Big Machine claps back at Taylor Swift: ‘The narrative you have created does not exist’

FOX's Teen Choice Awards 2019

Last night, Taylor Swift posted a message to her social media wherein she claimed that Scott Borchetta (the former head of Big Machine) and Scooter Braun (who now owns Big Machine) were stopping her from performing her old songs at the American Music Awards. She wants to sing a medley of old and new songs when she receives her AMA Artist of the Decade award, and she claimed they were stopping her. She also claimed that they were stopping her from using her old songs in a Netflix documentary which she has been filming for the past two years. As I said earlier, if all of Taylor’s claims are true, then it’s awful and I feel sorry for what’s happening to her. But as I also said, Taylor has a history of misrepresenting a lot of stuff so that she’ll always be the victim, always and forever. I just thought that there was more to the story and I was interested to see if Braun and Borchetta would release any statements or pushbacks. They did. This was posted on Big Machine’s site:

As Taylor Swift’s partner for over a decade, we were shocked to see her tumblr statements yesterday based on false information. At no point did we say Taylor could not perform on the AMAs or block her Netflix special. In fact, we do not have the right to keep her from performing live anywhere. Since Taylor’s decision to leave Big Machine last fall, we have continued to honor all of her requests to license her catalog to third parties as she promotes her current record in which we do not financially participate.

The truth is, Taylor has admitted to contractually owing millions of dollars and multiple assets to our company, which is responsible for 120 hardworking employees who helped build her career. We have worked diligently to have a conversation about these matters with Taylor and her team to productively move forward. We started to see progress over the past two weeks and were optimistic as recently as yesterday that this may get resolved. However, despite our persistent efforts to find a private and mutually satisfactory solution, Taylor made a unilateral decision last night to enlist her fanbase in a calculated manner that greatly affects the safety of our employees and their families.

Taylor, the narrative you have created does not exist. All we ask is to have a direct and honest conversation. When that happens, you will see there is nothing but respect, kindness and support waiting for you on the other side. To date, not one of the invitations to speak with us and work through this has been accepted. Rumors fester in the absence of communication. Let’s not have that continue here. We share the collective goal of giving your fans the entertainment they both want and deserve.

–Big Machine Label Group

[From Big Machine]

“Taylor made a unilateral decision last night to enlist her fanbase in a calculated manner that greatly affects the safety of our employees and their families.” Um, WOW. I mean, Taylor really did do that – she basically asked her fans to cyberbully or real-life bully Borchetta and Braun for daring to… make a business deal that pissed her off. That’s really all it was at the end of the day. It was business and she was mad about it. And Big Machine’s statement made a point that I was wondering about – how would it even serve their interests to refuse to the rights to her to perform her music? It wouldn’t. As for all of the stuff about Taylor refusing to meet with anyone from Big Machine, I believe that too. Her Rolling Stone interview was the portrait of a woman who twists herself in knots to avoid actually sitting down with business associates and trying to figure out WTF is actually happening. She’s stuck in this little world where Big Bad Businessmen are making all of these moves JUST to hurt her. And that’s not the way any of this works.

RESTRICTED: EDITORIAL USE ONLY!!!, Taylo...

Photos courtesy of Backgrid and WENN.

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

147 Responses to “Big Machine claps back at Taylor Swift: ‘The narrative you have created does not exist’”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Cidy says:

    The victimization of herself is so horrible and part of an larger toxic culture.

    • Louise177 says:

      I’m not on Taylor’s side because she’s acting like she’s been victimized as a woman and is acting like a bully. This is a business thing. Same will and has happened to men. Also having her fans harass them and dragging other artists into her mess is unfair and dangerous.

      • Jas says:

        Agreed, Louise. She should have the right to buy her catalog as allowed by her original deal, but the way she is doing this is disgusting. She wants everyone who doesn’t fight for her to be abused and threatened when they are innocent bystanders to the whole thing.

  2. harlequin says:

    Uhh they didn’t deny outright blocking her from performing her OLD music.. all they said was they’re not stopping her from performing. There’s an omission right there so I’m inclined to believe TS on this one. She has no reason to lie when AMA or Netflix can strike this down and don’t think she would spoil her Netflix surprise doc if there was no issue.

    • Lightpurple says:

      That is a huge, glaring omission that pretty much operates as an admission. Sure, she can go anywhere she wants and sing Happy Birthday or the Star Spangled banner with no consequences but if she performs Love Story, what happens?

    • Snazzy says:

      Yup agreed. They are using her reputation against her and playing with their words to make people believe she’s making shit up. They didn’t say she couldn’t perform… but nothing about her OLD songs, just performing in general. Bullshit semantics. I believe her.

      As someone said on the other thread, this is a recording due to the time delay, so they won’t allow it.

    • Deedee says:

      Agreed. She can play at AMAs but if she sings old songs, then it will be considered a re-recording f her old music before next year. Same with Netflix if they show any of her concerts.

      • Beausmommy says:

        When they referenced licensing her catalog I took it to mean that she can play/perform the music live, but it cannot be broadcast and/or recording without a licensing agreement… which she is refusing to negotiate. She doesn’t want them to be paid on her catalog. So she could perform it, but not without them profiting. That is the deal she signed and it should be honored.

    • pooks says:

      100% this. That was a very carefully crafted statement that really didn’t disagree with what she was saying about her old music. I think the way they worded this speaks volumes.

