad reputation because we see the pressure destroy the artists. The artists can say “no. I don’t want to do that show”, but everyone is making money.

      We hear the emotions in the music, and we want the business to be about those emotions. It’s a show. It’s vaudevillian, and as misogynistic as the rest of the world.

      And the nudity in the Kanye video? There is a ton of nudity everywhere. She is a public figure. She’s fair game. Once you promote your image in the public domain, you risk people using your image and impersonators and SNL skits, etc. And our society, men and women, entertain ourselves with misogyny. THAT is what needs to change.

      • Bookworm1858 says:

        Strong disagree about the nudity! No one should have to see their naked body used in someone else’s “art” without their consent.

      • Scotchy says:

        @ Christina I am in the music business and have been a professional singer-songwriter/music maker for almost 15 years. You are correct to tell your child to be very strategic. I also have one other piece of advice that I wish someone told me. Learn how to engineer, learn how to mix, learn how to master. Learn the tools to self produce and engineer because those skills are transferrable. You can always get work if you are a fantastic, engineer, mixer, producer. As a singer songwriter that well can dry up and it will quickly thanks to the internetization of music things move quick and the money is tight. Luckily I developed some of those transferrable skills, but if I hadn’t well it wouldn’t have been as ok of a journey as it has been. Also always own you’re masters but I am sure you know this 😊 Now as for Swift, the whole ordeal is so very very petty and she is coming across poorly. There was a professional way to deal with this and online attacks were not the way to go… the whole thing is just bleh

      • Christina says:

        Scotchy, thanks for the advice! Much appreciated. I’ve told her that she should diversify her skill set, just as you recommend. She talks about possibly teaching music, but she is very creative, so I am hoping that she learns more about mixing and the tech stuff that is involved. You can’t go into the entertainment business for money. Sometimes it works (Cardi B), but it mostly doesn’t work. It’s a labor of love, a calling. It’s too hard not to have a deep drive to make art.

    • Allie says:

      Agree that defending Scooter is appalling. His history of abuse and manipulation is notorious if you do some digging. He’s managed to fly under the radar (up until now) because he can. His statement here is foul and reeks of gaslighting.

  14. My3cents says:

    I think she should diversify.
    Winter beefs- featuring lots of cat sweaters and Taylor’s naughty and nice lists.

  15. TheHeat says:

    This is the ultimate in mansplaining/man-excusing, in my opinion.
    She has every right in the world to call Scooter out. It’s her work (to begin with), and she has every right to discuss it in whatever way she likes.
    If this were a man, nobody would be calling him names like petulant or spoiled. The next thing we’ll hear is that she’s behaving “too emotionally”.
    A similar thing happened when Michael Jackson bought the Beatles music catalog, causing a huge rift with one-time friend, Paul McCartney. No one called Sir Paul “petulant”. The press I’ve read over the years are about Paul’s fight, and the legalities surrounding it.
    I think it’s an important conversation for someone like TS to initiate. She does have a lot of clout in the music world, more clout than many artists. And this can serve as a warning to other up-and-coming artists; if it can happen to her, it can happen to anyone.

    • Carrie says:

      Yes and it is the way men have always behaved and group herding to mistreat women, and girls.

      I don’t care if it’s always been done this way, it’s not acceptable anymore and the world sees it now. How can this blog cover Me Too and Times Up and fail to grasp this. That’s saddening and frankly, alarming.

      • Arizona says:

        Her not owning her masters is not a sexist issue. It’s an industry issue.

        If this were a man, and he had the same history as Taylor, and posted a blog complaining not so much that he didn’t own his masters, but that they were sold to someone who participated in “incessant, manipulative bullying” and made them cry all the time and whined about 3 year old events – yes, I would describe them as being petulant and spoiled.

        If she had focused on not owning her masters and why she didn’t take the deals that were offered to her, and that part of it – I would 100% be on her side. I do think she should own her masters at this point. But my issue is her complaining about being bullied when she has routinely bullied others, never apologized for it, and her entire blog post was a call to arms to her fans – who have posted Scooter’s number and address online and been mailing him horse poop. That’s where my issue comes in. She’s responded to bullying with bullying.

