As we just discussed, Taylor Swift went HAM in a Tumblr post about Scooter Braun’s purchase of Big Machine, which owns/holds the masters to Taylor Swift’s first seven studio albums. Taylor signed the contract with Big Machine when she was just 15 years old, and while the deal made her a fortune, she never “owned” her work, her music, her albums, her masters. That alone is awful, but Taylor was and is very disturbed by the fact that Braun is the one who purchased Big Machine. Braun is best known to me as the Svengali manager of Ariana Grande, Justin Bieber, Kanye West and more. He’s also a huge Democratic Party fundraiser and contributor. My point? Unlike Taylor’s previous beefs and feuds, this time she’s coming for some very powerful and well-connected white men. Men who are not going to sit around and allow her to dictate the narrative around this. Scott Borchetta released a lengthy statement on Big Machine’s site, which you can see here (there’s autoplay music, just FYI). Some notable moments:
Borchetta on Taylor’s father: Taylor’s dad, Scott Swift, was a shareholder in Big Machine Records, LLC. We first alerted all of the shareholders on Thursday, June 20th for an official shareholder’s call scheduled for Tuesday, June 25th. On the 6/25 call the shareholders were made aware of the pending deal with Ithaca Holdings and had 3 days to go over all of the details of the proposed transaction. We then had a final call on Friday, June 28th in which the transaction passed with a majority vote and 3 of the 5 shareholders voting ‘yes’ with 92% of the shareholder’s vote. Out of courtesy, I personally texted Taylor at 9:06pm, Saturday, June 29th to inform her prior to the story breaking on the morning of Sunday, June 30th so she could hear it directly from me.
Borchetta doubts Taylor’s version: I guess it might somehow be possible that her dad Scott, 13 Management lawyer Jay Schaudies (who represented Scott Swift on the shareholder calls) or 13 Management executive and Big Machine LLC shareholder Frank Bell (who was on the shareholder calls) didn’t say anything to Taylor over the prior 5 days. I guess it’s possible that she might not have seen my text. But, I truly doubt that she “woke up to the news when everyone else did”.
Borchetta says Taylor completely misrepresented the deal they offered her to stay at Big Machine: I am attaching a few very important deal points in what was part of our official last offer to Taylor Swift to remain at Big Machine Records. Her 13 Management team and attorney Don Passman went over this document in great detail and reported the terms to her in great detail. Taylor and I then talked through the deal together. As you will read, 100% of all Taylor Swift assets were to be transferred to her immediately upon signing the new agreement. We were working together on a new type of deal for our new streaming world that was not necessarily tied to ‘albums’ but more of a length of time…Taylor and I remained on very good terms when she told me she wanted to speak with other record companies and see what was out there for her. I never got in her way and wished her well. The morning that the new Taylor/UMG announcement was going to be made, she texted me shortly before letting me know that the announcement was coming in a few minutes. As we both posted on our socials, we saluted each other and cheered each other on. Taylor had every chance in the world to own not just her master recordings, but every video, photograph, everything associated to her career. She chose to leave.
On Taylor’s issue with Scooter Braun: As to her comments about ‘being in tears or close to it’ anytime my new partner Scooter Braun’s name was brought up, I certainly never experienced that. Was I aware of some prior issues between Taylor and Justin Bieber? Yes. But there were also times where Taylor knew that I was close to Scooter and that Scooter was a very good source of information for upcoming album releases, tours, etc, and I’d reach out to him for information on our behalf. Scooter was never anything but positive about Taylor. He called me directly about Manchester to see if Taylor would participate (she declined). He called me directly to see if Taylor wanted to participate in the Parkland March (she declined). Scooter has always been and will continue to be a supporter and honest custodian for Taylor and her music.
[From Big Machine Label Group]
At that link, you can also find Borchetta’s receipts and various texts and emails. Does it seem possible that Scott Swift kept things from his daughter, and that Taylor didn’t really understand that her masters were really going to be sold along with Big Machine entirely? Or is it possible that Taylor misrepresented her knowledge of the deal to make herself look more like a victim? I mean… would it be the first time she’s done that?
Photos courtesy of Getty.
Basically 9:06pm his time was 3:06am London time. Meaning she would’ve gotten the text when she woke up in the morning… imagine waking up to that
BOOM! Thank You so much
Maybe I’m missing something here but she basically just woke up to the news that her ex-employer was being bought out by another company. If I woke up to that news, I would have just gone back to sleep.
