Taylor Swift vs. Scooter Braun and Scott Borchetta:

guitars4you

What is this story about - Seen the headline so what is the story 

RaymondLin

Scooter Braun (and its investment backers) bought the masters for Taylor’s albums up to Lover for like $300mil without asking whether Taylor Swift she wants to buy it first. (Which she obviously would and could).

so in return, Swift started to re-record all her albums to dilute the value or the original masters.  Since she is credited as song writer on them, she can just re-record them.   So if movies or tv producers wants to licence the songs, they can choose between asking a living artist or Scooter.

Side note

If you ask any Swifties, they will not stream the old albums but personally I already paid money and bought the original albums and Swift got her sliced of each sale so I will play those CDs as much as I want, I think the original have their charm to them and her voice certainly has changed, naturally.  Most people wouldn’t care, naturally, that see 2 albums of the same name and just play whatever.

but the re-recordings albums have new songs and some are tweaked, like All Too Well to include the original 10 min version.

euan

Just read the Rolling Stone article. 

It would appear Swift is playing as fast and loose with the information as the other side. 

guitargeek62

euan said:

Just read the Rolling Stone article. 

It would appear Swift is playing as fast and loose with the information as the other side. 

strtdv

In addition to what @RaymondLin has said, as far as I know Taylor Swift still had publishing rights over her back catalogue, which she can use to limit the profitability of the ownership of the masters (and has done as far as I'm aware).

stickyfiddle

euan said:

Just read the Rolling Stone article. 

It would appear Swift is playing as fast and loose with the information as the other side. 

I have no skin in this game beyond generally supporting artists over middlemen, but wanted to note Rolling Stone are usually full of shit and have been for a long time... 

lustycourtier

Thankfully, I like the 'Taylors version's better. 

octatonic

RaymondLin said:

Scooter Braun (and its investment backers) bought the masters for Taylor’s albums up to Lover for like $300mil without asking whether Taylor Swift she wants to buy it first. (Which she obviously would and could).

so in return, Swift started to re-record all her albums to dilute the value or the original masters.  Since she is credited as song writer on them, she can just re-record them.   So if movies or tv producers wants to licence the songs, they can choose between asking a living artist or Scooter.

Side note

If you ask any Swifties, they will not stream the old albums but personally I already paid money and bought the original albums and Swift got her sliced of each sale so I will play those CDs as much as I want, I think the original have their charm to them and her voice certainly has changed, naturally.  Most people wouldn’t care, naturally, that see 2 albums of the same name and just play whatever.

but the re-recordings albums have new songs and some are tweaked, like All Too Well to include the original 10 min version.

I won't play any of the disputed albums on principle and generally prefer Taylor's Versions.
Scooter Braun can get in the bin.

RaymondLin

octatonic said:

RaymondLin said:

Scooter Braun (and its investment backers) bought the masters for Taylor’s albums up to Lover for like $300mil without asking whether Taylor Swift she wants to buy it first. (Which she obviously would and could).

so in return, Swift started to re-record all her albums to dilute the value or the original masters.  Since she is credited as song writer on them, she can just re-record them.   So if movies or tv producers wants to licence the songs, they can choose between asking a living artist or Scooter.

Side note

If you ask any Swifties, they will not stream the old albums but personally I already paid money and bought the original albums and Swift got her sliced of each sale so I will play those CDs as much as I want, I think the original have their charm to them and her voice certainly has changed, naturally.  Most people wouldn’t care, naturally, that see 2 albums of the same name and just play whatever.

but the re-recordings albums have new songs and some are tweaked, like All Too Well to include the original 10 min version.

I won't play any of the disputed albums on principle and generally prefer Taylor's Versions.
Scooter Braun can get in the bin.

