Yes, The Sale of Big Machine is Big, and So Is Taylor Swift’s Concerns

This story has been updated (see below).
You’re a music fan. And sure, you know a little something about labels and producers and how all this stuff is necessary to get the music to you. But it so quickly gets bogged down in minutia and detail, does the sale of one huge music company to another really affect you, or affect the music in some significant way that you should marshal the effort to care? Labels are always going through some version of musical chairs, mergers and acquisitions. Is this sale of the Big Machine Label Group by its CEO Scott Borchetta to talent manager and entertainment executive Scooter Braun anything different? The short answer is “Yes.”
The first red flag about this deal is that this announcement was made on a Sunday morning. Nothing in the music business is announced on Sunday morning, unless it’s done as a preemptive measure to head off negative publicity, or to bury it in the news cycle. In the case of the Big Machine sale to Scooter Braun, it could likely be both. You can bet Scott Borchetta and Scooter Braun knew Taylor Swift would react negatively to this, and perhaps that she was already getting ready to release her own statement as a preemptive strike simply from the rumors of a potential sale. And so while many were at church or slurping up the Sunday morning political shows, the mammoth news rocking the music world broke.
This sale significantly affects music at large, country music more specifically than anything, and Taylor Swift more specifically than anyone. But she is far from the only artist affected, or the only one in a position to cry foul. Since Swift is the superstar in the room, and today’s entertainment media is so obsequiously entranced by celebrity, that is where the focus will dwell. But all of the artists from the present to the past who’ve been signed to Big Machine will be affected by this deal. This includes big country stars such as Florida Georgia Line and Thomas Rhett who are currently signed to the label. But it also includes artists such as Sunny Sweeney, The Mavericks, Reba McEntire, Hank Williams Jr., Ronnie Dunn, Aaron Lewis, Alex Williams, and others who have all done business with Big Machine and Scott Borchetta—the man Saving Country Music first boldly and unflinchingly labeled as the “Country Music Antichrist” on April 28th, 2011 to the chagrin and horror of many who are now calling him much worse for this deal.
After the sale was announced Sunday morning (6-30), Taylor Swift made the following statement.
For years I asked, pleaded for a chance to own my work. Instead I was given an opportunity to sign back up to Big Machine Records and ‘earn’ one album back at a time, one for every new one I turned in. I walked away because I knew once I signed that contract, Scott Borchetta would sell the label, thereby selling me and my future. I had to make the excruciating choice to leave behind my past. Music I wrote on my bedroom floor and videos I dreamed up and paid for from the money I earned playing in bars, then clubs, then arenas, then stadiums.
Some fun facts about today’s news: I learned about Scooter Braun’s purchase of my masters as it was announced to the world. All I could think about was the incessant, manipulative bullying I’ve received at his hands for years.
Like when Kim Kardashian orchestrated an illegally recorded snippet of a phone call to be leaked and then Scooter got his two clients together to bully me online about it. Or when his client, Kanye West, organized a revenge porn music video which strips my body naked. Now Scooter has stripped me of my life’s work, that I wasn’t given an opportunity to buy. Essentially, my musical legacy is about to lie in the hands of someone who tried to dismantle it.
This is my worst case scenario. This is what happens when you sign a deal at fifteen to someone for whom the term ‘loyalty’ is clearly just a contractual concept. And when that man says ‘Music has value’, he means its value is beholden to men who had no part in creating it.
When I left my masters in Scott’s hands, I made peace with the fact that eventually he would sell them. Never in my worst nightmares did I imagine the buyer would be Scooter. Any time Scott Borchetta has heard the words ‘Scooter Braun’ escape my lips, it was when I was either crying or trying not to. He knew what he was doing; they both did. Controlling a woman who didn’t want to be associated with them. In perpetuity. That means forever.
Thankfully, I am now signed to a label that believes I should own anything I create. Thankfully, I left my past in Scott’s hands and not my future. And hopefully, young artists or kids with musical dreams will read this and learn about how to better protect themselves in a negotiation. You deserve to own the art you make.