  16. Arizona says:

    I have a question. If she was 15 when her contract started, could she legally sign that contract since she was a minor, or would her parents have to sign for her? Also, was this contract renewed at any point? It seems like six albums or 14 years is kind of a weird set point.

    • paranormalgirl says:

      6 album deals are fairly normal.

      • Arizona says:

        I would have thought five would make more sense, but I also know nothing about music contracts haha. I’m still curious about my first question, though.

    • Mo says:

      It’s a legal thing. You can’t have an employment contract for longer than seven years,* so music industry contracts are for six or seven albums to be provided by the artist within seven years. Of course, nobody does an album every year, so the contract gets extended, time wise.

      Taylor was in a bad place throughout these negotiations. She knew Big Machine was going to be sold, and didn’t want to stick around and not be in control of her future. Big Machine couldn’t sell her the masters, because the company would not be worth much without them. To my mind, her best move would have been to buy Big Machine, and then sell everything but her masters. However, this would have left her in charge of the label for some period of time, which wouldn’t be a good thing for Taylor. So now we get this whole mess.

      *The seven years limitation is actually in US laws from when slavery was abolished. So yes, the record industry does have to include workarounds in their standard contracts to avoid running afoul of anti-slavery statutes. It truly is that sleazy of an industry. Taylor may be stirring up an enormous amount of shit here, but she does have a history of fighting these fights on behalf of everyone, not just herself. I’m hoping something positive comes out of this.

      • Christina says:

        Mo, I’m also hopeful that this fight Taylor is starting changes things for artists, particularly women, in the industry. Talking about how Scooter didn’t support her during the Kim/Kanye thing isn’t addressing the business practices in the music business. She does fight the industry fights for everyone. If Taylor’s fans can bankrupt Scooter Braun, then she gets a personal win, but that is unlikely. The industry doesn’t do things for the good of anybody. The only way to win is to buy them out (she should have purchased Big Machine since she IS the value of Big Machine), and change the way that music is distributed. Taylor should be working to be the Shonda Rhimes of Music, where she has complete control.

    • Jamie says:

      Her parents signed for her. A minor cannot be legally bound by a contract. So, this is on her parents and their lawyers.
      It is telling, though, that even someone with enough money to buy a stake in the company still didn’t manage to negotiate a contract that allowed his daughter to own her masters.

      • Mo says:

        This is not a thing. No record company signs contracts allowing artists to own their masters. It is not in the business model of the current recording industry. Getting your masters back happens when you are a Rihanna level star and have $100s of millions to pay for it. Also, Rihanna’s record company was in a position to do this and not collapse. Big Machine wasn’t.

        The record industry is terrible. Don’t pretend that there was any better contract for Taylor available. What she got was enormously better than someone without her family’s financial knowledge and situation would ever have gotten.

      • Tourmaline says:

        @Mo really good points. There seems to be some major lack of understanding about how the music business works.

  17. Michael says:

    She lives for this kind of stuff

  18. Lena says:

    I honestly feel like the thing that bothers me most about this story is that Taylor knew by publishing that post publicly she was inciting her rabid fans to go and harrass everyone she mentioned in it. She knew very well what she was doing, so her victim narrative is such a lie, you can’t cry about being “bullied” and then turn around and do even worse to others.

  19. Rochelle says:

    She never owned her masters, and she declined offers to get them back. She profited off a deal SHE had to sign back then, it’s not like her masters were stolen from her. The labels often owns masters of artists, especially in the beginning of artist’s careers, because they take on the financial risk of signing a new artist and promoting them. They hope the artist will get and stay popular, but you know how many don’t? How much new artists can be money pits? She obviously got and stayed successful, but I’m not falling for her victimization of herself regarding the masters. She was paid for selling a product to the record label, and that was her “masters/work” (for which she’s already been paid). Now that she’s successful she was able to sign a better deal elsewhere, because BMG paid good money to help her gain and maintain popularity and success via marketing, tours, etc. She didn’t achieve this level of success on her own.