Yes, you are one of those people.

but Scooter isn’t getting any of streaming sales, my CD player isn’t online.

octatonic

RaymondLin said:

octatonic said:

RaymondLin said:

Scooter Braun (and its investment backers) bought the masters for Taylor’s albums up to Lover for like $300mil without asking whether Taylor Swift she wants to buy it first. (Which she obviously would and could).

so in return, Swift started to re-record all her albums to dilute the value or the original masters.  Since she is credited as song writer on them, she can just re-record them.   So if movies or tv producers wants to licence the songs, they can choose between asking a living artist or Scooter.

Side note

If you ask any Swifties, they will not stream the old albums but personally I already paid money and bought the original albums and Swift got her sliced of each sale so I will play those CDs as much as I want, I think the original have their charm to them and her voice certainly has changed, naturally.  Most people wouldn’t care, naturally, that see 2 albums of the same name and just play whatever.

but the re-recordings albums have new songs and some are tweaked, like All Too Well to include the original 10 min version.

I won't play any of the disputed albums on principle and generally prefer Taylor's Versions.
Scooter Braun can get in the bin.

Yes, you are one of those people.

but Scooter isn’t getting any of streaming sales, my CD player isn’t online.

I have no problem with people playing CD's. 
If I owned any then I might.
I don't really have an issue with other people streaming them.
I just won't.

english_bob

As I understand it, the facts are slightly different- or at least there's a little more to the story- to what's been said so far.

Taylor Swift's first record deal was with Big Machine records, owned by Scott Borchetta. She recorded her first six albums with them, retaining publishing rights (the songs themselves) but giving rights to the recordings to the label, which is accepted "standard rich and famous contract" stuff. 

Having recorded these six albums and come to the end of her contract with Big Machine (and being massively successful at this point), she wanted to buy the rights to her back catalogue from Big Machine. Borchetta apparently offered to do this, but only if Swift signed another five album deal with Big Machine on the same terms as before- basically, she'd "earn" rights to one old album for each new one she produced, but would find herself in the same position with the next six albums.

Swift didn't go for that deal, and Borchetta subsequently sold Big Machine to Scooter Braun's company. Braun has been around the record industry for years in A&R and management among other things, and there was prior personal animosity between him and Taylor Swift. Whether it was intended that way or not, Swift took the choice of buyer for Big Machine as a personal insult. 

Braun later sold the rights to Swift's albums. He offered her the chance to buy them first, but stipulated that she sign an NDA that would oblige her only to speak positively about him in future. Swift declined, and her catalogue went to an investment firm, Shamrock Holdings, with a stipulation that Braun still takes a cut of the profits.

Swift's solution to the problem has been to re-record all the Big Machine albums. She owns all the rights to the "Taylor's Version" recordings, so nobody but her (and any co-writers etc.) will see a penny from any radio play, streaming plays, placements in TV or film etc. Because the whole case has been highly publicised, and has generated a good deal of public sympathy for Swift, it's likely to mean that the value of her old catalogue will drop significantly, and future profits from ownership will be greatly reduced as the "Taylor's Version" recordings are used instead. It's a fairly elegant solution to a problem plenty of other artists have faced in the past, albeit one that only a global megastar like Taylor Swift can afford the time and effort of.

guitars4you

My daughter is a big fan of T Swift - So you can't help picking up the buzz of what is going on, plus of course her wanting to pick the play list in the car etc - So when I first heard, a while ago, about the 're-release' of old material I just assumed it was like the old days of a 12" dance re-mix etc - Maybe a lack of new material so let's milk the back catalogue - A new take on the release of 'the greatest hits' 

She is undoubtedly a massive star  and probably one of the biggest names in the world right now, be it amongst sport stars, film stars or politicians  - She has built a very powerful corporation with a 'Barbie' style squeaky clean image - She has certainly created an ability to maximise everything that goes with the corporation and her name - How big a team she has behind this corporation I don't know - How ruthless is she as a business person and indeed how talented as a business person is she - But is there a 'silent assassin' in there as well - It sounds like she rightly wants to control every aspect of the Taylor Swift Corporation - With success comes power and is she now flexing those muscles

