Taylor Swift – Lover

[jenglisbe]

Nov 14, 2019 19:58:44 GMT -5 Rose "Payola" Nylund said:

I’m surprised she’d be unable to perform her songs on live tv. I thought owning the masters specifically referred only the recorded versions of her songs, not the songs themselves. I suppose I didn’t think about the live performance side of it. I thought if an artist wanted to do a cover of a song, or a live version of a song (including their own), they needed only permission from the songwriters. I suppose it makes sense they’d need publishers permission too.

Aren’t televised performances different from concerts? There are different rights involved.

[kanimal]

Nov 14, 2019 21:40:12 GMT -5 SoMuchToSay said:

I’m kinda torn on this. On one hand, Taylor Swift wouldn’t be Taylor Swift without Scott Borchetta and Big Machine. Plus god only knows how much money she got switching labels, which in return meant having to give up her masters - she knew what she was doing. I wouldn’t says she’s exactly a victim in all this. But on the other hand, why wouldn’t Scooter / Scott want her to perform those songs, making them more money. Seems super petty and not smart business. But that’s just my opinion. Lol

Since they profit off sales/streams of her earlier work, of course they want her to perform the songs next week. Of course they want the Netflix special to happen. People who think otherwise don't have a clue about this industry. Could there be some degree of spite / wanting to make her look bad involved? Sure, but you don't get to where these guys are if you can't separate business from personal.

But here's the thing. Scooter's team bought Big Machine at that price because there was significant money to be made off her discography. Once she re-records the music and it becomes the "default" option for fans on streaming services, there's far less money to be made off that discography. This situation gave them leverage to try and block the re-recordings, and thus protect their investment.

As far as I know, Taylor also continues to make money off her old music. So this isn't even really a case of trying to squeeze her out ... it's just making sure that they're not excluded.

Like the earlier situation this year, this ultimately gets us thinking about the question of whether it's fair for "business people" to have so much control over someone else's art. It's easy to say no - because from the public's perspective, it's her words, her story, her voice, etc that made all this music so profitable. But it's potentially short-sighted to feel that someone who dedicated their life to the business side of music is unequivocally evil or greedy for feeling any sense of credit for the artists they help develop and ownership over the music they help sell.

That last point isn't as much about me taking a side here, as it is acknowledging the reality that we're, as a society, far more likely to empathize with the "artist" than we are "the business person." I'm not even just talking about big executives who sit in a room and count their money. I'm saying that we'd generally be inclined to roll our eyes at a hardworking marketing manager or artist relations coordinator who feels like they're part of an artist or record's success.  It's an interesting phenomenon.

[collegedropout]

Nov 14, 2019 21:48:27 GMT -5 Au$tin said:

Nov 14, 2019 21:47:46 GMT -5 collegedropout said:

Also, didn't Ariana already fire Scooter in 2016 (only to rehire him later that year)?

Yes? Which is still all before this happened and an entirely new contract.

My point was yes she can leave because she left before? Unless the new contract she signed said this time I want to be controlled?

[Au$tin]

Nov 14, 2019 22:08:49 GMT -5 collegedropout said:

Nov 14, 2019 21:48:27 GMT -5 Au$tin said:

Yes? Which is still all before this happened and an entirely new contract.

My point was yes she can leave because she left before? Unless the new contract she signed said this time I want to be controlled?

They're entirely different contracts. She may have had more freedom on her earlier contract or her contract may have actually been up already. We don't know. But what we do know is getting out of contracts is extremely difficult. That's literally day 1 in any business/law school. It's a well known fact. Contracts are legally binding for a reason. You can't just get out of them because you don't like them anymore. Likely either Ariana was up for a renewal and didn't take it or she was able to buy out her contract at that point because it was cheaper to do so at that point.

