Taylor Swift claims Braun & Borchetta won’t let her perform her songs at the AMAs

2019 MTV Video Music Awards - Arrivals

Taylor Swift’s Summer Beef was with Scott Borchetta and and Scooter Braun. Borchetta was the head of Big Machine, Taylor’s label at the time, and Scooter Braun is the manager of people like Justin Bieber, Kanye West and Ariana Grande. Scooter worked with investors (including the Carlyle Group) to purchase Big Machine, including all of Big Machine’s master recordings, including all of Taylor’s work before 2019’s Lover. Taylor was furious, and claimed that she was never given the opportunity to buy her masters outright, nor was she told about the sale (which wasn’t exactly true). Taylor was also mad because she believe Braun to be her nemesis, and she thought this business deal (worth hundreds of millions of dollars) was some kind of next-level step in what she believed was Braun’s bullying campaign against her. There was a lot of back-and-forth this summer between Borchetta, Braun and Swift, and the men accused Taylor of chronically misrepresenting what was actually happening behind the scenes in the business part of the situation.

Well… now Taylor has posted a statement on her social media about a new wrinkle. Taylor was supposed to receive an award at the American Music Awards. She will receive the Artist of the Decade Award, and she wanted to play a medley of her hits (old and new hits). Scooter Braun and Scott Borchetta won’t let her?

Taylor also claims that Braun and Borchetta are blocking her from using her old music in an upcoming Netflix documentary, and she basically asks the Snake Fam to rise to her defense and call out Braun and Borchetta publicly or online. The Snake Fam is doing that. As of this moment, Braun and Borchetta have not released any public statements about what is happening.

Let me just say here, that if the situation is as Swift says it is, then of course I support her, and of course it’s f–ked up that she can’t sing the songs she wrote in public. It’s gross that this is happening to her. Her fans have launched a petition too – go here to read more about it.

All that being said, I have questions about her version of events? Like, when everything went down this summer, it turned out that she really did vastly misrepresent her knowledge of the Big Machine sale and the business around it. Then there was her absolutely bonkers Rolling Stone interview a few months ago, which is one of the reasons why (I think) Taylor was quiet for the past month or so – she once again slammed Borchetta and Braun as unhinged bullies who, like, once asked her to perform at the One Manchester charity concert. Taylor has spent the past six months misrepresenting and twisting every situation involving these men so that she’ll look like the victim. Is that happening again? From Page Six:

Sources close to Big Machine Records tell Page Six that Braun wasn’t part of AMA negotiations and rather Borchetta had been dealing with them with Swift’s attorneys.

Our sources also tell us Swift owes Braun and Borchetta $7 million and agreed to sort out the finances after AMA negotiations settled, but when negotiations fell flat, she threatened to publicly blast them — hence the statement Thursday. Big Machine didn’t immediately respond to Page Six’s request for comment.

[From Page Six]

Yeah, I have no idea if this is true, just as I have no idea whether Taylor is telling the whole truth in her social media post. It just feels like there’s more to the story than “the big bad men won’t let me perform my old songs because they’re mean!” That doesn’t make any sense.

2019 MTV VMAs

Photos courtesy of WENN.

Related stories

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

75 Responses to “Taylor Swift claims Braun & Borchetta won’t let her perform her songs at the AMAs”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Becks1 says:

    I know nothing about music publishing/rights/etc, but I wonder if they were okay with her using her own songs (at the very least, they knew how it would play out if they said “no” to that), but wanted that 7 million from her first? That bit from Page 6 makes it sound like she doesn’t want to pay that (whatever its for) and is instead going this route.

    The issue right now with taylor though is that she is such a victim, and its just hard to pick out what may have actually happened and what the truth is because everything she says/does is through that lens.

    • Arizona says:

      I’m kind of curious has to why she would owe them $7 million? it seems strange to me. but again I don’t know anything about how this stuff works either.

      • Millennial says:

        I’m curious why she owes them $7mil too. The only thing I can think is royalties, from a tour or something.