    • paranormalgirl says:

      That’s what my husband said (contractual lawyer specializing in entertainment). This was a carefully worded statement that basically did not deny her claims outright. He said he never deals with Big Machine and a couple of other smaller labels without making certain every t is crossed and every i is dotted because they are crafty, their lawyers are crafty, and they exploit every loophole they can.

      • TQ says:

        +1

        Statement was very carefully worded and certainly does not deny her claims.

      • Erinn says:

        And that’s my problem with all of this. Taylor’s made her bed in terms of victimhood, and I do understand why people don’t believe her. But that doesn’t mean that the people going against her are automatically on the up and up. I don’t particularly trust a huge business’s carefully worded statements. You sort of have to read between the lines to see what they’re NOT saying, and this is a perfect example of that.

      • Moneypenny says:

        Yep, another lawyer here and came to write just this. This was very careful written in a way that does not actually refute what she wrote.

      • Tiffany :) says:

        I am not an expert, but have some insight into the industry. This is my current understanding. (Copied from my post on the other TS article).

        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 seems out of line to me.

      • MC2 says:

        @Tiffany: And their loophole for saying it’s mechanical & not performance is the time delay on the show, so they are grasping at the straw that it technically is recorded for those 2 seconds.
        Jesus, Janet’s boob comes back to bite us again! Is it a requirement for networks to put live shows on a time delay or just something they all do after subjecting the American people to a nipple during their football game?
        This is all such bs. Someone can play the victim & still actually be a victim, which appears to be the case here.

    • TheHeat says:

      That’s exactly what I came in to say…she’s not claiming that they are blocking her from performing! She’s saying that they are blocking her from using her old music.
      And they are not denying that one bit.

      • It’sjustblanche says:

        Yes. I’m not even a fan but I’m team Swift on this one and they absolutely are using her reputation against her.

    • Cee says:

      Good catch. I thought it was admission by omission, too.

    • Eleonor says:

      I was looking for a clear denial which is not here. They say she owns them millions (royalties?) But sorry…she still has a point to me.

    • Lua says:

      Thank you Harlequin, I was about to point out the same thing. Read between the lines, guys. The truth is probably somewhere in the middle. Play where you want, but not your old stuff unless big $$$ exchanges hands

    • broodytrudy says:

      She sang old music on GMA back in August though?

      • holly hobby says:

        And I bet she did it on other occasions too but people see what they want to see. If she feels so strongly about singing her songs and promoting it “for the benefit of the record company” she can file a lawsuit. And if that’s true, the company would have also filed an injunction to prevent her from performing those songs.

        Plenty of artists don’t own their masters, who left their old label, are allowed to perform their songs. This is bs.

      • harlequin says:

        And they didn’t stop her then only now? There is a new statement released by Taylor’s team quoting an email denying her requests for licenses of her old songs for Netflix doc, an Alibaba event and also for the AMAs. That and an independent auditor has determined Big Machine owes her 7.9m in royalties.

      • Courtney says:

        That may have been completely live and the AMAs operate on a tape delay.

      • Erinn says:

        Was that before or after she announced she’d be re-recording the songs?

        Because if it was before that, I can see why they didn’t pull rank at the time and are now. It’s in their best interest to prevent that from happening.

      • dynastysurf says:

        She confirmed on Thursday 8/21 that she’d be re-recording. the GMA performance was on 8/22. Likely not enough time for BMLG to formulate a case keeping her from performing them there.

      • broodytrudy says:

        GMA is on tape delay in multiple parts of the country.

        And sure, but she also did Prime Day and a bunch of other performances. And should we break this down? What do the SBs get out of this? Jack shit. It doesn’t benefit them at all to do this.
        What does Taylor get out of this narrative? Publicity for her AotD award. Out of her contract. The rights to rerecord her songs. To be a perpetual victim.

        SB might be a petty asshole, but he knows blocking her at the AMAs or whatever is a shit move, and that guy doesn’t make shit business moves, regardless of how immoral or unethical we all think he is. TS misrepresented the last scenario, and the one before that, and the one before that, all the way back to her beginnings. She is constantly lying and victimizing herself.

      • Tiffany :) says:

        “What do the SBs get out of this? Jack shit”

        That is completely wrong. They are trying to get her to agree to not re-record her masters when she becomes legally able to in 2020. They are saying if she agrees to not re-record next year, they will allow her to perform her old songs. Which is a MASSIVE overstep of their mechanical rights to the masters. They own the old recordings…not the old songs. They are making an illegitimate claim to say that performing the songs live on an award show is the same thing as re-recording masters. They are over playing their hand.

        If she successfully re-records her old songs in 2020, that will render their investment into her master recordings useless. They are trying to protect their investment. That is what they are getting out of it.

    • Raina says:

      I don’t know; she’s a lot. I keep thinking they can’t both be telling the truth so one of them is 100 percent lying. Maybe 10 percent miscommunication. She really should have that meeting and record it like Kanye did.

    • Yaya says:

      Exactly. Very carefully worded, shocked more people didn’t see that.

  3. From what I can glean from other coverage on this issue.

    She can perform her own music LIVE without having to pay the label, they own the original recordings not her performances. They are using the fact that the telecast has delays for commercials to label this performance a recording (even though it is specifically not for reuse) to keep her from performing her own music in a live forum.

    The Netflix special was in production well before the sale of the label so I have no clue how that can play out, presumably they are blocking the use of video footage of her performances prior because they are “recorded.”