[taylor is terrified]

If y'all want my publicly shared opinion, which only went into like one aspect of it:

https://www.instagram.com/p/B43uIpAjfTp

[Snowbeast]

Nov 14, 2019 21:40:12 GMT -5 SoMuchToSay said:

I’m kinda torn on this. On one hand, Taylor Swift wouldn’t be Taylor Swift without Scott Borchetta and Big Machine. Plus god only knows how much money she got switching labels, which in return meant having to give up her masters - she knew what she was doing. I wouldn’t says she’s exactly a victim in all this. But on the other hand, why wouldn’t Scooter / Scott want her to perform those songs, making them more money. Seems super petty and not smart business. But that’s just my opinion. Lol

Because they know those re-recorded albums make their deal worth a lot less, and the money has already been spent. This is a last ditch effort to save their investment....by using coercion tactics.

She knew what she was doing when she left Big Machine and has stated that she knew they would be sold — but she never thought Scott would betray her and sell to Scooter. It all comes down to pettiness of loathing Scooter and Justin, and Scott just wanting 300 million dollars/not caring about the source or considering his relationship with the artist that made the evaluation what it is in the first place.

Scooter is only Scooter because of his association with Bieber, Taylor loathes Bieber due to her relationship with Selena, Bieber knows she hates him and has roped in Scooter to collectively act s**tty towards her in the past (and we know she doesn’t forgive).

She f**ked over Scott by leaving, Scott f**ked her over by not caring about her feelings after she left, Scooter just wants to make money/loves the power move of owning Taylor, Taylor is disgusted by that, both men were too stupid to consider the weight of her retaliation after their business deal, she’ll make their lives hell by publicly blasting them whenever they try to protect their investment, and they’ll make her life hell out of spite. T-12 months until we can move onto a new drama.

[Snowbeast]

Nov 14, 2019 22:16:27 GMT -5 Au$tin said:

Nov 14, 2019 22:08:49 GMT -5 collegedropout said:

My point was yes she can leave because she left before? Unless the new contract she signed said this time I want to be controlled?

They're entirely different contracts. She may have had more freedom on her earlier contract or her contract may have actually been up already. We don't know. But what we do know is getting out of contracts is extremely difficult. That's literally day 1 in any business/law school. It's a well known fact. Contracts are legally binding for a reason. You can't just get out of them because you don't like them anymore. Likely either Ariana was up for a renewal and didn't take it or she was able to buy out her contract at that point because it was cheaper to do so at that point.

Ariana can fire Scooter at anytime. He’s HER manager, not her label honcho. He signs her dotted line, and I’m sure there’s a clause that she can let him go at anytime if she’s unsatisfied with his duties as a manger, or if his business decisions effect her career or put her in a negative position as an artist and f**k with her bag. Not the other way around.

Artists fire their management all the time because they’re the first to be blamed for any hiccups.

[nickd]

Nov 14, 2019 22:48:01 GMT -5 Snowbeast said:

Nov 14, 2019 22:16:27 GMT -5 Au$tin said:

They're entirely different contracts. She may have had more freedom on her earlier contract or her contract may have actually been up already. We don't know. But what we do know is getting out of contracts is extremely difficult. That's literally day 1 in any business/law school. It's a well known fact. Contracts are legally binding for a reason. You can't just get out of them because you don't like them anymore. Likely either Ariana was up for a renewal and didn't take it or she was able to buy out her contract at that point because it was cheaper to do so at that point.

Ariana can fire Scooter at anytime. He’s HER manager, not her label honcho. He signs her dotted line, and I’m sure there’s a clause that she can let him go at anytime if she’s unsatisfied with his duties as a manger, or if his business decisions effect her career or put her in a negative position as an artist and f**k with her bag. Not the other way around.

Artists fire their management all the time because they’re the first to be blamed for any hiccups.

It almost doesn't make a difference if she fires him though since he'll still get his cheques.