    • Kira says:

      How does buying her albums back one by one through producing more albums amount to a fair shake at buying her work back? Scott’s deal memo draft stated a term of 10 years — that’s about 6 albums’ time — which is precisely what she said was offered.

      She wasn’t offered the chance to buy them outright, or even to bid on them, short of buying BMG at a loss for herself and a co-investor.

      Further, why should she have signed onto a ten year contract when the company would be changing hands — and thus a new label head would have been bearing down upon how she made her new music and performed? Do you really look at Scooter’s current clients and think any of them are mentally well-adjusted or healthy? What do you think would have happened if she had to work under Scooter like Ariana or Justin or hell, Kanye are doing?

      Artists deserve to own their work.

      • Arizona says:

        no, it’s not what she said she was offered. the draft he posted was related to a set amount of time, not output. she could do two albums in ten years and that would still work. it just wouldn’t be smart.

        I actually think both Justin and Ariana are doing very well these days. Kanye is a mess, as he’s always been, but Scooter is a manager, not a mental health professional, and he can’t make Kanye take his meds if he doesn’t want to.

      • Purplehazeforever says:

        @ Arizona, I think Taylor’s offer was for 7 years & theirs was for 10 years. We don’t if there was an output clause on it, an album for an album of her masters back like Taylor claims. She does state that in her post. I think if she had just staid on point, many would have sided with her. When she used words like bullying & brought Kim Kardashian in it that’s when she was side eyed. Taylor’s well she’s Taylor but she’s not wrong about Scooter Braun & ironically enough, Scott Borchetta, didn’t look too good himself, either. He didn’t stick to the subject at hand when he brought up the Manchester or Parkland tragedies. What was he trying to do? Shame Taylor? He says he sent Taylor a text @ 9:06 pm. about the deal. Was she in the US or England? He states her father is on the board. Her rep states her father staid out of the negotiations. Most likely because the new label she signed with was trying to buy her old. I don’t know. I’m guessing. Maybe she’s trying to drum up interest for her new album. But like I stated above, Scooter showed himself when he shares & then deletes a story owning Taylor Swift. Sorry, I’m going to argue that she proves a point about Scooter.

  20. DS9 says:

    I would love to ban the word gross from the adult lexicon.

    I would also like to know why exactly Taylor is so upset over Scooter owning the masters. Despite the commentary from her fans, artist ownership of masters is the secondary concern for Darth Becky as she expressed in her original burn book entry. Her primary issue is that it’s Scooter Braun (and a backer, yes?) they were sold to.

    So what exactly did Scooter do besides not force Beiber to take down a post from the Kimye drama?

    Again, she really went at this from the completely wrong angle in focusing on Scooter’s perceived bad acts towards Taylor and not on the moral and ethical question of what belongs to an artist and what level of control they have.

    • Div says:

      Scooter, by many accounts, is a sleazeball even in the usual sleazy music industry. I apparently got dragged for saying this yesterday, but imo it’s extremely telling that he basically straight up admitted that he thought about “ruining” Ariana’s career when she briefly left him. He also posted an IG about “owning” Taylor and pretty much everyone involved with this mess, with the exception of Sia, who has defend him has ties to Scooter.

      That said—I agree she handled this extremely badly. She probably made peace with the masters being out of her grasp but hearing that they went to Scooter is what drove her off the edge, especially as she basically kept Big Machine in business. However, making this about Scooter, Kim, and Kanye was a stupid move even if Scooter was one of the primary factors. She should have made it about artists rights and pointed out the absurd conditions of getting her masters back—that she would have had to produce one new album for every old album and would have been tied to that label until she was at least 40.

      • Christina says:

        Div, exactly. She should have made it about the industry shakedown, and then called out all of the misogyny in industry men’s reactions in Nancy Pelosi-style, as in “don’t characterize the strength I bring and my knowledge about the music business.” Yes, she has a right to be angry, but be angry in a productive way. Don’t be Lori Loughlin!

    • Digital Unicorn says:

      Interestingly her new label were in the running when she signed with them to buy her old label, so if the sale went through she would have got her old masters pretty much for nowt under the deal she signed with them. It seems that that might have been the case right up to this weekend and she chucked a tantrum when she found out that Scooter won the battle to buy the label. Seems she took a gamble and it didn’t pay off.