I will always be proud of my past work. But for a healthier option, Lover will be out August 23.
Sad and grossed out,
💔
Taylor
The linchpin of Scott Borchetta’s sale of Big Machine Records has always been Taylor Swift. Before she had fulfilled her six record deal with the label, Borchetta was already trying to sell the company in hopes that the prospect of keeping her under contract would embellish the sale price. Borchetta—who started Big Machine in 2005 with seed money from Toby Keith and Taylor Swift’s father among other investors—tried to sell the Nashville-based independent record company as far back as 2011 when he was reportedly in negotiations with Sony. In October of 2014, Big Machine was reportedly on the sales block again for an estimated $200 million. Then in February of 2015, Borchetta was said to be in negotiations to sell the label to Apple Music for $250 million. The sale of Big Machine to Scooter Braun is said to be for $300 million.
Taylor Swift officially left Big Machine for the Universal Music Group in November of 2018, however this move still left the door open for a potential reunification of Taylor Swift with her masters. As an independent label, Big Machine still had to rely on a bigger fish for distribution. That bigger fish was Universal. If Scott Borchetta would have sold to Universal instead of Scooter Braun, perhaps something could still have been worked out. Taylor Swift’s current Universal contract allows her to own her own masters. Though the Big Machine portfolio goes way deeper than Taylor Swift, the masters of her first six albums are still considered to be the crown jewels, not just from the significant revenue that can continued to be earned from them with Swift only drawing royalties, but because she clearly wants them back in her possession. Swift, whose estimated worth is said to be $360 million, could still try to buy them outright. However due to her sordid past with Scooter Braun, that’s unlikely to happen.
To play a little devil’s advocate, the deal that Taylor Swift signed at 15-years-old relinquishing the ownership of her masters to Big Machine is not out of the ordinary whatsoever. In fact it is completely commonplace, if not necessary in the major label space. Only in exceptional cases do labels allow artists to retain master rights, and usually after they have become well established in the industry, and can negotiate from a position of power. As evil of an individual as Scott Borchetta has been made out to be (especially here on Saving Country Music), he is also the one who took a chance on Taylor Swift when other labels refused to sign her, or only offered her a development deal. Though from a public relations standpoint, Taylor Swift is wise to play the card as the victim of controlling men in this deal—and she most certainly has a legitimate beef with her music going under the control of Scooter Braun—there is no reason to believe Scott Borchetta would maliciously try to hurt or control Taylor Swift with this sale. In fact he probably made it knowing it would turn into the public relations nightmare it has become. That is why the news was released on a Sunday. This is about the money, and there are plenty of men who are currently and previously signed to Big Machine and other labels who also have no say in where their master recordings are headed at the moment, let alone ownership in them. This is the devil you dance with when dealing with a major label.
Nonetheless, Swift is justified in feeling like her creative efforts are being used as unwitting pawns, and feeling jilted by the loss of loyalty by Scott Borchetta, and her music now being in the possession of Scooter Braun. And combined with the recent story of the loss of thousands of music masters in a 2008 fire while they were in custody of Swift’s current label Universal, it underscores just how strange and inequitable it is that artists often must sign their creative works away to deal with labels who will never show proper care with them. Once again it highlights the importance of independent labels such as Thirty Tigers and others that allow artists to keep creative and intellectual control of their music as a matter of course, and why real reforms in the Copyright Act should be looked into to make sure these creative works are dealt with and protected more equitably.