      • Cee says:

        Because she doesn’t owe the rights to her songs. Braun does. So she would have to pay HIM in order to perform those songs or even license them to Netflix for the documentary.

    • Tiffany :) says:

      There are 2 different kinds of royalties: Mechanical and Performance. For mechanical, think of it as the ownership of the sound, the actual recording. The vocal effects when Taylor sings “Trouble”? That’s mechanical. For Performance, that is the ownership of the songwriting. Think of it like the sheet music. Other musicians can perform the song, but they must pay the songwriters for doing so.

      Big Machine owns her Masters, which are the mechanical. They own the SOUND of Taylor’s early music. Meaning, they could agree to put those specific recordings in commercials, films, greatest hits albums, etc.

      What they are doing here, seems to be using Mechanical rights to infringe on her Performance rights. They are claiming that if she performs her old songs, it will be a “re-recording” of the masters. This is completely out of line, IMO.

      • Sapphire says:

        Tiffany, that was a terrific explanation! Thank you.

        I understand how music rights work now, when I didn’t before. It’s like all the pieces of the puzzle suddenly fit, and I can see the big picture.

        I like to learn something new every day. (I know it’s a saying and a cliche, but I really try to do so.) I definitely learned something new today. Thanks. :)

      • Tiffany :) says:

        Thank you, Sapphire! I’m glad you found it helpful. It’s a very complicated system, and it is no wonder so many artists get screwed over.

        I share your love of learning! Lately I’ve been listening to a legal podcast, and a lot of it is way over my head, but I like a challenge. I hope you have a great weekend!

  2. Arizona says:

    if the situation is how she presents it in her post then I agree with you and it’s absolutely gross and wrong and I am on her side. because of how she’s handled situations in the past I will admit that I question whether we’re getting the full story when it’s just from her. but either way I feel she should have the ability to play her old music regardless of who owns them and I can’t believe that that is up for debate.

  3. Snowslow says:

    The more I look at her in these clothes the more I think she has no personality. First she was a model-like vanilla performer, now Katy Perry-lite (which is already lite in itself).

    For the rest, cannot fathom any energy to analyse this case. Might be unfair and this might be the feminist cause of the century but she is so mediocre to me that all the millions she has are an affront to good taste in music. I mean she could earn 2000$ a week, what, a month, but not this incredible fortune she has that seems so unwarranted in proportion with her talent (or lack thereof).

    I’m pissy today for some reason but there it is.

  4. Miles says:

    Like I said in the summer: anyone who knows anything about the industry knows that Scooter Braun isn’t the saint he likes people to think he is. Taylor is not a saint either. But this whole situation was wrong from the get go. And this isn’t a Taylor thing either. Artists are black mailed in this manner when it comes to their work more than you think and it should never be the case.

    In regards to this case specifically, there are two other parties now involved: the AMAs and Netflix. So it’s no longer a he said she said situation like it was before. So if she’s telling the truth then the AMAs and Netflix can corroborate her story. We shall see what happens.

    • Erinn says:

      Yeah, Scooter is a piece of garbage. I don’t know how anyone can look at Bieber and not realize what an enabling POS Scooter is (at best!).

      The thing that’s working in his favor most is that SO many people despise Swift. It’s a lot easier to come out looking great when the person you’re up against is known for being a victim. It’s why everyone was SO into what Kim was bringing to the table even though nobody really like Kim either.

  5. Ash. says:

    I feel like if the situation wasn’t as she presented then they would have already issued receipts, just like the label head did last time.

    The fact that the only talking point is “she owes us 7 million!” after more than 12 hours of her saying this makes me think she’s being truthful. Executives asking that you publicly don’t talk about them and finding loopholes in contracts? That’s standard operating procedure.