      • Purplehazeforever says:

        Ahh… Digital… perhaps if Scooter didn’t share an Instagram story he now owned Taylor Swift
        on Sunday, I might say this was simply Taylor hedging her bets & she lost. But, I don’t. Do I think she reacted badly or that maybe she should have handled it better? Yes. But I find it fascinating so many of you now defend Scooter Braun… congratulations…👏👏👏👏👏 The same guy who exploited a young Justin Bieber & then made excuses for him. Good for you.

      • Digital Unicorn says:

        Err, where in my post am I defending Braun. I was pointing out that she was hedging her bets with her current label being in the mix to buy her previous label. She clearly has issues with Braun which is her right to have and yes I am aware of what kind of person he is – there has been stories about him for years. All involved parties could have handled this in a mature adult manner but they didn’t and here we are. A business deal went down and Taylor wasn’t happy with the outcome and yes Braun was clearly stirring things with that post. The more I think about it the more likely it is he set it up to goad her into reacting in the way they knew she would to generate publicity for the deal. She was played to give Braun some publicity that he would not have gotten on the back of the news of the deal alone. Its not the first time he’s pulled this sh!t.

  21. Smartypants says:

    I have side eyed Taylor a lot, especially about the Tina and Amy stuff, but she is spot on right now. These mean don’t deserve to “own” her work and they did do it to humiliate her. The women defending them forge their identities through the men they marry, and try to piggy back off a mans success. Justin has used and abused women, self admittedly. Hope these two are a gross foot note in the Trump era… as they go worship in their homophobic church

  22. Lila says:

    You could not pay me enough money to be Joe Alwyn right now. Taylor is sooooo exhausting.

  23. DS9 says:

    Just to be clear, it’s only sexist to call Taylor emotional, petty, childish, etc if you wouldn’t call a man the same for the same behavior.

    If Kanye was doing all this, I’d feel the same way and I’d hazard to guess many of us would.

    I’ve yet to see evidence of a gender disparity. Certainly I dont see any in the deals she was offered to gain control of her masters.

    • Kitten says:

      Maybe *you* would but that doesn’t magically erase the fact that for hundreds of years women have been characterized in all the ways you describe for perfectly valid emotional reactions while men have been accepted/normalized for engaging in the exact same behavior.

      That’s the thing about tropes-most of the time they are a manifestation of an unconscious bias that has been solidified in the collective conscience for eons. You are perpetuating that whether you’re aware of it or not.

      • DS9 says:

        So basically, there’s rarely a situation where a woman is being judged for her behavior outside of her gender?

        Got it.

        No wonder Taylor actively trots out white feminism when it suits her, because white women eat that shit up.

  24. sara6 says:

    Is it just me, but when a person says that another person is someone they hate, shouldn’t that be taken in seriously? Like if Taylor bought Kanye’s masters, shouldn’t Kanye feel angry? Every artist that has spoken publicly about not owning their masters is entitled to it. Read her Tumblr. She told you her issues. Losing her masters sucks but losing it to a man you despise is even worse. A guy who says he “owns” Taylor Swift on his Instagram stories deserves nothing less . The “I can’t believe she doesn’t” like me excuse he put out through sources tracks. Men often don’t know how they are perceived by women in their industry.

    • DS9 says:

      To be fair, Taylor despises a lot of people and holds a grudge longer than my dog hates me after a bath.

      Look how long the Katy Perry thing lasted and Taylor has never admitted her part in that. Plus, Katy went out of her way to “fix” that.

      She’d be doing all this if Tina and Amy bought her masters.

      • Miles says:

        Taylor holds grudges but her grudge towards Scooter is justified. Its okay for him to post on his Instagram that he bought her and currently has a picture of her naked wax figure on Twitter? She’s just supposed to be okay with that?

        I know I wouldn’t. Not sure what this has to do with Katy or Amy when the situations are completely different.