[Au$tin]

Nov 14, 2019 22:48:01 GMT -5 Snowbeast said:

Nov 14, 2019 22:16:27 GMT -5 Au$tin said:

They're entirely different contracts. She may have had more freedom on her earlier contract or her contract may have actually been up already. We don't know. But what we do know is getting out of contracts is extremely difficult. That's literally day 1 in any business/law school. It's a well known fact. Contracts are legally binding for a reason. You can't just get out of them because you don't like them anymore. Likely either Ariana was up for a renewal and didn't take it or she was able to buy out her contract at that point because it was cheaper to do so at that point.

Ariana can fire Scooter at anytime. He’s HER manager, not her label honcho. He signs her dotted line, and I’m sure there’s a clause that she can let him go at anytime if she’s unsatisfied with his duties as a manger, or if his business decisions effect her career or put her in a negative position as an artist and f**k with her bag. Not the other way around.

Artists fire their management all the time because they’re the first to be blamed for any hiccups.

As Nick pointed out above, there are drawbacks to doing such a thing. These are gigantic business decisions that have major repercussions (which has been pretty damn evident given what position Taylor's currently in). When it comes to manager/artist agreements, a simple firing isn't always possible. In fact it rarely ever is. There's so much that goes into the legalities behind all of it that it makes the process long, difficult, sometimes not worth it, and sometimes next to impossible. And even after all if the paperwork has been done, the initial contract may still have clauses that keep artist residuals to pay off their old manager for something. It's not even entirely out of the realm for a manager to have a clause in their contracts that state an artist is legally bound to pay some percentage of royalties to the manager for any work done under that manager. The industry is full of deals like this.

It's weird. How did we even get to this part if the conversation? Wasn't the original argument whether or not the artists under Scooter should be punished?

[justlurkingaround]

Beautiful Ghosts is fantastic.

[Snowbeast]

Nov 15, 2019 0:16:08 GMT -5 justlurkingaround said:

Beautiful Ghosts is fantastic.

[nickd]

Nov 14, 2019 23:53:38 GMT -5 Au$tin said:

Nov 14, 2019 22:48:01 GMT -5 Snowbeast said:

Ariana can fire Scooter at anytime. He’s HER manager, not her label honcho. He signs her dotted line, and I’m sure there’s a clause that she can let him go at anytime if she’s unsatisfied with his duties as a manger, or if his business decisions effect her career or put her in a negative position as an artist and f**k with her bag. Not the other way around.

Artists fire their management all the time because they’re the first to be blamed for any hiccups.

As Nick pointed out above, there are drawbacks to doing such a thing. These are gigantic business decisions that have major repercussions (which has been pretty damn evident given what position Taylor's currently in). When it comes to manager/artist agreements, a simple firing isn't always possible. In fact it rarely ever is. There's so much that goes into the legalities behind all of it that it makes the process long, difficult, sometimes not worth it, and sometimes next to impossible. And even after all if the paperwork has been done, the initial contract may still have clauses that keep artist residuals to pay off their old manager for something. It's not even entirely out of the realm for a manager to have a clause in their contracts that state an artist is legally bound to pay some percentage of royalties to the manager for any work done under that manager. The industry is full of deals like this.

It's weird. How did we even get to this part if the conversation? Wasn't the original argument whether or not the artists under Scooter should be punished?

In fact, Taylor's old manager tried to sue her into paying a 10% royalty for all the revenue she made since signing Big Machine since he was involved the initial negotiations of that record deal (her family got rid of him shortly before signing the final Big Machine contract). She was only able to get out of that by declaring his manager contract with him invalid because she was under-age at the time and he didn't get proper court approval or something.

[Ryan]

I've always been and always will be on Team Taylor, 100%, but this seems like a very complicated situation. Honestly, I kinda think that she had screwed it a big time the moment she decided to attack Scooter Braun on her social media, depicting him as an evil business mogul who has tried to sabotage her career behind the curtain. She vaguely claimed that without mentioning any specific case and the only "proof" she had was that one screenshot of him, Kayne and Bieber face-timing. But Beiber himself had clarified it already that the call itself had nothing to do with her and Kanye/Kim's fiasco at that time. And that the caption was entirely his idea and Scooter even told him that's not nice and he shouldn't do that. Besides, Scooter countered her argument saying that he's been nothing but supportive of her. Despite of what Taylor said, he had tried to work with her several times over the years but she was the one who always refused his offers. So I'm still not convinced how he bullied her, to be honest.