  6. Kittycat says:

    Team Taylor

    • Snazzy says:

      yup. I believe her. Guys like this are garbage and hate it when a woman has any kind of power or fights for herself. Like Taylor or not, I can totally believe they are trying to “put her back in her box”. Team Taylor

  7. Claire says:

    No one thrives in that business like they have by being a nice, honest person. They are probably all greedy and mean, at least to some degree. Taylor is probably once again telling half-truths, as are Braun and Borchetta. We like to see the world as made up of hero’s and villains… but most of the time people land somewhere in the middle.

  8. DS9 says:

    I’m waiting to see what the real truth is.

    Anytime old girl uses the snake fam instead of the courts, I’m skeptical.

    • holly hobby says:

      Exactly. If it was legitimate, she would sue in court. Using a bunch of preteens to gang up and bully businessmen is beyond the pale.

      She has lied and misstated so many things in the past. I’m willing to wait for all the shoes to drop before I decide if this is legit or not.

    • Mariah says:

      She can’t sue in court, because legally Scooter Braun and Scott Borchetta are in the clear. They use the fact that the AMA performance isn’t live as a loophole, because then it’s a “re-recording” and she can’t do that before next year. It’s just morally wrong of them, because everyone knows it’s not an actual re-recording (just a performance) and it’s her music, even though not legally. It’s pretty awkward if you get an award for songs you aren’t legally allowed to perform, because someone bought the rights and hasn’t given you permission.

  9. STRIPE says:

    Whenever I wonder which version of events is true, I follow the money: if she thought she could have bought her masters, she would have, but the masters were the things that made Big machine valuable so they did not want to sell them to her. So I am very suspicious of Big Machines level of “notice” that they gave her because it was in their interest that she not buy her masters

    It is wrong that these men own and control a huge part of her career and can prevent her from using art that she created.

    No matter how you feel about Taylor this is wrong.

    • Ainsley7 says:

      Taylor knew her masters were going to be sold way in advance. She tried to buy them, but they kept offering her really bad deals they knew she would say no to. When Scooter bought them, it was a big secret. Her dad would have known, but they told him that he wouldn’t be able to share details with Taylor and he didn’t want to keep a secret like that. So, he was never told who was buying them. It was a stupid move on his part because at least he could have been more prepared when she got the news. I question just how secret it all would have been if someone other than Scooter was buying them. Scooter threatened Ariana Grande’s career when she tried to leave him. That’s why she is still one of his artists. So, we know he is a bully independently of Taylor saying it. I get why she was upset and she only left out a few details. She did not entirely misrepresent everything like Scooter is saying. He’s using her reputation against her and it’s working. It’s really sad.

  10. Bex says:

    This is weird- there’s no legal way they can stop her performing her songs at the AMAs, right? A live medley at an awards show not intended for commercial sale would never be considered a re-recording.

    The Netflix doc is a different matter because Taylor doesn’t own the masters and would need permission and it really is beyond gross and petty if they won’t grant it. Team Taylor completely on this. It speaks to Braun’s misogyny but also a bigger systemic issue about copyright laws and the way the industry exploits talent because artists *should* own their work but get screwed like this by moguls all the time. That’s a conversation Taylor’s best positioned to lead, which is why I raise my eyebrows a bit at her essentially telling her Twitter mob to harrass the other artists Braun manages- if TAYLOR SWIFT can’t get this sorted with her wealth and hotshot lawyers I don’t see how a lower profile individual could possibly influence anything.

    • Miles says:

      Her telling her fans about this is her being desperate at this point. If she could have handled this privately and gotten what she wanted, she wouldn’t have done this. She’s most likely exhausted all options legally but the reality is legally she has no case. They own her masters and own them legally. She can’t go to court about whether that’s ethical or not because that doesn’t matter. Until she records her old songs again, she has no say in what happens with her music. And she is not the only artist. If you go on Twitter, I’ve read many tweets from various artists who have shared similar stories about how their record companies used the fact that they owned the artists masters as a way to get the artist to do what they wanted or in other situations prevented an artist to do what they wanted.