    The AMA thing is a petty power move using a loophole. I’d have her open the show with no tape delays until after she sings but that’s probably too simplistic to work.

    • Elisa says:

      “The AMA thing is a petty power move using a loophole. I’d have her open the show with no tape delays until after she sings but that’s probably too simplistic to work.”
      That’s a great idea, maybe someone who is in the industry can chime in whether this would be possible?

      • Noely says:

        Do you two mean not recording her singing at all? Not sure if the AMAs would want to do that since they obviously want Taylor to perform because they expect her to bring in the viewers.

        But I agree it would be cool if they could work around the issue. Maybe Taylor can write a song about it (I’m only half joking here, it WOULD be epic if she somehow dissed them on TV)

      • Elisa says:

        Exactly, as the recording seems to be the main issue. Also, I’m here for a diss song, great idea!

    • Tiffany :) says:

      For them to pretend that a live performance on an award show is a re-recording of a master is soooooo disingenuous.

  4. savu says:

    Yep, I buy this. The only thing that makes me wonder is the whole “we’re not stopping her from performing at the AMAs” thing – they didn’t say “we’re not stopping her from performing her old songs at the AMAs”. Taylor could be telling the truth about that one.
    I believe artists should own the rights to their music. But the woman is ungodly rich. Surely there’s an easy solution here.
    The whole “tell these people what you think” part of last night’s statement concerned me. God, I hope they’ve been recording their conversations with her Kimye-style.

    • Becks1 says:

      The reason I don’t think they’re stopping her from performing her old songs is bc that is to their benefit, right? If she performs Love Story, and you think, “oh I used to like that song, now it’s stuck in my head, I’m going to download it” that benefits BMG, right? So to that extent it seems to me that they would WANT her to push/perform her older songs as opposed to her new songs.

      • harlequin says:

        Not if they think they can use it as leverage to stop her from rerecording her masters next year

    • Loulalou says:

      Oh god yes that part of the statement is so concerning! Regardless of who is being truthful in this situation, Taylor should handle it herself like a grown up!! Instead she is asking her fans to “help” her..and to get on the case of other artists to try and force them to get involved too! Wow..she’s off the wall!

    • Courtney says:

      they used the word “live” when the AMA’s are on a tape delay.

  5. Valiantly Varnished says:

    Taylor LOVES her victim narrative but Im glad Big Machine is pushing back. It makes LITERALLY no sense why they would stop her from performing her songs. And the reason why it makes no sense is because it didn’t happen.

    • Ainsley7 says:

      They don’t want her to re-record her songs next year. If she agrees not to then they will let her.

      • olive says:

        can’t she wait until november 2020 to re-record her songs and not need their permission at all?

      • Kebbie says:

        @Olive Yes, and that’s what she plans on doing. She’s saying they told her they’ll let her perform them at the AMAs now if she agrees not to re-record them in 2020.

    • Kebbie says:

      Did you read her statement? They’re using the live performance as leverage to try to force her to agree to not re-record her old stuff next year. That would be way more financially beneficial for them than some small spike in sales from a live performance. Makes perfect sense to me.

      Their carefully crafted statement seems super shady to me. A lot of purposeful omissions in their denials. They’re not even responding to her exact accusations.

      I don’t like Taylor, but I don’t think she’s the one lying here.

      • Valiantly Varnished says:

        @Kebbie I did read her statement. And if you’re inclined to believe a Taylor Swift narrative then sure that would be enough. Im not inclined to do so because she has altered facts to fit her own narrative in the past and Im have a tough time believing known liars. 🤷🏽‍♀️

      • Mrs. Smith says:

        @Kebbie, I agree with your comment and wanted to add/ask about the $7 million BMG says she owes them. I wonder if that, too, is a sticking point on allowing her to perform on a tape delay at the AMAs. Not only are they demanding that payment from her (perhaps a fee to sing own songs at AMA?), but they are also leveraging a loophole to force her hand on the re-recordings. Business is ugly. But the whiny victim narrative is pathetic considering her status as a superstar. She needs to handle this deal like a boss! Be strong! Be shrewd! Win this business battle, then share THAT message with her fans after the deal is done.

    • Lightpurple says:

      Music companies do it all the time

      • Valiantly Varnished says:

        Yes. When it benefits THEM. No one – including Taylor- has given a credible or logical reason why they would do so in this case. Girlfriend was just on live TV this past summer singing some of her old songs.

    • Tiffany :) says:

      No, it makes perfect sense. They are saying if she agrees not to re-record the masters when she is legally able to in 2020, they will allow her to perform her old songs on the award show. They are trying not to lose the value in 2020 of what they bought this year.

      They spent TONS of money for her masters. If she re-records them next year, they lose value and investors lose their money.

  6. Pearlime says:

    I just read that on the Variety site and they have a nice break down of what that statement did and did not say. Like “At no point did we say Taylor could not perform on the AMAs” – well ywah, they can not block her from performing, but they can forbid her to sing her old songs.

  7. Case says:

    While I am totally against her asking her fanbase to “help” because it is dangerous, I am 100% on Taylor’s side in this argument. I believe her, wholeheartedly. This statement doesn’t deny that they’re blocking her from using her old music — which is the claim she has made. This statement is saying they’re blocking her from performing or putting out a Netflix special. That is NOT what Taylor is claiming. They are twisting words to make it sound like she’s lying and overreacting. I don’t think she is.