Reading a few articles about the story it does appear to be a bit of you said this and we said that on both sides - She appears to have support from many artists - With a host of lawyers and even Congress/Senators adding their weight to both sides - The artists desire to own their back catalogue is not new - Part of me says that when you sign a recording deal and/or publishing deal , especially in the early days of your career, you are obviously very grateful for the full support of a powerful machine, with the knowledge and contacts to help to build success via air play and sales 

So is Taylor now flexing her muscles, money and power - Even showing signs that you might associate with that of a narcissist - Her fan base is so big that you just don't hear or see any bad news, or publicity, that often comes with such success - As I said above the 'Barbie' style squeaky clean image is a credit to her and there are certainly far worse 'hero's' out there to follow and worship 

Of course legal executives are looking at both sides of the story - It is how they make big money over big disputes - There has been talk that record/publishing companies are re-wording contracts to prohibit future 're-recordings' of old material, without their say so - There has been congress/senate talk, of protecting the artists from exploitation, plus looking at how long the recording/publishing company can own the artists assets/material 

With that in mind is TS doing this to protect herself, and/or those who are less fortunate than her and can't take on such big corporations - It is true that for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction - As such record/publishing companies will assess what happens next 

For now the TS Corporation can do no wrong - She is obviously talented and works hard with a talent to maximise the whole TS package 

octatonic

guitars4you said:

So is Taylor now flexing her muscles, money and power - Even showing signs that you might associate with that of a narcissist - Her fan base is so big that you just don't hear or see any bad news, or publicity, that often comes with such success - As I said above the 'Barbie' style squeaky clean image is a credit to her and there are certainly far worse 'hero's' out there to follow and worship 

This is a bit of a slur and cynical as hell.

I don't listen to any other artists in TS's genre.
I do listen to TS (a bit).

I'm not a swiftie, but friend's of mine are- I don't have the 'deep in the body' alignment with her music that these friends (all women) do but I can understand why they do.
IMHO I think she is so successful because she can articulate the experience of being a woman to other women in a world where men have all the privilege and mistreat, sexualise, disregard and use women.
Maybe if men were better then there would be less of a need for her music?

Have a look at some of the charity support she has given and how much of her time is spent on groups of disadvantaged people and with individuals- showing up (or calling) to support individual fans who might be dying, such as one young fan, Jalene Salinas, a 4 year old with terminal cancer.

Barbie?
You need to actually read some lyrics perhaps.
The media portrays her as a serial dater/slut.

Try 'Slut?',  'Now That We Don't Talk', 'Mad Woman', 'Blank Space'.

Maybe she is just... nice?

euan

Yeah she is just a nice multi multi multi millionaire doing everything she can to fleece her rabid fanbase. Someone needs to pay for those ten minute flights in her private jet.  

octatonic

euan said:

Yeah she is just a nice multi multi multi millionaire doing everything she can to fleece her rabid fanbase. Someone needs to pay for those ten minute flights in her private jet.  

Do you mean the plane that was sold and was flown for either maintenance or demonstration reasons for 13 minutes from Illinois, to St. Louis, Missouri, on January 30 2024?

RaymondLin

I don't have problem with people like her with that level of fame to fly private jet, even from an environmental POV it makes sense.  Because the trade off of her flying economy with everyone else would cause chaos in every airport she visits, and the same people who criticise her flying private will be in uproar about her fans ruining their holidays because she happens to be at that airport causing delays.

TimmyO

octatonic said:

guitars4you said:

So is Taylor now flexing her muscles, money and power - Even showing signs that you might associate with that of a narcissist - Her fan base is so big that you just don't hear or see any bad news, or publicity, that often comes with such success - As I said above the 'Barbie' style squeaky clean image is a credit to her and there are certainly far worse 'hero's' out there to follow and worship 

This is a bit of a slur and cynical as hell.

This ^ 

Also it seems corporations don't like it when people start to act like corporations do. 

lustycourtier

octatonic said:

euan said:

Yeah she is just a nice multi multi multi millionaire doing everything she can to fleece her rabid fanbase. Someone needs to pay for those ten minute flights in her private jet.  