      • Bex says:

        Miles, I think you’ve misunderstood me. I completely agree with her going public. I’ve been around the music industry so I know first hand this is an huge problem for many other artists and so Taylor speaking up about this is a good thing because she’s one of the very few whose career would not suffer by taking on TPTB. I’m on her side on this. I want her to win out and set a precedent that helps other artists where huge stars that came before her couldn’t manage it. The only thing I take a bit of an issue with is that one line in her statement where she basically incites an unnecessary pile on to Ariana Grande, Demi Lovato et al. They can’t do shit and she knows it.

    • DS9 says:

      Richard Marx of all people asked that on Twitter but apparently it’s a tape delay, which makes it a recording, not technically live

  11. Birdie says:

    I think you missed a big important part of Taylor‘s message and that was her call for other artists to support her. Now there is a witch hint going on which artist supports her and which not. It’s insane.

    • holly hobby says:

      A loyalty oath? You don’t say! She is the perfect Rump Robo wife #4. Mel is aging out so she’s perfect for the liar in chief!

  12. Lola says:

    I love what Halsey said about the situation. That Scooter and Scott are banking on people reacting to it exactly like this article does. That Taylor Swift is manipulative and always over-reacting. Don’t play into their game. Support artists owning their own music and stop picking apart someone who will never be your perfect victim.

  13. Lightpurple says:

    The Beatles, the Rolling Stones, Springsteen, Tom Petty, Bonnie Raitt, and many, many more all had major legal battles with people trying to control them, their music, and when or if they could perform or record material. Artists have recorded albums that were never allowed to be released or the content performed. The music industry is controlled by unscrupulous creeps. She may not be 100 percent accurate about what is going on but there is probably a great deal of truth to everything she is saying.

    • Lizzie says:

      i think there is never 100 % truth when you are negotiating multi-million dollar contracts b/c people are so eager to get a piece of the substantial future earnings and licensing rights. you’re so right about the music industry being controlled by creeps – i agree with you 100% here. read anything about those artists you listed or motown etc. it is bad.

      lets make no mistake – they only want her songs b/c they want to license them to commercials and movies etc with reckless abandon. this is what happened with the beatles and it was michael jackson who bought them out. they don’t want her to rerecord b/c then her new team can offer up her new versions to those same companies and take the money out from under them.

      everything that is happening now with this 1 year time period and them holding back her right to use the music is because 1) they want to make the money from it. if they hold the license and netflix releases a documentary, they get a cut 2) she embarrassed them and they want to knock her down a few pegs. i really respect that she’s not going down without a fight. her releasing this to social media suggests whatever they did was petty AF and she is rising to the occasion. you can’t out-petty taylor swift and i think these two executives met their match and are going to lose.

  14. effy says:

    I don’t care if she’s right, the fact that she puts this out in public to/and ask her fans to bully the shit out of them is Disgusting!

  15. Ann says:

    Team Taylor 100%. I think this is retaliation. She’s publicly and repeatedly smeared these men, of course they’re punishing her. Taylor is mostly right about them and the situation. It’s an awful thing to do to any artist.

    I hope something big and good comes out of this. She took on Apple and won. I think she can manage this in a way where she comes out on top and makes things better for other artists.

  16. T says:

    I just can’t trust her version of events. If it is as she says, then yes this is not OK. But she’s shown over several years her version of events sometimes strays from the whole truth. I also think calling your fans to publically harass two people is not OK.

    • holly hobby says:

      I’m waiting for those 2 guys or anyone she set the preteens on, to sue her for defamation and slander.

  17. Steph says:

    I dont even like Taylor but I support her 100 percent. And anyone who has connections with the Carlyle Group is gross to me.

  18. Noely says:

    The thing is, during Lover promo, Taylor already HAS performed old songs. Like when she sang Holy Ground in the BBC Radio 1 Live Lounge. That was a radio channel but the performance was professionally recorded and put onto their YouTube channel.

    So apparently there wasn’t a problem with it, she was probably allowed to perform these songs, but now she suddenly isn’t?