If Scooter has never done anything to hurt her in any way, the only thing he did was buying her previous label that owns her old masters and there's nothing wrong with that. It was just a smart business decision. And more importantly, she totally had her chance to get her catalogue back. They had negotiated it for months and Scott even posted his final legal offer to Taylor, which was a bit different from what she was claiming at that point. But it was Taylor's business decision to leave Big Machine. There were holes in her claims and I'm sure she ended up getting a big fat check from Republic when she signed a new deal. That's what she has chosen over her masters.

So I kinda understand how Scooter's being just spiteful now and actually trying to do whatever they can, legally, to "sabotage" her. If she performs her hits, they are going to make big $$. So this means that they would rather not let her do her own games than making extra cash. While that's really low and cowardly thing to do, I kinda understand where he's coming from. It was Scooter's biggest achievement in his career - he scored the masters of Taylor f**king Swift. But instead of getting to enjoy his major success, he's got huge backlash. Even his wife and kids got death threats. People have been accusing him for being an evil misogynist who exploits female artsts. That wasn't right and I think Taylor should have handled it much better. But I guess she knew what she was doing.

And if she can LEGALLY re-record her catalogue in 2020... it's only a couple of years, for God's sakes. I know she says it's not about money and I believe her, but that's what makes it so confusing to me. If it's really just about protecting her legacy, she could have tried to work with them so she could prevent them from ruining her legacy. (i.e. releasing a cheap greatest hits set or unreleased songs in a way that she doesn't approve.) And it's not like Scooter and Scott are exploiting her catalogue now, when they legally can. Obviously, Scooter was willing to work with her and that's why he decided to buy the label. She totally could have had a say in a way that they manage her old masters. That would have been ideal for both parties. (Again, I'm just throwing my two cents assuming Scooter Braun really hasn't done anything remotely close to a career sabotage.)

Of course, her career's always been about her talent but we all know what Scott and Big Machine have done for her over a decade. It's not like they were always seeing eye to eye but that's the nature of the industry. Artists and labels can disagree on things sometimes but overall, I would say Big Machine always has been a great supporter. I'm sure she would still have been the Taylor Swift even without their help but who knows what might have happened? There's no point in dwelling on coulda woulda shoulda. The only important fact is that Taylor AND Scott have built their huge empire together. Scott had definitely contributed some. And she was offered a chance to own her masters, which actually wasn't the worst deal like she was claiming back then. So why can't she just let them make their money for two years when she has decided to give up her masters? Especially when she's still making huge money off her catalogue as a singer / writer. She's been very vocal about her ambitious plan on re-recording her whole catalogue next year and I'm sure it didn't help the situation at all either. Whether it was her intention or not, the media coverage was making her decision look like a huge victory against the evil industry. That's a huge middle finger to her previous label and especially to Scooter, who has just paid millions of dollars for her masters. He's bound to lose money and this whole thing has degraded his reputation so I guess that's why they have decided to go hard and be strict about the usage of her old songs in general, which kinda makes sense. Taylor has decided how to play her game and now it's his turn to play his.

I know I'm not speaking for the majority here but I feel like it was her who has started this fight... and I believe she's the one who can finish it. But I'm afraid the bridge had already burnt and it's not going to end well. It's really not nice of her to encourage her fans to "fight" for her. She knows her power and what her fans are capable of. They are just going to cyber-bully everyone and that would only lead to a huge online mess. And I don't know why she wants to make other artists to be a part of this mess. Let your lawyers do their jobs if there's any legal matter, which I don't think there is. And I really hope she learns that making it public and asking help from her fans are not always the best way to work things out.