But this all feels like it’s burying the lead. When the sale of Big Machine to Apple Music was rumored in 2015, it represented the potential seismic shift to a new paradigm in recorded music. Scott Borchetta was rumored to not want to sell the company to just another record label. He wanted to do something unique in music to unlock new synergies in the business other companies are overlooking. In the deal with Scooter Braun, Scott Borchetta remains the CEO of Big Machine under the bigger umbrella company. But partnering with Scooter Braun potentially puts management, film, promotion, and all sorts of other entertainment entities under one virtual roof. Instead of an artist having a separate record label, manager, publicity team, and promotional company, now (hypothetically) it could all be handled in one place. For men like Scooter Braun and Scott Borchetta, this prospect will be enticing. For artists like the ones who may become the next Taylor Swift, this could be intimidating, and destructive, with no third party voice in the room to offer guidance on things like the ownership of masters.
Make no mistake, this sale of Big Machine Records will be incredibly significant. And since Big Machine is a Nashville-based Music Row record label, the reverberations in country music will be more significant than anywhere else. Just exactly how it will affect the music we will have to see, but expect more “synergies” with pop performers and producers, similar to what we saw when Borchetta struck a deal with another controversial character from the pop world, Dr. Luke. And remember, it was Scott Borchetta who first suggested that Taylor Swift work with super producers Max Martin and Shellback, and put her on the path to becoming a pure pop star. Putting Big Machine in bed with Scooter Braun—known best for managing artists such as Justin Bieber, Kanye West, and Ariana Grande—will only continue to blur the lines between popular music, making the people at the top of the music business significantly more money, codifying the monogenre as formats blur, while genre-based artists who refuse to sign their masters away fight for attention.
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
UPDATE 6/30/19 11:00 p.m. CDT:
In a statement by Scott Borchetta addressing Taylor Swift’s claims, the Big Machine CEO says that he did offer to sell Taylor Swift her masters, and that he did notify her, or at least attempt to, before the sale went through. Borchetta also says he did not know about the degree of acrimony between swift and Scooter Braun. Borchetta also says of the deal, “This move will give us more pop culture super-power than ever before and I’m so excited about the future.”
Borchetta’s entire post can be seen below.
“So, it’s time for some truth…It’s time to set some things straight. 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 25. 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 9:06 p.m., Saturday, June 29 to inform her prior to the story breaking on the morning of Sunday, June 30 so she could hear it directly from me.
“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 [as a rep claimed]. But, I truly doubt that she ‘woke up to the news when everyone else did.’
“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.
“We are an independent record company. We do not have tens of thousands of artists and recordings. My offer to Taylor, for the size of our company, was extraordinary. But it was also all I could offer as I am responsible for dozens of artists’ careers and over 120 executives and their families.
“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.
“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.
“This is the text Taylor sent to me on Monday, November 19th at 8:57 a.m.:
Scott,
I hope this finds you well. Since communication ran dry on our negotiations, I’ve done what I told you I would do and gone out exploring other options. Owning my masters was very important to me, but I’ve since realized that there are things that mean even more to me in the bigger picture. I had a choice whether to bet on my past or to bet on the future and I think knowing me, you can guess which one I chose. I also saw a rare opportunity to effect positive change for a lot of other artists with the leverage I have right now. I know you believe in the same things I do and I’d like to think you would be proud of what I’ve negotiated for in my deal. I wanted to tell you first that I’ll be signing with Lucian. I honestly truly cherish everything you and I have built together and I plan on saying so in my announcement of the new deal. What we accomplished together will be a lasting legacy and a case study on excellent partnerships, and may it continue. I still view you as a partner and friend and I hope you feel the same. Sending you a hug and my most sincere gratitude.
And SO much love,
Taylor
“Here is the text I sent on the evening of June 29 at 9:05pm:
“Dear Taylor,
“Hope all is well and congratulations on the success of your first two singles from “Lover”!
“I can’t wait to hear the entire album…
“I wanted to pass along to you the same courtesy that you passed along to me in regard to my future.
“Tomorrow morning (Sunday, June 30th) at 10 a.m. central, the Wall Street Journal will announce that I am entering into a merger/acquisition with Scooter Braun and Ithaca Holdings. This move will give us more pop culture super-power than ever before and I’m so excited about the future.