And if you think the big deal is that her former employer owns her work, I would just like to point out that she sold it to them in the first place and became rich as a result, she had an opportunity to get the work back and chose not to, and it’s probably true for the vast majority of us that our employers and ex-employers own all of the work that we did while we were working for them. There’s nothing unusual about this situation.
I agree with Millie 100%. Kanye West doing that naked photoshoot was bullying but the other things seem everyday business stuff. This has nothing to do with sexism.
“Or is it possible that Taylor misrepresented her knowledge of the deal to make herself look more like a victim? I mean… would it be the first time she’s done that?”
I’d bet on this option.
Playing the victim is Taylor’s second career. She is such a spoiled and entitled mental toddler.
She may have stepped in it this time. Even NYT picked up the story.
Exactly. She’s always the victim. 🙄
Yep. If I remember correctly, her daddy “bought” her a record company so she can jump start her career. He was a majority shareholder, not Joe Minority with a few shares in stock. I find it hard to believe that her daddy didn’t tell her.
Record labels don’t let artists own their first albums’ masters!! You know how much money they’d lose if they did? As an artist you can start negotiating about owning your masters in your 2nd contract. And to offset the loss, the label takes more money from your sales and tours. I’m not a TS fan, but I know the music industry and it is DESIGNED to keep the artist indebted to the label. I laughed at the line ‘she had every chance to buy her Masters’ that is a lie and a half. He loses TS masters, his asking price will drop by half.
Right. There’s a reason there are many talented musicians out there who AREN’T more famous and rich; they refuse to sign a record deal where they feel they are indebted too much. It`s also why signing contracts in show biz is not always jokingly referred to as making a deal with the devil.
I feel like she’s lied, or made up details to support her version of the story, before. She strikes me as a calculating person. I have no idea what to believe here, although it seems if she really did want to own her stuff and was given then opportunity, then she probably would have bought them. It seems like the whole deal moved kind of fast. Something isn’t right here
honey her father being a shareholder in the labels initial creation didn’t gave her any rights on the music contract she signed at 15. She tried to gain them but the head CEO of big machines label scott brochetta owns them and wanted her to ‘earn’ her six albums master recordings back for a new one. It was just a trap. She walked out of the label knowing her next label would give her full authority of her master records and never spoke about her past contract until she was told at night yesterday that her master recording are being sold to someone without her consent and to someone she personally has not have a very good relationship. She has every right to call out this behaviour and fight for her records recovery.
Honey I didn’t say she didn’t have the right to call out his behavior. I said that if he really offered, then she probably would have bought them, and the deal seemed shady. But I also said that I think she has a known past of twisting facts to put herself in the best light, and because of that, I don’t know what to believe.
Eh, I don’t care when she learned the news. But it does seem like Borchetta dropped receipts about the last deal offering her all her Masters at once. That is a pretty big misrepresentation.
Does it make a difference between having to sign up for a 6 album deal in order to get all your albums back at once versus having to sign a deal and doing 6 albums in order to get back your masters 1 by 1? She still has to churn out 6 albums for the label….
Miles- it makes a difference in that your ownership would happen faster. Plus, Borchetta seems to indicate that the new deal was “not necessarily tied to ‘albums’ but more of a length of time…”
I agree, Miles. She might have them upfront but it’s still not her owning them outright if it’s tied to a new deal that requires further output.
No it doesn’t. She had to put out 6 albums in order to get her masters back. Whether she got them back in the beginning, in the middle or at the end, doesn’t change anything. The “time” it takes to make 6 albums wouldn’t have been any different in either situation. Unless the contract to get her 6 albums back was a time one ie 7 years or something along those lines. But he wasn’t exactly clear on that in his post. Just that he offered her masters in full, in turn for more work.
Read Borchetta’s post and it seems like there was no output attached to the new deal. Just a length of time. And it certainly doesn’t seem like there was anything that would void the initial transfer of her works to her (like failing to put out albums).
I’m not sure if his receipts go into more detail, but I’m still interested in the phrasing of the quotes. “Owning all her masters at once” but being tied to a certain timeline in the new contract might still mean that she was required to put in, let’s say, seven years of new recordings under that contract. If she didn’t provide the output specified in the contract it would have been void and she would have lost them again. It’s like saying someone would have gotten their advance upfront – like, sure, but if they don’t deliver that isn’t guaranteed. It’s still linking her ability to own her previous work to her producing new stuff rather than allowing her to own them outright.