[thegreatdivine]

Nov 14, 2019 21:40:12 GMT -5 SoMuchToSay said:

I’m kinda torn on this. On one hand, Taylor Swift wouldn’t be Taylor Swift without Scott Borchetta and Big Machine. Plus god only knows how much money she got switching labels, which in return meant having to give up her masters - she knew what she was doing. I wouldn’t says she’s exactly a victim in all this. But on the other hand, why wouldn’t Scooter / Scott want her to perform those songs, making them more money. Seems super petty and not smart business. But that’s just my opinion. Lol

I love Taylor, but it feels like she's only sharing one side of the story. The side that can gain her the most public sympathy and she has a long history of doing this.

From what I can tell, she's been signed to Big Machine since she was 15 and was given the opportunity to own her masters under some conditions she didn't agree with before she moved on to Republic. Understand that she's by far the biggest artist that's ever been on Big Machine and she's made them the most money. Kind of how Adele is the biggest act XL Recordings has ever signed.

From a purely business perspective, it's stupid for a label to let go of the master recordings of their highest-earning artist, especially if a deal was never in place for that to happen when the artist signed with the label initially. Those master recordings are how the label (continues to) make money when the artist leave. I feel like, however, a label should always make it an option for an artist to be able to own their master recordings, even if it's for a high, but reasonable price.

I feel for Taylor, but that's what happens in the music business. It's a business after all. Scott and Scooter just seem like businessmen protecting their interests. Taylor going on about how she wrote and produced her songs is all in a bid to drum up sympathy from her fans and the general public, but she's just one in the long line of thousands of musicians who never got to own their own masters. Those musicians were also involved in the creative process of their songs.

All in all, I wish she'd stop trying to drag the public into this. She should meet her lawyers and people who can actually help her reach her desired goal.

As it stands, Scott and Scooter own her masters and it's up to them to either sell it to her or hold on to it and I suspect that her doing all of these things publicly is only furthering their desire to not sell her masters back to her.

[Marooned@Midnight]

I think the point is that there is no legal matter, just a really shitty situation. People saying that she’s just the latest in a long line of people that this has happened to are right, but you are taking away the wrong thing from this. She’s actually one of the only ones with the pull and power to make this a known issue so that it stops happening to future artists. I feel like she is putting in much needed and overdue work to draw attention to this problem in the industry.

[bornfearless2000]

I understand that this is all business and those pussies are just doing whats the best for their business. Understandable? Yeah in some part where they will fight for the master since those masters are the reason why Big Machine worth that much. But not letting Taylor singing her own songs is crazy. I think Taylor can sing it whenever she wants even tho she doesnt have the master since she wrote them.

I bet Taylor has tried the lawyer thing but it still didnt work out. Maybe she asks for help publicly so fans will attack those pussies and those pussies will deny it and say Taylor can sing her old songs. Thay way, she can sing her old songs at Amas

[Marooned@Midnight]

I would call their bluff. Go on TV with your guitar and sing what you wrote. What are the AMA’s going to do? Cut to commercial? What is Scooter going to do? Sue you? I don’t think so and even if he did, that’s what lawyers are for. It would be worth settling a lawsuit to make him further look like an asshole for suing because Taylor Swift sang some songs (that she wrote!) on live TV.

[¤ Matthea ¤]

Nov 14, 2019 21:40:12 GMT -5 SoMuchToSay said:

I’m kinda torn on this. On one hand, Taylor Swift wouldn’t be Taylor Swift without Scott Borchetta and Big Machine. Plus god only knows how much money she got switching labels, which in return meant having to give up her masters - she knew what she was doing. I wouldn’t says she’s exactly a victim in all this. But on the other hand, why wouldn’t Scooter / Scott want her to perform those songs, making them more money. Seems super petty and not smart business. But that’s just my opinion. Lol

Yeah, I don't see Taylor as a victim here.

And Braun's and Borchetta's demands (not to re-record the old music and to stop talking about them to the press) seem reasonable, too.