Do you mean the plane that was sold and was flown for either maintenance or demonstration reasons for 13 minutes from Illinois, to St. Louis, Missouri, on January 30 2024?

Thanks. Thats interesting as its usually the only other thing Incels ever bring up  about her. 

guitars4you

octatonic said:

guitars4you said:

So is Taylor now flexing her muscles, money and power - Even showing signs that you might associate with that of a narcissist - Her fan base is so big that you just don't hear or see any bad news, or publicity, that often comes with such success - As I said above the 'Barbie' style squeaky clean image is a credit to her and there are certainly far worse 'hero's' out there to follow and worship 

This is a bit of a slur and cynical as hell.

I don't listen to any other artists in TS's genre.
I do listen to TS (a bit).

I'm not a swiftie, but friend's of mine are- I don't have the 'deep in the body' alignment with her music that these friends (all women) do but I can understand why they do.
IMHO I think she is so successful because she can articulate the experience of being a woman to other women in a world where men have all the privilege and mistreat, sexualise, disregard and use women.
Maybe if men were better then there would be less of a need for her music?

Have a look at some of the charity support she has given and how much of her time is spent on groups of disadvantaged people and with individuals- showing up (or calling) to support individual fans who might be dying, such as one young fan, Jalene Salinas, a 4 year old with terminal cancer.

Barbie?
You need to actually read some lyrics perhaps.
The media portrays her as a serial dater/slut.

Try 'Slut?',  'Now That We Don't Talk', 'Mad Woman', 'Blank Space'.

Maybe she is just... nice?

The written word maybe doesn't always come across as intended - Certainly as far as I'm concerned - Speech is a better way to chat/discuss as it picks up the mood far better than a type writer - As an overview I was playing more of a devil's advocate role in my posting - Looking at the +/- of each side and maybe sat on the fence 

Barbie wasn't meant to be an insult but a compliment to the perfect clean image she portrays - I used Barbie as it has been flavour of the month recently 

As I said at the start - My daughter is a huge fan, so to knock TS would be like me insulting my daughter as well - I can chat with my daughter about the above 'in depth story line' and we both took on board extra parts of the story we had not realised before hand - So an open minded chat 

As for me reading lyrics - Maybe it stemmed from my days at school and being knocked by a teacher when we had to write a poem - Yes mine was awful - I've always joked that if I had have started a poem with 'I wandered lonely as a cloud' then my version would  be 'I went for a long walk and didn't see anyone' - I have no interest in poetry and maybe this later deemed I have no/little interest in lyrics - I could not write a line in a song at all - So I certainly could not read anyones lyrics and interpret their meaning - But I love music, as you'd expect - As an extreme view - Take away the tune/rhythm and you are left with poetry/lyrics - Take away the poetry/lyrics and you can still have a great song - Pink Panther theme for starters 

I still think the topic to discuss regarding the Braun case appears to be more one sided towards TS, as far as many are concerned, without knowing anything about the existing legal rights of the record/publishing industry etc - Certainly with regards to historically how the industry has operated - Should there be changes - Maybe - I'm sure many lawyers would love to be involved in re-writing many contracts and yes that is the cynical bit 

monquixote

I think the context of the Scooter Braun thing is that he was involved with Kanye West and his attempts to undermine and bully her by faking her into videos and at the MTV awards so it's not just that they sold it to someone else it was that they sold it to someone she actively hated and felt that was abusing her. 

They also would only let her buy her music back if she stayed locked into a record contract when she could get something much better elsewhere.

I'm sure there are two sides to the story, but those two things are enough that I'm on her side in this.

She also absolutely does not have a squeaky clean reputation and in fact even has an album called "Reputation" which is on this subject. 

euan

I find it weird to come back to this thread to find it insinuated that I’m an incel because I didn’t find it appropriate to similarly critique serial private jet users such as Musk, Scott, Kardasian et al in this thread