I imagine the deal was we will give you ownership of all your masters if you sign on again with us for X number of years regardless of any output. He wanted her to sign and then sell the label, she states this – I think she misrepresented the deal over the masters to make herself a victim. Its clear she has an issue with Scooter Braun, knew he was going to eventually buy the label and thats why she walked away. Plus she probably got more money from the label she now signed with.
I agree. It does read like the deal was get your previous masters back but be tied to the label for a certain amount of time/albums.
Why wasn’t she given the opportunity to purchase her masters outright? Because the label would be worth less when they sold it if it didn’t include her catalog?
As @Kaiser mentioned, it has been historically very difficult for artists to own their Masters. There is no way in hell that she was offered “every chance in the world” to own her Masters and she said no. Obviously Borchetta would use the Masters as leverage to extract more work from her, as he tried to do.
Is it just me or is summer her start-a-beef season?
Of course; Taylor’s fans are mostly children, so if she starts summer beefs, they’ll be home from school and able to obsessively post and tweet about her.
So I guess the take home is TS is not the perfect victim for some people here. Hm.
Didn’t Swift lend her private plane to Ariana Grande for the Manchester concert?
I definitely thought it was obvious that he was trying to make her look even more bad by pointing out she turned down the Manchester and Parkland concerts.
Well, it’s not a very good look for her to have declined both of those concerts.
If anything, Taylor declining offers from Scooter, just goes to show that she actually did have a problem with him. And I say that because if I remember correctly, she donated to the Parkland kids and put out a statement about it and wanting gun control. So her not wanting to do the Parkland event that Scooter set up, is more information that points she wasn’t on good terms with him….for whatever reason.
But regardless, I think bringing up two tragedies in order to try and make someone look bad in a business deal is gross though.
Agreed.
I agree with you.
It wasn’t her plane. It was a gossip from her or team.
I said it on the other thread but it’s really annoying that people are trying to make an industry standard into a sexism/bullying issue. Taylor may not like Scooter but her old had the right to sell to whoever. A company isn’t going to make bad decisions to be nice to somebody. That doesn’t happen.
Industry standards can be sexist/bullying.
I’d also like to point out that just because he never saw her cry doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. She could have done that in private.
She said she cried *to him*/he saw her crying about Scooter. So it does make a difference. She’s the one who said it…also she’s damn near 30 and crying over business deals then trying to use that as proof that someone else is the bad guy. It’s just so gross all around to me. Makes me think of stories about Kate Middleton crying. Something about “big bad person made little white angel cry!!” stories sits wrong with me every time.
Halsey publicly spoke in support of Taylor. Beyonce, Rihanna and Adele all unfollow him after this came out. People inside the industry know best, Scooter is powerful but even Beyonce and Rihanna are winking at public disapproval. There’s more here.
Be Riri and Adele never follow him. So how they unfollow him. This is fake strory her fans made up. Just like people said Marvel actors unfollow Gunn.
Idk about Beyonce and Rihanna, but Adele doesn’t follow anyone on Instagram for a really long time, so it’s some misunderstanding here.
And here are the receipts…. I would have more respect for Taylor if she actually had the receipts to back up her claims but she never does.
I think its wrong she doesn’t own her masters and the industry needs to change its practice of legal servitude.
Also I think its bad taste for him to drop in Manchester and Parkland, he is trying to shame her but all it does it highlight that she has issues with Braun and as I said in the other post him buying the label is the reason for her post.
Why do you think it’s wrong for her former employer to own her work? I can’t think of an industry that doesn’t work this way. Even contractors hired to do work for a company typically don’t own the output when their project is completed.
Taylor essentially sold her masters to the company when she signed the recording contract. She’s not entitled to dictate what happens to the masters that someone else owns. But this is really what it comes down to, isn’t it? Entitlement.
Catalog purchases isn’t knew. Most music catalogs are owned by individuals or entities other than the artist.
You don’t have to like Taylor to realize she’s most likely telling the truth. However, because she unnecessarily brought Kanye and Kim into it some people are turning this into a “boy who cried wolf” situation and don’t believe her.