    I 100% believe they are trying to manipulate Taylor into not re-recording her music when she legally allowed to do so dangling her old music over her head now, and it is disgusting.

    • Sarah says:

      Agreed. SHe has made mistakes, but who hasn’t. Just like the Kanye thing. She agreed he could mention her in his song in a complimentary way, she did not agree that he could take credit for her fame and call her a bitc@h.
      They are all telling half truths, not just Taylor.

    • Cinnamon says:

      How is not playing some music at an awards ceremony going to keep Taylor from rerecording?! I’m sorry but Taylor could just play her new music at the awards ceremony, sure it would be a bit weird but it wouldn’t really be that big of an issue either. She is blowing this way out of proportion.

      • Harlequin2 says:

        It’s an ARTIST OF THE DECADE award. Of course it’s a big deal and of course she would want to perform all the hit songs she wrote during this decade and not just the new ones.

      • Cinnamon says:

        I get that she wants to play her old songs there but in the grand sceme of things how is it really going to hurt her if she can’t play the songs?

  8. Aims says:

    That’s the thing, she’s always passed the buck and had others do her dirty work. She doesn’t like the deal and now someone has to pay. She knows her base and what they will do. She has put potential harm onto someone because she’s having a fit because she doesn’t like the deal. She has zero self awareness.

  9. MsMercury says:

    They didn’t deny anything she said. I don’t agree with fans attacking anyone.

    The Beatles could still perform their hits after Michael bought the rights to their music I don’t see why she can’t . Scooter would probably make more money.

    • Lizzie says:

      you can play them but you she’d have to pay them royalty fees. if it is a big event like the AMAs or a documentary – it would be possible they could or would have been barred from using the music. for instance, the music wasn’t released on a streaming platform until sony bought the rights from michael jackson’s estate. also their exact contract might have been different.

      the beatles were broken up for years at that point, john lennon was dead and they had not performed together since 1974. also to ignore the fact that taylor is a very young woman is a mistake. she’s being bullied too and her responses are just working on their level.

      • holly hobby says:

        Paul McCartney is very much alive and he still performs Beatles hits in his concerts and on carpool karaoke for pete’s sake.

    • Lightpurple says:

      The Beatles broke up when Michael Jackson was 10 years old and one of the reasons was control over rights. John Lennon was dead by the time Jackson entered the picture and allowed Lennon’s music to be used in TV commercials. Yoko and McCartney fought hard to get rights back.

    • MsMercury says:

      I meant more so Paul and somewhat Ringo. I realize that John was dead by the time the deal was made. George was doing his own thing. I am young but I thought Paul still performed the Beatles songs along with his own music. I know they performed a Beatles song with Prince, Tom Petty and others at one event.

      • holly hobby says:

        Many of the songs were written by Lennon and McCartney. So it McCartney and the Lennon estate had the most to gain. No one stopped McCartney from singing Beatles songs.

      • Mo says:

        But he could have. Imagine what you would think if Jackson told McCartney that he could no longer perform any Beatles songs unless he did ________ thing that Jackson wanted him to.

      • Lightpurple says:

        Again, McCartney spent decades buying back rights to Beatles songs. In the process, because songs were often packaged in collections with other music, he owns the rights to millions of other songs and recordings too.

    • Tiffany :) says:

      The reason this didn’t happen with the Beatles is that this is a VERY unusual way to apply music law. Most sane people do not try and argue that a live performance is a re-recording of a master.

      They own the sound of her singles, not the song itself (aka the sheet music). They are taking the EXTRAORDINARY step of saying that something other than the master recordings are governed by mechanical royalty regulations. It is total bs.

      • Arizona says:

        so shouldn’t she perform them in a completely different way? if they own the specific sound of the recordings then I would think if she performs them completely differently then that would work?

      • Tiffany :) says:

        Arizona, it’s my understanding that she was going to do a medley, so I think that would make them so different from the originals that it couldn’t be misconstrued as a re-recording. However, I think they know that and it isn’t stopping them from trying to prevent her using the songs. If this ends up in court, even if they lose, it could delay a decision until after the award show happens.

    • Lizzie says:

      @hollyhobby you can read about paul mccartney’s 30+ year battle to win his rights back and how sony paid out john lennon’s estate and how it all works multiple places on the internet. google it babe.

  10. Who else do we read about that always comes back to “ I’m not being mean, if you’ would just sit down and talk with me this could all be sorted out”. We’d call that gaslighting 101 if this wasn’t Taylor Swift.

  11. chisey says:

    So I’m confused. Big Machine’s version is that they have not done anything to stop Taylor from performing her old songs at the AMAs or using them in the Netflix documentary, she is just pretending that they are so she can sic her fans on these guys she doesn’t like, and…somehow get out of paying money that she contractually owes? I just don’t understand how you get from point A to point B. Big Machine is going to just give up on millions of dollars because they don’t like a trending hashtag? I just don’t understand why a big deal CEO cares about stuff like that, or at least I don’t understand why they would care enough to just stop trying to get paid millions of dollars they are owed.

    • harlequin says:

      Read their statement carefully, they’re not stopping her from performing… but didn’t address the issue of not allowing her to sing her OLD songs. Which is what she was saying all along. Because they’re using it as leverage to stop her from re-recording next year.

      • Lightpurple says:

        She can sing the alphabet song or make up something on the spot but she can’t sing her own older material without consequences.

        And they are using the old stereotypes of a petty, bitter, hysterical, unreasonable little girl/woman to get away with it.

