A virulent spat has blown up in the higher echelons of the pop music business with Taylor Swift erupting on social media about her back catalogue being bought over by pop power-broker Scooter Braun. She accused him of ‘incessant manipulative bullying’ over years. He is a publicity-loving Svengali who plucked Justin Bieber from YouTube obscurity, masterminded the rise of Ariana Grande and served as a confidante to Kanye West, all of whom are supporting him. Chart titans have been taking sides with Harry Styles, Rihanna, Billie Eilish, Britney Spears, Miley Cyrus and others all “unfollowing” Braun on Instagram. Quelle horreur.
She was born 13 December 1989 (birth times vary) and he 18 June 1981.
She’s a Sun Sagittarius with the unpredictable, can-be-chaotic triple conjunction of Uranus, Saturn, Neptune in Capricorn conjunct Mercury opposition Jupiter in Cancer; and both Pluto and Mars in unforgiving Scorpio.
Brain is a stratospherically ambitious Sun Gemini opposition a musical Neptune trine Pluto; with a hard edged and adventurous Mars in Gemini trine Saturn and Jupiter in Libra. His Saturn trines her Venus in Aquarius and his Venus in Cancer opposes her Saturn – both of which are fine for a working relationship. The major problem (without birth times) is her Mars in Scorpio exactly conjunct his Uranus which is a fairly volcanic trigger point.
Their relationship chart has two stressed Yods, suggesting a relationship that is transformative for both of them, for good or ill. There’s a simmering-rage Mars sextile Pluto inconjunct Mercury (Moon) and a chilly Sun sextile Saturn inconjunct Venus. There’s also an inspirational Fire Grand Trine of Jupiter trine Uranus trine Venus – which if it could be made to work might provide the basis for some co-operation. But there’s probably too much aggravation and strain from the Yods to make that possible.
Evidently it is standard in the music business for artists not to own their back catalogue.
Clayd Yila (twitter?) Another earthquake in LA ? Don’t be surprised if Scooter Braun’s house ends up in a sinkhole. Mother Nature in an ‘Enchanted’ cusp ‘Sparks Fly’ stan with a ‘You are in love’ rising
I put this here just for fun – on the earthquake page it might be offensive?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JadnG59HdpE receipts on Scooter Braun. This good reporting imo.
FT article but you have to subscribe to see it https://www.ft.com/content/e38e8b90-9c44-11e9-b8ce-8b459ed04726
[Excerpts]
Big Machine earned about $40m in earnings before interest, tax, depreciation and amortization last year, according to people briefed on the figures, and Ms Swift’s catalogue is the company’s prized asset.
[…] fans tweeting #WeStandWithTaylor threatened to stop listening to Ms Swift’s previous albums to prevent Mr Braun making money from them — and legal experts said that Ms Swift’s clout could disrupt the deal.
While Ms Swift does not own her recordings, she does control the publishing rights to her music because she writes all of her songs, meaning she could complicate Mr Braun’s ability to use her songs in television commercials, films or elsewhere, music executives warned.
“If you’re the acquirer and spend top dollar for these assets, and then find out you have handcuffs, it’s going to be a mess,” said a top executive at one of the big three major labels. “So if you’re Scooter, you’re freaking out right now.”
Ms Swift could take legal action, according to entertainment lawyers. “She might have some rights that have to do with defamation and injury to personality,” said Michael Sukin, a longtime music lawyer who has worked with the estate of Elvis Presley. “She’s a very rich woman. She could make life difficult for them. She might not win, but who wants to risk all this money over that?”
The two camps disagree on what exactly transpired. […] One person close to Mr Borchetta admits he did offer her that deal, but that it was years ago. […] Mr Borchetta put Big Machine up for sale in October, according to people familiar with the situation, and the industry expected the label to end up with Universal. But despite attracting bids from Universal, and interest from Warner Music, both companies backed out when the price got too expensive, according to three people familiar with the negotiations. Mr Borchetta opted to sell to Mr Braun…
Analysts at Citiy wrote that the current saga exposes “some of the negative implications for record labels in general — the idea that young artists may follow Ms Swift’s advice. We are cautious on Universal Music and, in turn, Vivendi [its parent company] because we think the market is underplaying the risk of disintermediation.”