      • virginfangirls says:

        And remember when Taylor slut shamed another women in one of her songs. If her outrage came from a woman who who didn’t partake in bullying herself I would believe her outrage, but others are just playing her game. It would be like Donald Trump complaining someone gave him a nickname. Taylor has created this environment & then seems shocked about it.

    • Ainsley7 says:

      Yeah. She makes it very clear that she knew her masters where being sold and she had made her peace with that some time ago. This is about Scooter specifically. The guy has a reputation for being absolutely horrible. He’s the one who forced Bieber to keep working when he was having a break down. Arianna Grande went back to him because he was going to tank her career. The guy is a monster.

  25. Sherry says:

    Your last paragraph says it all – lordy, she’s awful.

  26. Dark and Stormy says:

    Does anyone know how the Kurshners are involved? I caught tidbits on other sites that they are financially backing Scooter in this deal. It sounds like Scooter didn’t have the funds so they are either fronting it for him or will be part owners?

  27. L says:

    If Taylor won’t speak with Scooter or agree to a meeting with him then I don’t think she has any right to complain about how and where her music are going to be used. She should take this opportunity while she has it and say don’t use my music in x and x. Since Scooter seems more than willing to have a conversation about it, she should say yes. She can’t just sit around in her feelings moping when it’s clear she can do something about it.

  28. virginfangirls says:

    Taylor so very often has publicly shared her side of the story, sometimes in interviews, or songs, or even her videos, and quite frankly shamed her enemies in the process. And the only people who have ever defended themselves that I can think of are Calvin, Kanye, and maybe that Camilla girl who Taylor slut shamed in a song. But I wish more would defend themselves. There are always 2 sides to a story but because people are too kind or classy we often only here Taylor’s side. Perhaps she would refrain from this public shaming if others didn’t make it so easy for her.

  29. Dani says:

    Mature, private and Taylor all in the same sentence?! Def not gonna happen.

  30. Lightpurple says:

    The music industry is vicious and cutthroat. Music industry executives get to be music industry executives by being vicious cutthroats who exploit artists. Elvis, The Beatles, the Rolling Stones, Bruce Springsteen, Tom Petty, Prince, and many, many others have gone through similar situations. Scooter Braun doesn’t want a telephone conversation with Taylor Swift to work out a better deal for her. Or to be nice to her. He wants a conversation to quiet down the noise. A telephone conversation between them would never result in any kind of deal. She has representation and THAT is where any and all offers would go and he isn’t contacting those people. She isn’t petty or immature or horrible to refuse a phone call whose sole purpose is to make Scooter Braun stink less.

    • Veronica S. says:

      Yeah, I’m shocked that anybody is taking Scooter’s side, tbh. Taylor is one of VERY few artists who has come out of her contract ahead of the game. The vast majority of them are exploited, used, and then viciously discarded by the industry. I can’t imagine how many creatives he and other executives in his company have trampled upon in their rush to make money. I don’t think she’s a flawless victim by any means, but if somebody with her industry pull and power can’t own her own masters, imagine how exploited people with a fraction of her agency are.

      • Purplehazeforever says:

        People are taking Scooter’s side because it’s Taylor Swift. If it was anyone else… & thank you lightpurple for pointing out Taylor is not petty. She doesn’t have to take Scooter’s phone calls.

  31. jinvincible says:

    I don’t care. I’m supporting Taylor swift. I may not agree with everything she has ever done and said but I’m with her on this matter. if it is true, she needs all the support she can get. it transcends ‘playing the victim’, it’s about a powerful woman who still gets crushed by asshole men who think they could have ever owned her and her work.

    btw hey celebitchy, think u could be a little more consistent with the feminism?

    • Arizona says:

      Plenty of male artists don’t own their masters either. I’m not sure why people are hellbent on making this is a sexist issue as opposed to an industry issue, other than she decided it was about “controlling women in perpetuity”.

  32. Powermoonchrystal says:

    The more I hear about this, the more I side with Swift. She ain’t perfect, but between Scouter, Beivs, and the Katrashian connection, that whole group leaves a sour taste in my mouth.

  33. Sam H x says:

    Scooter is as innocent as Taylor Swift is. That is not to take away that Taylor is problematic too.