      • Tiffany :) says:

        “she can’t sing her own older material without consequences.”

        That’s where we are now apparently, but that is not how the rights work. PERFORMING old material is a different set of rights (which she is entitled to) than the SOUND of the original recordings (masters).

        They are making the shady argument that her performing her music on a show that is being record constitutes a re-recording of the masters.

    • That’s precisely the point, they didn’t say anything about her “old” songs… they said they weren’t keeping her from performing.

      They aren’t denying her statement, they are using her reputation (well earned) against her with omissions.

    • Lightpurple says:

      That’s not what they said at all.

    • chisey says:

      OK so they are just choosing their words to give the appearance of denying that they are preventing her from singing her old songs or using them in Netflix, even though they technically aren’t, and generally are going ‘look over there, she’s playing the victim and making up a BS narrative again!’? Well, if it’s all smoke and mirrors at least that would explain why their narrative doesn’t make any sense. For all that Taylor Swift has a reputation, I think her version at least makes sense in a way I can understand.

  12. Lizzie says:

    why is anyone acting like a record company is being honest in any way? there is no time in the history of music where a record company behaved on the up and up. ever. not one. read literally ANYTHING about the history of music dating back to the financial trials and tribulations of famous composers and the absolute drama that went on with their patronages – which were like labels before labels existed.

    • Aims says:

      I agree record companies are shady. The issue I have is that Taylor has a large fan base and to engage in a narrative that she’s being treated unjustly, has the potential of being unsafe to employees who have no skin in the game. That’s what I have a problem with. She knows her base and it only takes one to do something stupid.

      • Kate says:

        Yes and no. Are her fans going after the janitors and secretaries at Big Machine? I highly doubt, but their statement makes it sound like she has put an actual mob hit out on all the employees. I do recognize the extremes her fans are going to with doxing and that is unacceptable. And I also think Big Machine is kind of “flopping” like in basketball when players exaggerate a minor push and fall down dramatically.

    • holly hobby says:

      If this beef is legit, she can sue them. Taylor you have a stable of attys, go trot one out to court. It will all come out during discovery anyway. The fact that we are parsing the “big bad company’s” statements over Virgin Mary Taylor and deciding who is right or wrong is dumb. If it is legit she can positively sue. Setting the teen base on the staff isn’t helpful.

    • Jas says:

      I don’t think they’re honest, but I think she might not be much better. Scooter Braun’s toddlers did nothing to her, but she instructed her fans to let him “know what they think” and that includes divulging his address and openly making threats on children’s lives. Demi Lovato has Swift fans on her page encouraging her to overdose again. She was in a coma last year!

      Taylor could have taken them to court, and let people know what was going on. Instead she said her fans should go after the men who wronged her, and also their clients who did nothing to her.

  13. Bex says:

    I believe Taylor- this statement does not deny forbidding her to perform her old material, only that they can’t stop her performing live. Netflix could refute her story too if there was nothing to it. They seem to be using her reputation of spinning ‘narratives’ to victimise herself against her. It’s textbook gaslighting. And I’m not sure there’s been a single artist vs label case in music history where the label hasn’t been exploitative af.

    That said, her crazy stans have been posting private phone numbers and email addresses all over the Internet. She could’ve said her piece without calling on her army to assemble, especially against random label employees and the other artists under his management who have nothing to do with this and really can’t do anything about it.

  14. Imply she owes you money
    Reference all the little people who toiled to create her career
    Word spin that you aren’t keeping her from performing
    Imply it would all be good if she’d stop acting like a brat and talk to them

    I’m half expecting Scooter to fake a heart attack

    • Mo says:

      Every artist everywhere “owes” their label money. Same with movie studios. No picture ever made has ever shown a profit. And every lawsuit about it gets shut down before it gets to court because neither the studio’s nor the record label’s accounting practices would stand up in a court of law. Look up the Art Buchwald case.

  15. emmy says:

    So in essence, she can do all the things she claims she can’t. Interesting. Let’s see her try and what happens then. Yeah, I see no reason for her to lie here, they could just tell her to go ahead and she’d be proven wrong. But they didn’t. They want her to sit down and talk. Sure.

  16. chisey says:

    This is what Taylor Swift’s PR said: https://twitter.com/treepaine/status/1195353721808596997

    I have heard some Swift fans saying they were confused as to why she only performed songs from Lover in a recent event in China, and it sounds like this is the Alibaba event that her PR is referring to.

  17. Ann says:

    Still team Taylor. This statement leaves out key information and is utter BS. Why would she agree to any kind of friendly negotiation when this jerk is dangling her intellectual property over her head? She obviously can prove them wrong because she has named Netflix and the AMAs in this; she wouldn’t have put out her statement if the label’s side of things were true.

    Also going to disagree with people saying they don’t like that she’s called her fan base into this. I’m glad she did. Lots of her fans are also fans of Ariana Grande and Demi Lovato. If they boycott on Taylor’s behalf it hurts the label in multiple ways. I’ve read that Scooter Braun has done lots of shady shit beyond this spat with Taylor. He deserves the ire of the Snake Fam. Nothing violent or dangerous, of course, but yeah a bunch of rat emojis on Twitter and boycotts are fine by me.

    • Ainsley7 says:

      I think she could have called on them in a better way. She could have started a petition herself and made sure people knew how to support her in a positive way. She left the door open for her more extreme fans to do whatever they think is right. So, some have posted the personal contact info of people who merely work at the label and such. It’s not a good situation considering that she has had more than a handful of aggressive stalkers.