“This is about the transition to a new way of artists doing deals with record labels,” said Mark Mulligan, analyst with Midia Research. “Taylor Swift almost feels like she’s a slave or an asset to help sell a company to someone she didn’t want it to be sold to. More artists will see what Taylor is going through and do what they can to not have that happen to them.”
Shareholders had to sign NDAs. Taylor’s publicist said Scott Swift opted out rather than keep Taylor in the dark.
This explains it (below). Initially the record company takes all the risk and puts in all the money and without that the talent would most likely linger in obscurity.
https://www.theguardian.com/music/shortcuts/2019/jul/01/taylor-swift-is-furious-at-the-sale-of-her-master-tapes-but-shes-luckier-than-most
This is common in the industry? Well, the way she has framed this whole ordeal to her fans – which is, in a nutshell, I never put a foot wrong, yet somehow the whole industry is against me, bullying me and out to get me. They are ALL snakes – has been done before by her and now sounds disingenuous.
Hello Jay. Isn’t Taylor exercised that she didn’t have the right to buy her own Masters and that they are now owned by someone who she says has bullied her for years? It is more that Braun holds her Masters. His company is funded in part by Carlyle https://www.billboard.com/articles/business/8518119/scooter-braun-acquires-big-machine-label-group-scott-borchetta which funds genocide in Yemen https://www.esquire.com/style/mens-fashion/a25736933/supreme-carlyle-group-yemen-saudi-arabia/ , he represents Kanye who did that revenge porn video of Taylor naked, Braun ‘tries’ to phone her after the deal is public to have a mature chat (about selling her her masters? Ronan’s mother is especially exercised that her son’s song is out of Taylor’s hands). Scott offered her a deal to buy back her albums with a new album for each one (?apparently with a type of contract that isn’t watertight that the seller has to give you what you are buying) yet Braun has bought the rights to her masters for cash. Scott stays on as CEO so even if Taylor had bought Big Machine she probably might not have been able to get her Masters. One of Braun’s friends posted something like ‘when your buddy buys Taylor Swift’, on streaming sites there are minor changes in Taylor’s work capitalising the r in reputation, removing the period in ikywt (I knew you were trouble.), changing the genre for fearless (such a huge country album now classified as ‘pop’), it’s like he’s rubbing it in her face that he can play with her work? Isn’t Taylor exercised that she didn’t have the right to buy her own Masters and that they are now owned by someone who she says has bullied her for years?
Her father had a 5% stake in the company. He knew it was going to be sold. Apparently Taylor & Her Father didn’t place a high enough bid on the company and she lost. Now she’s whining about it. Typical Taylor move. She’s always, always, always got to be angry with someone. I personally do not think she’s mentally stable. I keep waiting for her 15 minutes to be over but sadly, her chart indicates otherwise. Normally, I’d side with the artist, but nah, not this time. PS–Taylor’s family was quite affluent before her rise to stardom, they had lawyers and advisors so I’m just not buying they were naive excuse.
https://66.media.tumblr.com/a0131aa7cc05b7b3ff8296e012e76eea/c320085a01e67815-ee/s640x960/fee51b8a0cc7d3e7c883cdbf28581edb049b0c87.jpg so sad (sorry don’t know the provenance just saw it on line)
It’s the Wild West as far as ripping off performance artists, but corporations? It’s the opposite. Disney changed US copyright law starting in 1976 to keep Mickey Mouse and all of their oldest creations out of the public domain. Every time their extension runs out, they go to Congress again. Their last extension lasts till 2024, when they will again go to the well. Disney is the reason publication copyright was changed to the author’s lifetime plus 50 years.
But without a major battle, Taylor Swift and other artists can’t own the songs they wrote when they were starting out and had zero power. If, in her pre-superstar years, there was a clause in her contract that gave away those rights far beyond the time when she signed it, it could still be in effect. Much like the Beatles, who were just happy to get a royalty when they gave Northern songs the rights to their early hits, and then found that contract bound them for years beyond that. They too had to fight and give lawyers millions to get out of the Northern Songs contract. Evidently nothing has changed in 50+ years.