Taylor is a smart businesswoman and made a huge deal that her new label would freely give her the opportunity to own her masters. Therefore, I highly doubt she’d turn the opportunity down to own her masters in the way Scott and Scooter are representing the situation. Furthermore, his receipts don’t even make sense—if Taylor is in London, then she found out with everyone else and not earlier like he claimed.
And there’s long been a practice of labels, record executives, and managers being horrible in the music industry: Kelly Clarkson and Clive, Kesha and everyone, etc.
The music industry is a business. A big fucking ruthless business. An artist isn’t entitled to own “their work” just because they want it. There are contracts and plenty of players and lots of people behind the scenes with more money then the artists themselves. It wasn’t bullying. Has Taylor never heard of Prince, Paul McCartney, or any number of artists who came before her who have similar stories. Lawd.
You don’t seem to have any real understanding of the music business. And your comments are often rude AND uninformed. You seem to enjoy just being rude for the sake of it? I don’t like T.S., but wow. It is NOT entitled of her to want to own her masters 🤦🏻♀️ – how about you go and read about what happened to the Beatle’s masters before you include it in your rather ignorant (again) comment.
The most important question remains. Who will be invited to her July 4th party? Who will be there to dry her tears as photographers take photos?
I just can’t get too wrapped up in this business-related drama. Sir Paul could fill her in on what can happen with years of your work, regardless of your fame and wealth.
I don’t know who to side with in this yet. A lot of the people involved seem to have valid points. I do think it’s reasonable for any artist to be bothered by this, and that Taylor can also be trying to get the public on her side in the drama.
Man isn’t it funny how the sh*t always seems to hit the fan after an artist gets a new deal? Swear to god whenever a huge star gets a BIG money record contract with more control in their career things go downhill. Mariah, Michael, Prince(for a time). Weird because it’s mirroring football contracts to me(which are also notoriously one sided and corrupt). A players rookie contract is garbage so they’re playing their ass off to get that big money second contract. That last season/album before a new contract is crucial. And so often the one generating all the money gets screwed.
She could only own her stuff if she signed a deal with that label and she wanted to sign with a new label. There was no offer for her to own her stuff if she left the label. That’s not professional freedom. She didn’t really have a good choice.
So overall, the music industry is business. I do feel sorry for Taylor, but a lot of this is industry standard, it sounds like. However, I believe her that her dad didn’t tell her because there was likely a huge gag order. He wouldn’t want to risk Taylor going public with it before it was done and getting a huge law suit. If he was even on the call – shareholder calls aren’t always well attended.
I’m having trouble with the way everyone assumes an artist should own their work after it’s sold. Do I get to ask for my paintings back after I get a check? I’m not questioning her talent but it takes a whole lot of people to make and produce an album so the question of whom SHOULD own the masters seems more business decision and less theft of artistic property.
Taylor Swift is hardly hurting for money or recognition, but I will say the music industry is notoriously disrespectful if not outright abusive toward writers and musicians when it comes to their proprietary work, so I’m on Taylor’s side by default here. The industry standard is designed to make sure creatives are backed into a corner as much as possible and are more often left in debt than profiting at all from their own work.
An artist should own the rights to their music. This isn’t controversial. There is no such thing as a perfect victim. These comments reveal just how awful juries are, thinking only nice people are victims of crimes. It’s scary. It doesn’t matter if Taylor kills kittens as a hobby She still should own songs she wrote and produced, even if you think she has low character.
There are no victims here. Taylor sold the rights to her music when she signed her record contract. If she didn’t want to sell, then she could have been a lebel-less artist. She wanted to be rich and famous and needed help to get there. She knew what the record label’s terms were. She signed. It seems like it worked out for her. The end.
LLCs don’t have shareholders. That’s all I’ve got. I tuned out on everything else after he repeatedly referred to shareholders in reference to a limited liability company.
Right. LLCs have members or owners. And according to my husband (an attorney who specializes in entertainment contracts) if there was a member conference regarding a sale, it would more than likely be a meeting with nondisclosure involved and Scott Swift wouldn’t legally be able to tell his daughter anything until the public announcement. So yeah, whatever.
“Scott Swift wouldn’t legally be able to tell his daughter anything until the public announcement”
I heard this was the case, so he didn’t go to the meeting because he didn’t want to be put into that position.