      • Ann says:

        I see what you’re saying. It’s not ok that some fans are doxing anyone involved. She should have been more clear on what she expects as support.

  18. pyritedigger says:

    I believe TS on this one, because that statement elided the core of TS’s problem–which is she is being blocked from performing her old songs. Generally, it’s the workers who are shafted by companies–not the other way around.

    However, a better person than TS would think about how she got into a place where no one trusts a things she says because of her lying antics in the past and would reevaluate how she goes about things.

  19. Abby says:

    He phrased it in a way that seems like more game playing. Of course he can’t stop her from playing live. But is he stopping her from singing her previous work live? There is a difference.

  20. Elle says:

    While I agree that Taylor will wholeheartedly lean it to her own victimhood, the way the statement from Big Machine was worded represents the very definition of gaslighting. They’re trying to make her out to be irrational, crazy.

  21. Cinnamon says:

    Ok but you are ignoring the power Taylor has in this situation. She isn’t some little girl thrown into a bad situation, she is a major artist. I mean the rerecording info alone would have been great leverage if she wasn’t so petty. If she hadn’t blown this whole situation up she could have agreed not to publicly say that she was planning on rerecording the music if they agree to some things. The problem is that her pettyness makes her give up adantages and not go about this situation professionally.

    • Lightpurple says:

      “Petty” is an interesting word to use here because something similar happened to Tom Petty too at the beginning of his career.

      ETA the artists rarely have any power in these situations

      • Cinnamon says:

        @Lightpurple but Taylor isn’t at the beginning of her career. After Big Machine was sold she chose to make this situation messy. If she had given them the actual option to keep this quiet I think they would have taken it. She tried to publically humiliate them and use every chance she gets to put in a jab. Did she honestly think she can do whatever she wants to without consequences?

  22. PrincessSlackerella says:

    Let’s just look at the fact that she owes them millions. Maybe the deal is you pay us what you owe and we let you sing your songs. If you refuse to pay then you can’t use those songs until next year. She even said “until next year”. Maybe she should pay her bills instead of calling on her snake fam to do her dirty work. She is nothing but DRAMA!!!

    • Miles says:

      According to Tree Paine, her publicist, Big Machine actually owes Taylor $7.9 million. Not the other way around.

  23. DS9 says:

    For once, both sides are full of shit is totally an accurate take.

    Swifty, Braun, and Borchetta are all lying gaslighters.

    Taylor is arguing ethics and fairness. Those two are arguing money and the law.

    • Tiffany :) says:

      Braun, and Borchetta are trying to argue that mechanical royalties are performing royalties, which is not the case. A live performance is not a re-recording of a master, especially when it is a part of a medley.

      • DS9 says:

        Then she has a clear cut legal case and should go that route instead of these social media victimhood crusade

      • Tiffany :) says:

        She could, but courts are notoriously slow and it might drag out past the award show.

        Additionally, if someone is abusing their power, why does she have to remain silent about it?

      • savu says:

        @Tiffany there are emergency injunctions. She can afford the best entertainment/copyright lawyers in the country. Of course a long-term resolution could be slow, but as someone who covers the legal system on a regular basis, I can tell you there are timely routes she can take. That’s why I’m with DS9 on this one – if she has a legal claim, take it to court. It’s exactly why the legal system exists! The music industry is shady af, and I personally believe artists should own the rights to their own music. But that’s not what Taylor signed up for, it’s not really what ANY artist signs up for. Many have been in this exact situation! Is that right? No. Is playing it out publicly instead of legally the way to change that? No. She knows how fervent her base is. She cannot claim she had no idea it was possible that they would go nuts doxxing innocent (lower-level employees) people.

      • DS9 says:

        To be clear, I didn’t say anything about her being quiet. A legal filing doesn’t obligate her to say silent.

        But talking trash without a filling screams drama llama with no case.

    • Jas says:

      Bravo, yes. How could you side with any of these people, honestly.

  24. Laura says:

    It’s a shame there’s such bad blood between Taylor and these former business associates. Here’s the thing though.. Taylor has become enormously wealthy, and in large measure that wealth came from selling certain rights related to her music. I never heard any PR about her complaining over becoming rich from those business deals. There’s a harsh reality to some of those deals, but she made them and prospered. I find it hard to sympathize with her complaining about those arrangements now. I spent many years around the music business. It’s not a “kinder, gentler” industry. Taylor should be very aware of that by now.

  25. Miles says:

    How is this statement a “clap back” when they didn’t even deny what Taylor claimed? The Variety article actually breaks their statement down very well. Taylor never said they were preventing her from performing or doing a Netflix special. She specifically said they were preventing her from performing her old songs and using them in her Netflix documentary. They don’t deny any of that. Which makes me inclined to believe she is telling the truth. Her PR person also posted to Twitter the email Big Machine Records sent her.

    Also Variety has reported they’ve seen a document from Big Machine that backs her claims.

  26. Oui oki says:

    I believe Taylor about this, and about the drama with Kanye and Kim. And I love her new album (just started listening to the whole thing this week).