    And while Taylor might have misrepresented the Big Machine sale situation, I highly doubt she would lie about Netflix not being allowed to use her songs or her not being allowed to perform her older hits at the AMAs. Those lies could be easily revealed and she’s not that dumb to risk losing a business partner. And also, if that Netflix documentary would not be released now due to Scooter not allowing her old music to be used, wouldn’t Netflix be able to sue someone since they already spent money to produce that thing? So maybe this is why she is speaking out now?

    I know she has done some problematic stuff, but she should at least be able to perform her old songs. After all, she wrote pretty much all of them. So I see where she is coming from. Not sure how exactly Scooter “bullied” her in the past because the only real explanation we got from her was that Kanye is his client, but if you put aside this weird story, I believe her general stance on it is that artists should have the right to buy back their own work (and no, I don’t think this “you can get your masters back one by one for every new album you give us” deal they were offering her counts here. Because after she makes six additional albums, she would get Album 1-6 back, but then she would have to fight for her new six albums again and she would be forever stuck in this deal).

    And lastly, sure she has her own best interests in mind but I do believe she cares about making the music Industry treat its artists better. And even if she only cares because it would benefit her, as long as the outcome of it helps all artists, that’s not necessarily a bad thing? I mean, Halsey has spoken up about it and she said that her label had basically put her first album in limbo for three years. She didn’t know if that album would ever be released, but she also couldn’t leave the label and work on it elsewhere because the label owned the rights to everything she had produced thus far. So she was basically stuck. And I believe there are tons of artists going through similar things. So I don’t think Taylor is wrong for fighting for her masters.

    Sorry for this long ass post but this whole thing has been on my mind all night.

    • Cinnamon says:

      Maybe she refused to pay Scooter and Scott their cut of the money from playing those old songs and that is why they want her to pay up before allowing her to play more music. She is clearly angry about the sale of Big Machine so I would not be surprised if our Queen of Grudges felt entitled to withold those parts of the revenue going to the master owners.
      So while I don’t think S&S are saints I’m not 100% confident that Taylor did not cause this problem herself.
      I somewhat agree with your last point that she cares about the industry but I would add that she is willing to throw all artists working with S&S under the bus for her own gain.

      • Tiffany :) says:

        She couldn’t refuse to pay. The royalty money goes to the label first, they take their cut and then pay the artist.

    • Courtney says:

      The AMA has a “tape delay” which means it’s not live on a technicality.

    • holly hobby says:

      If Netflix is the producer of this doc and she isn’t, then this is an issue Netflix and the label will work over. It doesn’t technically involve her because the two main parties will work out a settlement. It’s all about money. So that’s the first lie here.

  19. Valiantly Varnished says:

    I don’t believe her…

  20. Pearlime says:

    Scooter Braun is also Karlie Kloss’ manager and he became her manager shortly before the first part of this whole saga. (which may or may not have something to do with the Carlyle group’s investment to buy BMG, who knows).
    Can’t wait to see where this whole shitshow goes once she is legallly able re-record her stuff.

  21. Chisey says:

    I think Taylor’s version of events makes sense. Her saying she’s going to re-record her masters must have the Scotts running scared – if she does it, they will have spent a crapton of money on something that is worth so much less than they thought it would be. I’m not surprised that they are exerting every ounce of influence and every move they have to keep this from happening. Taylor complaining in magazine interviews or 7 million dollars is nothing compared to the huge loss they’ll have to absorb if she re-records the masters. I think she’ll just have to deal with these restrictions until November 2020 – these record execs aren’t going to care about what her fans have trending on Twitter.

    ETA: I wouldn’t be surprised if they made the ‘no new televised recordings’ argument recently because they thought they could make a deal with her lawyers before. But of course I don’t know; it’s just what makes sense to me

  22. Ali says:

    How did Dolly Parton avoid this trap? Serious question, I saw her talking the other night about when Elvis wanted to record one of her songs but he said she had to sell him the rights to it first and she said no.

    Knowing what Ke$ha’s music label did to her, team artist over label all day long.