    I agree with the sentiment she isn’t happy about who it was sold to and I think the label had zero intention of allowing her to buy her records back out right as they were the selling point of the deal w/ Scooter & Ithaca Holdings. I don’t see why her dad would withhold something like that because he is smart and business savvy to make a slip up like this if that is the case.

    I saw the post he re-posted from his mates Instagram about buying her – Scooter is gross af and so is his mate. Scooter tries to make out he is above this but he is just as petty, gross and sly af.

    • ME says:

      Her dad wasn’t a part of the meeting regarding shareholders. Taylor’s rep put out a statement saying her dad did not participate in the meeting because he would have had to sign a NDA and he didn’t want to have to keep any info from his daughter. That’s a good dad.

  34. Jester says:

    It’s my understanding that both Swift & Braun need to approve any use of her masters in licensing, etc. So I wonder if all this smoke is an attempt to decrease the “value” of her masters to a point where she could buy them back outright.

  35. Mab's A'Mabbin says:

    Whew! I read all that! About halfway, one of my many many favorite songs popped into my head so I had to put it on, turn it up and pretend I didn’t spend so long reading about Swifty lol! It’s a good earworm to have…promise.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aZYkI__-szU

  36. Sandy says:

    So just the words “mature” conversation shows how he works. Can you imagine someone saying that to Serena Williams after she was angry about the calls in tennis. Problem this will never change how they talk about women because women are so fragmented by hate. For example if someone said this about Serena certain posters would be so angry. But when it’s said about Taylor well then it’s dufferent. Want the world to change how they treat women we as women need to change first

    • otaku fairy... says:

      Actually, even though Taylor Swift is getting criticism, this conversation would probably go in a much nastier direction if one of the female pop stars, models, or actresses with a less ‘pristine’ image/reputation than hers had done this. Her image is working in her favor to some degree. And if it had been Serena Williams or a few other woc who are targets of racist bots, there would also be a lot of unusual/rare usernames coming to attack rather than defend.

      • Snowflake says:

        THIS! thank you! Taylor gets so many passes based on her looks. I don’t even know how to explain but I’ll try. I’m a white woman. I am assumed by conservative people and country people to be “one of them. ” we will hit it off making small talk and vibing real well and then pop! Out comes something in support of Trump. People often assume I’m a conservative Christian lady. When I’m an agnostic Democrat. I think people used to assume taylor was “one of them.” And gave her a lot of passes because of that And her being white and having a certain look about her. She has a pure innocent look to them and I think i must too. I get hit on by Hispanic men quite often, they love my blue eyes and light skin. Also get hit on by country boys a lot. I think because I’m so white, they think there’s no chance of me having a drop of anything other than white in me. I’ll probably piss off a lot of people with this comment but that’s my opinion. I definitely get benefits from it imo.

  37. paranormalgirl says:

    Nothing Scooter Braun does is mature or private.

  38. AJ says:

    Scooter is not able to license the music for any tv/film/commercial use without Taylor’s approval as she still controls her writing credit share of the tracks. You can’t use a track without clearing the master AND publishing so my guess is every single request that comes through will be denied on the publishing side

    • Digital Unicorn says:

      Thats how I understand it but he has rights to license out her music at the ‘master’ level that don’t need her permission as publisher. He could use his ‘master rights’ ownership to license out her music to a streaming channel that over charges for example. But, as you say, he’d need her permission for it to be used in a media project i.e. TV ad, sampling etc..

      I was reading elsewhere that she might have legal options but who knows, it depends if she wants to spend a lot of money on a lengthy legal battle with him which would only increase the value of his investment.

      The other thing to bear in mind is that Braun now has control over all profits from her old masters, I hope her business managers and accountants are on the ball to make sure Braun doesn’t get creative with the label accounting to scam her of her % of profits from future royalties (which is more common than you think in the music industry).

      Taylor has every right to be p!ssed and to own her masters but there are more mature ways of dealing with the situation. And that goes for Braun as well. I am beginning to think Braun and Brochetta were sh!t stirring to get the extra publicity around the deal announcement – they’ve goaded Taylor into making that post. And well, we all know how much she loves a good feud – they played on that.