“I want you to know that I will continue to be the proud custodian of your previous works and will continue to keep you and your team abreast of all future plans for releases of you work.
“Nothing but the best,
Scott”
June 30, 2019 @ 6:31 pm
Perhaps Liberace or some other wealthy friends can help her buy them back
June 30, 2019 @ 10:59 pm
She already tried to buy them back and he apparently wouldn’t even entertain selling them to her. That was the point of her post. Did you read it? Or were you in too much of a rush to race down to the comments section and make what I assume is some kind of “joke” about her supporting the LGBTQ community?
July 2, 2019 @ 5:57 am
you definitely put the A,S,S in assume buddy.
July 3, 2019 @ 11:05 pm
Everything’s for sale for the right price. Didn’t you read my post? It seems like she could pull enough $ from the LBGQTWTF crowd to make him an offer he can’t refuse.
July 4, 2019 @ 8:24 am
That of course would be the post where you suggested she might get help from a gay man who died due to AIDS before she was born.
July 4, 2019 @ 8:45 am
Dang…he died? Maybe Boy George or Elton John could help her pony up then (if they haven’t already died of AIDS)
August 22, 2019 @ 1:29 pm
Methinks you are very gullible.
June 30, 2019 @ 6:57 pm
Jimmy Wayne made a few comments on Twitter with links and stories from being let go by his friend Scott borchetta and a link to excerpts from his book “walk to beautiful.” He was dropped by email when he was walking across America.
June 30, 2019 @ 7:03 pm
Taylor knows how to paint herself as a poor, helpless victim. Not like she has millions to buy back the rights….
June 30, 2019 @ 7:36 pm
You missed a key point here: she asked and he wouldn’t sell. She was worth more as a pawn. You really should read before opining.
June 30, 2019 @ 8:02 pm
If Scott Borchetta couldn’t use a new contract with Taylor Swift to embellish his sale price, then he could use that fact that she so obviously wants her masters back as a bargaining chip. They won’t sell the masters to her for any price, because the prospect of what she might buy them for in the future is worth more than any monetary value than you could ever put on them. It’s true, Taylor Swift is filthy rich. But there is no better example of how money can’t buy you everything. What kind of price would you put on your most intimate expressions and life’s work?
July 1, 2019 @ 3:17 am
Apparently he offered her the option of releasing a new album for each master i.e. for every new album she’d release she’d own a master (from previous albums).
I guess you really were right when you labeled him the antichrist. I’m really scared of this “future” he talks about because if this is how he treats an artist who essentially made him who he is what options do average artists have?
July 1, 2019 @ 1:19 pm
Faustian is the best way to describe that kind of deal.
June 30, 2019 @ 8:26 pm
And he is under no obligation to sell them. Maybe Business Savvy Swift should have read her contract before signing with Big Machine. She could have negotiated to keep her rights. Other artists have done so.
June 30, 2019 @ 10:10 pm
She was 15. When she tried to negotiate his response was to keep her enslaved for 10 more years. He needed her or her masters to sell his business.
June 30, 2019 @ 10:42 pm
“Maybe Business Savvy Swift should have read her contract before signing with Big Machine. She could have negotiated to keep her rights. Other artists have done so.” You seem to be missing a key thing here. She was not signing with Big Machine just a few years ago. She was signing with Big Machine back in like 2004 when she was 15 years old. She did not have a lot of negotiating power at that point in time. So no, she could not have simply “negotiated to keep her rights.” And other artists have similarly really struggled to do so. I mean if Paul McCartney, John Lennon, Prince, and so many others have had similar deals where they, often without realizing it or simply because they didn’t have any other choice, had signed away much of their catalogue, then I don’t know how you would expect a 15-year-old Taylor Swift to have more luck. You just have to hope that the people of power in this business who have the control are going to treat the artists who make them a lot of money with the utmost respect.