    I don’t appreciate that she performed in china, especially for Alibaba (it’s a big part of their economy and symbolic for their manufacturing imo), with what is going on with the uyghurs and HK right now. I thought maybe she’d not be another one who cashes in for dictators 🙁

  27. Caitrin says:

    These issues aren’t mutually exclusive:

    1. She should not be asking fans to act as a de facto mob.
    2. The Big Machine statement is a prime example of gaslighting – they don’t deny her claims at all, and the language deliberately obfuscates.
    3. If she didn’t have a history of misrepresentation, we’d absolutely believe her. Eventually, even the boy who cried wolf DID tell the truth.

    • DS9 says:

      She totally hates bullying….

      Except when it benefits her

      • Maria says:

        I remember on this site when everyone jumped at Beyonce for not getting her fans under control when they trolled that woman at the game. Here is Taylor asking her fans directly to harass people and those same people are defending her and ignoring this fact. Yes I believe her about them not letting her perform her old songs but being tonedeaf about her behaviour is problematic.

    • RB says:

      Bingo! Her career is based on selective truths and bullying ; it caught up. So many high profile people caught up in her perpetual immaturity and drama. Calling in her fans is typical. After all, she made money from lyrics like “she’s an actress better known for what she does on the mattress”- her fans brutalized the new gf of his ex. Petulant child drama is played out.

  28. Original Jenns says:

    This kind of language is why I’m not on Big Machine’s side:

    (All we ask is to have a direct and honest conversation) “When that happens, you will see there is nothing but respect, kindness and support waiting for you on the other side.”

    Maybe I’m jaded, but when I’m in an argument or dispute with someone, especially at work, that kind of talk sounds so condescending. So if I play nice, there will be puppies and gold and a pat on the head at the end of the rainbow? FU. I’ll wait for Netflix/AMAs to act/comment since I don’t trust either side to actually tell the truth about the situation. It’s probable they are both a-hats.

  29. H says:

    I don’t like Taylor Swift and think she’s a musical hack, but I absolutely believe her on this issue. That statement was Gaslighting 101 and lawyer-ese BS. (says the daughter of a retired attorney).

    • LNG says:

      Completely agree. This is a VERY carefully crafted letter 100% written by a lawyer taking pains to avoid numerous landmines (says a practicing lawyer whose job it is to write letters like this all the time, haha). She called their bluff and they’re hoping that her reputation sways public opinion against her (not unlike how Donald Trump works, I might add).

  30. Noely says:

    Agree with everyone saying that this is gaslighting. They don’t mention her old music anywhere, they just say they aren’t blocking her from performing. Like, we all know that since she is out and about doing all kinds of appearances promoting Lover.

    But that’s not even what she claimed. She specifically talked about being blocked from performing her old music.

    Like her or not, she is the victim here.

    Does anyone here remember JoJo? That extremely talented young woman who made a splash in the mid-00’s and then disappeared because her label kept her waiting for years? She had to sue to eventually be free and in 2018 she re-recorded her first two albums and a single she released in 2011, so her contract must have had the same loophole as Taylor’s did.

    Now, I don’t want to disrespect JoJo because she’s awesome, but Taylor is much more influential in the music Industry than JoJo is and her re-recording her old stuff could really help change the industry in favor of other artists, which is probably why Scooter and Scott don’t want her to do it.

  31. holly hobby says:

    And it all comes out… I was reading the other post with people supporting her without really waiting for the other side’s story (big bad industry execs vs. innocent little girl). As I said, it is a business decision. What she is implying doesn’t make sense. The exposure would give the company more money.

    If missy can’t handle the business end, and it looks increasingly like she is no business marvel, she should hire adults to negotiate with the company. Plus isn’t her daddy giving her business advice. This is no way burnishes her career. Siccing preteens to harrass private citizens is not right.

    No I don’t like her and I never will. She is not an honorable person. She should get a job at the WH.

  32. Ye says:

    I just dont think she’d make this up. Ruin the reveal of her own netflix show just to make up this story? Nah.

  33. The Recluse says:

    This also reminds me of the whole issue that came up over the summer concerning recording artists’ masters, which they seldom get a chance to control. She lost control of her masters and if I recall correctly they offered her an almost extortionate performance deal to regain them.
    Pretty nasty stuff.

    • Noely says:

      Yup.

      They wanted to gjve her the masters back one by one for every new album she would produce. So if she produced Lover under Big Machine, she would get her debut album’s masters back in exchange, for her next album after that she would get the Fearless masters and so on.

      So in the end she would have eventually gained back the masters for the first six albums she made under Big Machine, but her albums 7-12 would still be under their control and she would probably have had to make even more albums for them to get those back, and then more albums to get THOSE new albums back and so on and so forth.

      She would have been stuck in that cycle until she was no longer selling (I mean, everyone’s career will fade one day) and they probably would just have dropped her then and keep the remaining masters.

      It was not a great deal at all.

  34. JustMe says:

    Classics narcissist behaviour perpetually the victim
    Not saying she doesn’t have a point but telling her fans to bully and harass on social media is NOT a good look

  35. sherry says:

    She is a truly frightening human being.

  36. BritTris says:

    I think she’s marvellous for standing up for herself and calling out these wankers.

  37. ala says:

    Read the statement carefully. Its very well worded. “At no point did we say Taylor could not perform on the AMAs or block her Netflix special. In fact, we do not have the right to keep her from performing live anywhere.” No, they can’t.
    They can’t forbid her to perform – but it does not say that she can perform all her songs.

  38. Digital Unicorn says:

    As others say they are not denying stopping her from playing her old music live and I think this is in retaliation for her saying she was going to re-record her old stuff next year which robs them off their biggest cash cow.