For those who wonder how someone like Taylor could be caught up in this, Taylor was 14 years old when she signed her first royalty and rights contracts. By law, her parents were in charge of her contracts, because she was a minor. Until she reached her majority, her parents, with her consent, had full authority, and a legal obligation, to sign on her behalf. If those contracts for rights and royalties had legalese that gave Scooter Braun extended rights into the future, they are legally enforceable by him until she spends the millions on lawyers to bust it up.
That’s just one scenario that could have happened, Jo mentions another plausible cause.
Making this clearer: when Scooter Braun bought her back catalogue, it was because of the contracts that Taylor signed from age 14, which gave the recording company she signed with the right to sell those songs. She may have never even known this until the deal was done with Braun, and Scooter Braun could have rights to that back catalogue for a decades into the future.
Both Taylor and her parents may not have known the full extent of what was in a complicated contract, described in legal terms instead of understandable language, signed when she was 14.
All four of the Beatles, plus their manager Brian Epstein, started Northern Songs with song publisher Dick James, who had been recommended by their record producer George Martin. They thought they were signing a contract that gave them majority shares, but James got 50% and the Beatles and Epstein each got 10%. James eventually sold their back catalogue to Sony/ATV without their consent. They found out after it was done.
I’d be angry too. Why should somebody else profit from someone else’s talent in which they had no business propelling the person to success? I’d be even more angry with myself that I wasn’t aware enough to protect my ‘property.’ You shouldn’t have to. The fact you created it should be total ownership in itself. Once someone has passed away with no family for the money to go to, I can understand. But yes, I’d be spitting feathers too if this happened.
Forgot to add, she genuinely must not have been in the loop on this because she is one of the most business savvy people in the industry today. For someone so switched on about such things I can’t see how she would let somebody else have total control over her work. Poor cow.
The fact that she is so savvy is what makes me think that she’s not telling the whole truth here. I find it hard to believe this could have ALL happened outside her awareness.
That doesnt even make sense. Why lie with that kind of wealth at stake? From a business perspective to lose that amount of control over the material she created herself, and is/was passionate about, doesnt make sense either. Her former manager Scott said she could ‘earn’ her masters back every time she recorded a new album for them – like, he hadnt earned enough wealth off her already? We may never know the truth but Taylor wouldnt be the first or last person in the industry, specifically women, to be shafted by powerful men who played no part in an artists creative process and success. Cher has also pointed out, and given support to Taylor, saying it has happened a number of times to her too and that its common practice.
The whole process kind of reminds me on a much smaller scale when it comes to copyright and publishing, which im involved in. Certain phrases and sayings are copyrighted by people who never came up with them. People just jump on something, claim it as their own and profit from it generously. It shouldnt be allowed. If its out there for everyone, everyone should profit. But if you create something it should be yours and yours alone and nobody else should be allowed to make money from it. I dont care if its Taylor Swift or the bin man down the road. I just wish we lived in an ideal world where morals and ethics applied. But we don’t.
Jo if you look at the reputation stadium tour movie on Netflix, you see so clearly that Taylor is branched to source. What you say about owning your creations is true, but there is also this element of ‘sacred’ which is also not popular in our modern day world. It is like stealing the fire of the gods to pretend it is ok to keep her master copies especially when she has asked to have them back. Scooter Braun seems like a guy who does what he likes. It may be that there are no consequences but I saw a photo of scott and scooter from someone called roadtorvin and I read it as road to ruin (which it may have been – roman u?) and it just seemed to echo. Does hubris go unchecked? There is also the myth of Iris (goddess of rainbows and messenger of the gods) carrying her pitcher of water from the Styx which puts those to sleep (for a year?) who don’t have integrity (Joseph Kahn posted that Taylor is like a rainbow in a swamp during the Kimye storm). That crossed my mind too. The cover art of the new Lover album looks very medicine hat stallion to me. More sacred art? Seeing through the heart of Love?