      • Digital Unicorn says:

        To add, I can’t wait for the next album which I am sure will be filled with diss tracks about this. Girl knows how to write a diss track.

      • NightOwl says:

        Oh that is interesting, DigitalUnicorn! They are after all, all in the entertainment business. None of them really have anything to lose with extra publicity.

  39. NightOwl says:

    Airing her grievances on Tumblr to her fan base seems so calculated. If she were really wanting to change the system and be pro-artist-ownership, I’d find her more believable if she aired it in an OpEd in a major paper. Duking this out in Tumblr and Instagram seems so unprofessional and just designed for clicks/sales and riling up her fan base and not looking for a real solution.

    • Lena says:

      I agree 100%. No matter how we feel about the other parties involved, her motivation to publicize it this way, and misinterpreting events and her role in this is pretty transparent–at least to everyone but her.

      • NightOwl says:

        What also bothers me about how this is rolling out is she is not stating the facts and terms of her legal agreements. These are all negotiated contracts – she has manager(s) and lawyer(s) and a team that has had access to most of the information, with the exception of perhaps who the eventual buyer is. Her tumblr post is a jumble of juvenile appeals and she makes herself out to be naive and appealing only to the emotions of her fans. When I work, my work product is the property of my employer – it does not matter what my inspiration, what my emotions were at the time, etc. My work product is owned by my employer, unless otherwise stated in a contract. She’s deliberately obfuscating the issue and the fact that she traded her ownership of her work product when her team signed contracts on her behalf when she was 15.

  40. Nicegirl says:

    What a bunch of shit we deal with as women.

    I feel for anyone who’s dealt with Scooter Braun. That dude is DIS GUST ING.

    I wonder, if someday, maybe long in the future, someone will own him?

  41. whybother says:

    so SB doesnt have TS or her manager’s number and had to use their mutual as a bridge? really? I mean, TS is dramatic queen but SB is just the same tbh.

  42. Deanne says:

    Yes, she should own her Masters.
    Yes, people can be asses & still buy your masters & flaunt it on social media.

    Yes, people can be pissed that this happened.

    But if you want to take the high road & own the realm of public opinion, garner a growing adult following, model positive maturity, voicing one’s outrage on social media is not how you do this. This is not high school. No one cares if Braun sits alone in the Caf. Or writes hate comments on his social media.

    No one expects music industry execs or movers & shakers to be saintly.

  43. Tchotchke says:

    Just a quick note, as someone who works in the music industry: with respect to your comment about Scooter being able to license Taylor’s music without her consent, Kaiser, that is not remotely true. When licensing an artist’s music (“syncing it” in industry jargon), there are two sides that must be licensed, the master and the publishing. Taylor, like most artists, has approval rights over both her masters and her publishing. Ownership of her masters does not change the fundamental record contract underlying them. Labels are bought, sold and consolidated constantly, and the new owner assumes the responsibilities of the old deals.

    Aside from the fact that a sync on an E! property would never occur because E! doesn’t have TS-level budgets (hence, them using mostly stock music), Scooter isn’t stupid and wouldn’t want to devalue his investment by creating a new precedent for which her music is now widely available for a pittance. The goal, no matter who your client is and what you think of them, is to set an expectation of higher value, thereby making the assets more rare, sought-after and expensive.

    Finally, even if for some irrational reason Scooter did decide he wanted to sink TS’s music to the bargain bin, she has the ability to deny any uses that come through, and so do her co-writers on the publishing side, thereby making it impossible to license that music. You do not have to own your masters to have approval rights over them, in fact, most artists don’t own their masters and still have the ability to deny uses.

  44. Glenda Canfield says:

    1st, she said her piece, why should she waste time on a call when there is absolutely no possibility of her working with the man on ANY Level.
    2nd Multiple instanced of his disregard and lack of respect and “love” can be located on the internet. Guess what Scooter, when you put shit on the Internet it’s there forever.
    3rd Taylor is most likely going to let her actions speak for her.

    Framing the fact that she is not “mature” is just another way to gaslight her. STFU with the BS!