    Taylor may have a serious case of victimhood but she’s on the right side of morality in this case – BMG are trying to bully her into not re-recording her old music so she can own those masters. I can see this going to court. BMG have way too much to loose if she does it and I read somewhere else that she owes BMG £7 mill in royalties. So I think this new beef is more than them not letting her play her old hits live or use them in the Netflix special.

  39. Estonian Bot says:

    I am so out of the loop. I saw The cover picture and thought who is this Big Machine and why haven’t I heard of her before.

  40. Gatorlover says:

    She can’t help it if she’s standing on stage while the audience sings her old songs – right?

  41. virginfangirls says:

    I’m not sure how she could have expected anything different after her last rant against them. Like they were going to play nice after that? i think the problem is the quantity of very public gripes she’s had over the years where she airs her dirty laundry. Just a few that come to mind: Joe Jonas broke up with her in a 10 sec call, past boyfriends using her for money, Katy Perry stealing her back up dancers, and she even slut shamed some girl in one of her songs. So when a legit gripe is aired by her, I think the general public is just sick of hearing her complaints. She just comes across as a whiner because of the shear number of her bitch fests.

  42. Scooby says:

    She’s done very well to date – thanks to luck, hype, media manipulation, whatever – but she’s headed for A HUGE FALL.

  43. Lola says:

    I’m 100% with Taylor on this. Just because she’s a big artist doesn’t make this any less unfair. Also makes you think – if this is how superstars are treated, I can only imagine how they treat newbies.

  44. Chicrockerc says:

    Taylor’s fans remind me of Trump supporters, in the way that there’s always one around you just waiting pop out and tie themselves into knots trying to defend a narcissistic blonde ahole.

    While I’m not a fan of her or her music, I generally do feel bad that she doesn’t get to own her catalog. However, why does she ALWAYS have to turn to bullying and public humiliation to get what she wants? Want to date a boy that already has a girlfriend? Write a song that degrades the girlfriend. Boyfriend dumps you? Write a song that “calls him out”. Someone calls you out on your bullshit? Write another “diss track” and make a music video that mocks a traumatic event in their life. Big bad record company won’t give you something “valuable” they rightfully own? Publicly implore your crazy ass fans to “help” you by bullying and harassing them.

    She’s a grown ass woman with access to millions of dollars and professionals who can help her resolve these issues privately. From the beginning, the record company has asked that she sit down with them and work out something but she refuses. They may be asshats, and she certainly doesn’t have to like it, but they don’t just have to give her what she wants because she’s Taylor Swift.

  45. Cat Ca says:

    I think the fine detail that needs clarification is this: Taylor Swift can perform anything she wants as long as it is LIVE. No permission needed from Big Machine Records.
    I believe she probably wanted to use some of her old tracks to lip sync or have as backing music. This is often done when there is a lot of choreography as the singer can’t sing and dance without getting out of breath.
    She probably wanted to use the actual recordings for this reason and Big Machine said NO. They are perfectly within their rights to refuse. Taylor Swift has said she fully intends to re-record all of her old music to stick it to Scott Borchetta and Scooter Braun, so they are likely being petty. Tit for tat happening on both sides.
    Easy solution – Taylor can sing whatever she wants as long as it is LIVE. She needs to modify her planned performance if that is not what she was going to do.

  46. Ivy says:

    Cute but I believe Taylor, not Big Machine, who has a calculated PR firm at the ready for issues like this. What kind of ethos are they bringing to the table here? People can talk around it all they want, but the bottom line is that Scott and Scooter have tremendous control over what Taylor is allowed to use her music for and they’re being vindictive and beyond shady about it. It’s not about business, because Big Machine and Scott/Scooter would make a lot of money off her using her old music during a medley show, for example, but they’re not letting her out of spite.

  47. Margo Smith says:

    I saw the tweet and it seemed off, so I didn’t press the heart on it. I wanted to wait for the record company to respond and, well, this is just typical Taylor isn’t it.

  48. Tuntmore says:

    Taylor Swift exhausts me. She reminds me of that one friend we’ve all had — the psychic vampire who makes everything about herself, who hovers on the edge of outright paranoia, and who can’t tell a simple story without making it dramatic. The kind of person who leaves you feeling like you need a long nap to recover.

    I believe that Big Machine is trying to screw her over. I don’t blame her for not keeping quiet about it. But enough with the constant “poor me” narrative and siccing rabid fans on people. That’s so immature and counterproductive. She needs to channel her inner Nancy Pelosi instead — the cool, professional takedown.

    Kesha had to stay in a contract with a man who drugged and raped her, who refused to let her have any creative control for years. You don’t see her asking her fan base to attack Dr. Luke and his associates. She doesn’t write song after song about being a victim of the world.

    When faced with adversity, you can be a Kesha or you can be a Taylor Swift. You can either find your own power or continue to cede it to others by portraying yourself as a victim.

    • Ennie says:

      I believw Ts donated money to Kesha. Not many others did, as far as I remember. i don’t hate TS at all. It’s sad Whats happening to her.

  49. zotsioltar says:

    How many times does she have to busted making stuff up? She is a specialist at pretending to the victim. At this point she needs to provide proof before Id ever trust her.

  50. otaku fairy.... says:

    Elizabeth Warren & AOC are supporting her. Even if Taylor is telling the truth her stans doxxing & sending death threats is way too much.