She really brought this upon herself when she went public about her not being able to buy the masters of her old music and then about Braun buying the label. It's not like she was entitled to get her old masters back - that's not how the music business works.

[born]

I don’t agree with everything Taylor does and maybe I think some of her moves in the Borchetta / Braun situation are wrong. However, I think blaming everything on Taylor again is funny and pretentious. It’s the same story over and over again.

[Deleted]

I wonder if it would be legal for Taylor to lip sync an epic performance at the AMA. It would “technically” be the old recordings.

[Choco]

Patiently waiting for Demi Lovato to insert herself into the narrative again.

[thegreatdivine]

I think Taylor is operating from a place of entitlement. I think it hurts her even more knowing the power and influence she has, but knowing there's nothing she can do to turn the situation into what she wants it to be.

I feel like if Scott and Scooter came out to defend themselves, more people would see that they're well within their rights and have been so the entire time. I don't like that it feels like I'm defending them because I'm always for the artist and against the big label machine, but like I said earlier, Taylor didn't need to make any of this public. What she's basically doing is what she did the last time she spoke about this publicly, which was weaponize her massive fanbase, the media and various other celebrities who are in support of her to attack Scotter and Scott. The last time, people were attacking Scotter's family online, so much so that his wife had to address the situation on her social media. That's just plain wrong and Taylor KNOWS this which I believe is a strong reason why she's doing it again.

Scotter is a businessman and Taylor, in her own right, is a businesswoman. The way you deal with people who are all about their paper is you meet then halfway and you appeal to that side of them. I really do believe that Taylor could have leveraged her relationship with Scott and Big Machine to work out some sort of deal that was fair and favourable to everyone if she really did want to get her masters back. Her acting out like this comes off like she feels like she has a right to owning her masters simply because she wrote those songs, but anyone with any sort of understanding about the music industry knows that things don't work out that way.

Attacking someone in any way makes them less willing to be empathic towards you and takes away whatever reason they have to not attack you back/defend themselves. Taylor understands this and she has a thing for painting herself as the victim in every and all situations. I feel like if the public blowback from this becomes too much, Scotter and Scott may, well within their legal rights, retaliate and reveal a lot of details about what really went down that'll paint Taylor in an entirely different light.

[thegreatdivine]

Nov 15, 2019 7:13:22 GMT -5 Marooned@Midnight said:

I would call their bluff. Go on TV with your guitar and sing what you wrote. What are the AMA’s going to do? Cut to commercial? What is Scooter going to do? Sue you? I don’t think so and even if he did, that’s what lawyers are for. It would be worth settling a lawsuit to make him further look like an asshole for suing because Taylor Swift sang some songs (that she wrote!) on live TV.

This wouldn't be the smart thing to do. There are legal repercussions for Taylor doing certain things. Regardless of how powerful and influential you might believe she is, she's not above the law.

[born]

The whole situation makes me upset because Taylor is one of the biggest pop stars of all time and has net worth and allies like no one before. And that’s not enough. Imagine what lesser known artists have to deal with. Or aspiring artists. That’s so messed up.

[Choco]

No one is saying Thing 1 and Thing 2 aren't within their legal rights to block the performance. But legal doesn't mean ethically or morally right.

I think she needs to start preparing a Lover medley. And don't expect any old songs to pop up during Lover Fest.

When does she regain the reputation rights to re-record?

[born]

A greatest hits medley would’ve been huge cause
1. Taylor never performs medleys
2. it’s the freaking AOTD award
3. it’s a celebration.

However, a ‘Lover’ medley wouldn’t be bad either. She can definitely do that. And it could be iconic and massive like Beyoncé’s set at the 2016 VMAs.

[jenglisbe]

Nov 15, 2019 8:05:44 GMT -5 jules said:

I wonder if it would be legal for Taylor to lip sync an epic performance at the AMA. It would “technically” be the old recordings.

Interesting idea. She could actually make it a ‘a thing’ by clearly lipping to an old song or two, and then transitioning live into newer material. In other words, it would be highlighting her situation.