    • Chisey says:

      I don’t think she necessarily did. I’ve been listening to the podcast Dolly Parton’s America and they talk about how early on she got a big break by being brought on to partner with this guy Porter Waggoner and when she went solo he brought a BS lawsuit against her and she had to pay him millions of dollars over the years. In the end they made up (near the end of his life I think) and he apologized for the lawsuit, but she still had to deal with a lot of crap.

    • Lizzie says:

      dolly parton owned her masters and her label respected her decisions. taylor’s contract specified that she did not own her own masters until a certain time period and when she decided to move labels, they punished her for it by exercising their legal rights to her property. parton’s career could have easily went a different way had her label decided to sell her contract and masters out from under her. also contracts were probably a lot different and less complicated b/c use in advertising was less, no digital, no streaming etc. it was just songwriting, touring, radio and record sales.

      had dolly worked for a POS record company – she probably wouldn’t have the money or power to stop it.

    • Lightpurple says:

      Dolly went through crap too.

    • Tiffany :) says:

      I saw a clip from an 80s interview with her, and she was talking about how her songs were so successful, but she was making a very small amount of money from it. She expressed her desire to make tons of money, and she said she was making changes.

      I don’t think Dolly did avoid the trap. She got out of it once she gained more power after decades of work.

  23. Eliza says:

    This is why the Me Too doesn’t pick up as much in the music industry. These contracts. Movie houses got rid of contracts decades ago. These records companies own you, they own your songs, they own your rights to use them, and they control your ability to record future records. You talk, you get punished.

    Taylor is one of the most powerful women in the industry, who can speak up, but her own product is still used to punish her.

  24. Leriel says:

    She performed one of her old songs recently, so she was allowed to do that (https://youtu.be/gpT6Ua3FIp8), but right now she isn’t? Either she’s perverting facts again or Scott changed his mind and uses his advantages to keep her under, which is clearly unethical (I just don’t want to use swearing for that situation).

    • Noely says:

      Like I said in my previous comment, I am more inclined to believe that Scooter changed his mind because Taylor would not lie about her Netflix documentary possibly not being released because of him. If it was a lie, Netflix could easily come out and say that it’s wrong and Taylor would look really stupid. She would not risk losing Netflix as a business partner like that.

      • Leriel says:

        If they really banning her from performing her music and don’t sell it for documentary for no reason, than the entire music industry is middle school. Like, Netflix will pay any price for license, you may make some money on it, especially Big Machine isn’t, well, big label, Taylor’s catalogue is a gem in their collection, why not to make cash on it and keep it civil.

      • Pearlime says:

        I also wonder if some of her appearances had been ok’d by BMG before she confirmed that she will re-record her old songs.

  25. Michael says:

    Not sure why they would not let her song a medley of her old songs on the AMA s. It seems like free advertising for the music they own. As good the money she may owe them why do they not just she her in court? This feels like a personal war because I can’t see how this benefits Scooter and company business wise. Also consider that people like Selena have already come out blasting Scooter so will people like Justin and Ariana Grande be forced to fire back? Could turn into a musical civil war

  26. Barbara Owens-dewitt says:

    I love your column but I disagree with you. For all of history men have bullied women in business into silence and complacency. I don’t give a shit if she is coloring her side of the story – it’s her god damn music, her talent and her right to sing her songs. We as women don’t need to ask for all the details-the headline is enough, for me. Believe women. Support women. PERIOD.

    • Valiantly Varnished says:

      Uhhh no hun. Taylor has a history of LYING when it comes to issues like this. And if you dont give a shit that she is lying that’s fine. But dont trot out the “support women, believe women line“ in the next breath. It’s offensive.

      • MsMercury says:

        You must not know about Scooter then. I am not a fan of Taylor but he is much worst. He treats his artists like crap.

      • DS9 says:

        VV, exactly. She lies like a cheap rug and so often she believes it.

        And I never thought I’d say this but I’m tired of #metoo being used in this context. This is not “happening to” Taylor because she’s a woman.

        It’s a common situation for a whole slew of artists.