Thank you Agirlandherdog! He should have referred to them as members which makes me side eye his side of this argument.
he has always been talked about as a shareholder who owns 4% of the label, so I agree this is confusing to me.
if I’m understanding this correctly (and I’m probably not)….for Taylor to turn down a contract renewal with Big Machine (and the opportunity to own every song/video/picture etc), means that her new label either offered more money or more creative freedom (or probably both). Right? There must have been an obvious advantage to turning down the Big Machine offer. Does anyone have any background or understanding with these sorts of massive music contracts? Or was Big Machine’s offer not a fair trade? Like she would own her masters but still have to pay them a percentage on everything she earned? I’m sure they can’t reveal the full details of these deals….but there’s alot of talk about everyone’s feelings, when really, it comes down to money and control. I always thought that contracts were pretty black and white….so shouldn’t this be pretty easy to clear up?
she has ownership of her masters going forward under her new deal.
This is mere speculation but I imagine part of the advantage was the certainty over who her new boss would be. She knew that Big Machine was about to be sold and that she would be stuck in a contract with whoever the new owner would be so she chose Universal. They probably also offered a lot more money.
I do believe that Big Machine offered her the masters as well because it would have been in their interest for her to stay there as it would have driven up the price of the company tremendously.
“He called me directly to see if Taylor wanted to participate in the Parkland March (she declined).”
😲
A bunch of rich White people attacking each other on social media…boo hoo…the truth is always somewhere in the middle !
There is an important thing to remember when reading Scott Borchetta’s statements:
Scott Borchetta had a very large incentive to keep Taylor’s catalog at Big Machine, and to keep Taylor signed to Big Machine: money from the sale of the company. If he could have kept Taylor there, he probably could have sold the company for more than the $300 mil he got. If he had let Taylor’s catalog go, he probably would have gotten less than the $300 mil he got. He knew he was selling the company, and he was incentivized to keep Taylor’s catalog and keep her signed. So that already tells me he didn’t give her a good chance to straight up buy her masters, because he was incentivized not to. And when he offered her the trade to stay at the company in exchange for her masters, he was incentivized to give her a hard deal because it would have benefitted him if she stayed. He didn’t go into detail of the deal he offered. Because he was incentivized to keep her masters and her at all costs, I highly doubt he offered a good or fair deal or chance to buy her masters from him, especially after she switched labels.
I know people around here dislike Taylor, and for valid reasons, but there is no reason to trust what Scott Borchetta or Scooter Braun (or his wife) are saying.
I agree with your points. He was doing what was best for him financially, and that required him to screw over his artist. Legal, but not moral or ethical.
I agree – it’s unlikely she was offered a fair deal when it came to her masters. With that said, I find her bringing up past personal dramas to undermine her undoubtably strong case for how artists are taken advantage of my labels. She could have even said she didn’t sign back with Big Machine because to get her masters because she knew they would sell and she’d be indebted to an unknown or someone like Scooter who she hasn’t had a good relationship with. She lost me when she brought up Kim and Kanye again.
I totally agree with you on this one. He’s a businessman first and foremost, if it makes him more money it’s likely what he’d go for. Unfortunately not many people become successful by playing nice, and even then it’s probably because they have people looking out for them who aren’t so nice.
Aww, her original face!
The music industry is total exploitative bullshit.
Courtney Love wrote an essay about this. Say what you will about Courtney, she’s absolutely right about it. Prince also had a lot to say about it too.
Here’s Courtney:
https://www.salon.com/2000/06/14/love_7/
Eh. They all signed contracts. They all agreed to the stipulations of those contracts. This is really a non-issue. Don’t like the terms? Don’t sign the friggin contract!!
Unpopular opinion: she knew when signing the original deal that the record label would own her masters, etc. She chose not to sign a new deal, regardless of details, that would give all of that to her. Decision made.
Since the record label owns her masters, etc, they have every right to sell them as a collective part of their record label WITHOUT her consent as she DOES NOT own them. She was aware of this. Technically, they weren’t even obligated to tell her it was happening, they chose to be nice and do so.
So she has no leg to stand on here. Business. See also, actions, consequences. I’m not saying it’s a perfect world, having your work hung over your head to get you to sign back on, but she knew what she was leaving when she made her decision, and this is the outcome of her decision. Time to be a grown up.