[thegreatdivine]

Nov 15, 2019 8:16:41 GMT -5 Choco said:

No one is saying Thing 1 and Thing 2 aren't within their legal rights to block the performance. But legal doesn't mean ethically or morally right.

I think she needs to start preparing a Lover medley. And don't expect any old songs to pop up during Lover Fest.

When does she regain the reputation rights to re-record?

There's only one person who has been on attack mode publicly for months now and that's Taylor Swift. The only times Scott and Scotter have addressed this situation, they've defended themselves and they didn't respond back negatively to Taylor when they easily could have.

Taylor has done everything short of calling Scotter the devil. She's actively slandering his name publicly knowing fully well the kind of power and pull she has as a celebrity while not giving a damn about how this might not only affect his image, but his family and friends.

From the last time Scotter addressed this, he said something along the lines of reaching out to her several times to make peace and to work out whatever underlying dislike she might hold for him and she's never allowed a forum where that could happen be established. That seems like someone who wants to hold on to whatever hate she has for him and now, in another bid to paint herself as the victim, she's surprised they're messing with her like this? What did she expect? They're well within their rights to mess with her because they own her masters, not her.

I ultimately want Taylor to gain ownership of her masters as I desire that for every artist, but she has done a lot of foul things so far and maybe even more that we don't know about yet. It's never just as simple as paining the business tycoon people as the monsters.

Again, the way to resolve issues like this is NEVER by attacking someone publicly. If this situation is ever to be resolved, they'll all have to meet and talk things over privately so why did she make all of this public to begin with? Taylor is a grown woman. She knows better.

[Kinney]

For someone who meticulously curates her image, it's absurd to suggest she wouldn't have tried to deal with this as much as she possibly could privately. As if.

This is her last resort, and she is perfectly within her rights to air out their dirty laundry. If they want to retaliate, they can.

They called her bluff thinking she'd keep this quiet, and they were wrong.

Edit: Also, why the hell should be keep quiet? The reason this sort of s**t continues to happen over and over again in the music industry is because everyone has always swept it under the rug. I've seen so many young and independent artists on twitter sending Taylor their support for bringing light to issues like this and educating musicians just starting out. She's in a position where she can talk about thess things and bring change without her entire career being destroyed, so good for her for speaking on it.

[thegreatdivine]

Nov 15, 2019 8:36:15 GMT -5 Kinney said:

For someone who meticulously curates her image, it's absurd to suggest she wouldn't have tried to deal with this as much as she possibly could privately. As if.

This is her last resort, and she is perfectly within her rights to air out their dirty laundry. If they want to retaliate, they can.

They called her bluff thinking she'd keep this quiet, and they were wrong.

Edit: Also, why the hell should be keep quiet? The reason this sort of s**t continues to happen over and over again in the music industry is because everyone has always swept it under the rug. I've seen so many young and independent artists on twitter sending Taylor their support for bringing light to issues like this and educating musicians just starting out. She's in a position where she can talk about this things and bring change without her entire career being destroyed, so good for her for speaking on it.

Air out what dirty laundry? They didn't steal her masters from her. The bought and own it legally and you're right, she's well within her rights to speak about this publicly, but she's doing nothing to achieve her end goal, which I suspect is to gain ownership of her masters.

Artists have been calling out labels/label owners for decades. Nothing Taylor is doing is new or revolutionary. What she's also doing, however, is slandering the names of people while acting surprised that they're making it uneasy for her to do anything with her previous recordings.

Throughout the history of artists calling out labels/label owners, nothing has ever gotten resolved publicly. Both parties will EVENTUALLY have to sit down and work something out before a solution can be realised. That's the only reason why I'm surprised Taylor thinks going this route is going to give her what she wants. It won't. People will bash Scotter for a few hours, maybe a few days, but then they'll move on and then what happens? What changes, especially for Taylor? Now the people she's attacking have more reason not to sit down and negatotiate with her. Yes, she wins in the court of public opinion, but what is that worth really?