        The music industry is predatory and often puts artists in a stranglehold but you’re not going to take what they did to Prince and the Beatles and virtually anyone else with a modicum of talent who had the screws put to them by the industry as a whole and and say this is a personal vendetta OR an anti woman campaign.

        What’s happening to women in country is definitely misogyny.

        This right here though is a shit industry doing shit things because they have the power.

        My question on all of this though is what exactly shit things are they doing, does it make sense, or is it just pettiness on their part.

      • Valiantly Varnished says:

        @MsMercury Actually I know quite a bit about Scooter but thanks for the assumption. Scooter being a d*ck doesn’t mean that Taylor isn’t a liar. And history bears that out.

  27. Case says:

    The way they are trying to clearly manipulate and sabotage her disgusts me. I can’t imagine putting my heart and soul into my writing and then being told I couldn’t use it how I wanted. And this has happened to many, many artists. It’s wrong, and it needs to change. Good for Taylor for fighting back. I respect her for not giving up and now allowing them to silence her, which is precisely what they’re aiming for here. I believe her.

  28. Oliviajoy1995 says:

    If they let her sing a medley of her songs at the AMA’s and allow her to use her old music in her Netflix documentary I’m sure people would go out and buy or download her old albums and that’s money in Scooter’s pocket since she can’t legally re record her old music until November 2020. Kinda seems like he screwed himself a little.

    • Valiantly Varnished says:

      Actually all that shows is Taylor’s version of events doesn’t make any sense. Scooter is first and foremost a business man. It makes no sense why he would block his own money over something like this.

      • holly hobby says:

        Yep. If you look at the $$$ that’s not a business decision. I think he is smarter to put personal issues aside and to take the money. What she is describing sounds like something she would do. Sorry she has lied too much about so many people. I am inclined to wait until all the stories are in before I believe her. This is not a me too movement. Her word is not gold.

      • Tiffany :) says:

        It is for future financial gain. Short term loss, long term gain.

        The labels statement essentially admitted to it. They’ll let her perform…just not her old songs. They are being vindictive. They do not want her to re-record her masters when she is able to in 2020, so they are trying to pressure her into agreeing not to. If she agrees not to re-record in 2020, she can perform her old songs.

      • Mo says:

        Businesses do petty shit that makes no financial sense to screw over their employees and other perceived rivals all the time. They will fire everyone making over X dollars and then act surprised when the business collapses and goes under.

  29. QueenMeow says:

    I know you can’t necessarily trust Taylor’s version of any events ever, but you know who I trust EVEN LESS, much, much, much less, in fact? White, male, music execs.

  30. Veronica S says:

    Her victimization I’m skeptical about, but I’ve known enough people burned by the industry to know Braun and Co. are no saints. Artists like Taylor are the lucky ones. They came out ahead. Plenty lose their rights to their own music and come out at a further financial loss for it all the time.

  31. Middle of the road says:

    I see a lot of you don’t really care for her, but I do as her music isn’t sexual and provocative as a lot of others. Kids can listen to her and you don’t have to send them out of the room or explain what that word means. Anyway, she brought this on herself. She seems a little selfish when it comes to her music so she has to expect things like this to happen especially after the whole fiasco she had with Scooter a few months back. It’s hard to feel sorry for people who bring their own demise.

    • holly hobby says:

      Her music is inane words spewed out. She is no technical brilliant lyricist. Have you actually listened to Blank Tape (Space?)? Random words (fireworks! bright lights! Blank space! Yeah that’s not actually the real lyrics but they were inane when you hear the song.). She is no Oscar Hammerstein, Carole King or Carly Simon for that matter.

  32. Lolalola3 says:

    This whole situation only makes Taylor sound really stupid (i.e. she doesn’t understand how the contract worked) or really manipulative (which looks far more likely). I find it so sad when an artist’s behavior eclipses their work and Taylor seems to have the total lack of common sense to stop this from happening. The world doesn’t want to see all her dirty laundry. She needs to grow up and deal with her business issues or hire someone who can. Fix it and get on with making music, K?