Big Machine would not be what it is today without Taylor Swift. And sure, he took a chance on her at the beginning of her career, but she took a chance on him too. She could have gone to his old label and presumably gotten signed there (Scott has admitted as much in interviews before), but instead she she agreed to wait for him to start his new label and her dad became an investor to help it out. Now, years later when she has made him millions, millions that, honestly, she probably would have made with practically any label given her talent, it would have been respectful for him to allow her to buy her masters at a fair price. He apparently would not even consider selling them to her because she was more valuable as a pawn. That sucks. And sure, we can say it’s just business and he’s a good businessman all we want. But they had a lucrative partnership. They seemed to work together well and she made him more money than he probably could have ever imagined 15 years ago. It would have been nice if he could have been a little less cutthroat and a little more human in that moment and just at least give Taylor the OPTION of buying her masters at a reasonable price.
Comparatively, we have Robert Ellis Orrall, a musician who began co-writing with Taylor and producing demos for her when she was twelve years old and nobody else would. Orall still owns all of Taylor’s unreleased demos and has never leaked any of them despite the fact that they would be worth a decent amount. And that’s because he had enough respect for Taylor and her family to not do anything with her work that he knew she wouldn’t want to have done, regardless of how much money he could make off of it. I guess it would have just been nice if the man she made millions for would have respected her as much as the musician she worked with when she was twelve years old.
But you’re right. Scott “is under no obligation to sell them” but it does not mean that he isn’t a pretty selfish and scummy person for refusing to do so. It’s not like he won’t be able to put food on the table if he doesn’t get as much money possible for them. He is going to be worth many many millions regardless. He could have sold her back her life’s work, but getting some more tens of millions on the deal to, buy another yacht or something was more important to him than treating another person with respect and not withholding their most precious possessions from them. It would have been nice to see a bit of respect and loyalty shown in the business. He could have been a good guy here. He chose not to be.
And luckily, Taylor Swift is successful and powerful enough to survive it. But smaller artists would not be. And Taylor gets this, which is why she fights so hard for artists’ rights. She doesn’t rely on the money earned from three months of Apple Music streams and yet she refused to put her music on the platform until they paid all artists for that time because she recognized how important three months of revenue would be to an indie artist. It’s also why she negotiated in streaming revenue for ALL artists at Universal when she signed with them. It was the part of the deal she highlighted most and said she was most proud of when she announced her signing with them. And its why in her statement on this Scott deal she ended her post with “And hopefully, young artists or kids with musical dreams will read this and learn about how to better protect themselves in a negotiation. You deserve to own the art you make.” Because you all can sit there and say she’s whining and she doesn’t need the money that much and you would be right. And seemingly Taylor would agree with you. But the people who do need the money, you know like the next 15-year-old Taylor Swift out there? She doesn’t have the power to negotiate yet, so the Taylor Swifts of today need to call out situations where vulnerable artists are getting taken advantage of because those artists that already have leverage (and have often already lost the rights to much of their music) are the only ones that can now protect everyone else. I have to give props to Taylor Swift for choosing to use her power to do so, rather than just stay quiet about it.
July 1, 2019 @ 9:50 am
Taylor bringing up this issue – one, I’m sure, a lot of fans don’t understand – is very valuable for artists’ rights moving forward.
That said, the Scooter Braun side of her gripe is pretty self-serving, if not potentially selfish. Braun is a successful power player, and he famously goes to bat – hard – for his clients. If you’re an artist on Big Machine, he very much could be the one you want calling the shots. And if you’re a shareholder in Big Machine, his $300 million offer is definitely appealing.
He’s also clearly friends with Scott Borchetta.
So, to expect everyone to throw that away just because Braun is friendly with Kanye West is rather unfair to other artists and hardworking people.
TL:DR – Her issue with Scott Borchetta is valid, and very important to raise for future artists. Her issue with Scooter Braun is a personal one that shouldn’t get to impact an entire roster of artists.
August 22, 2019 @ 1:45 pm
So, essentially, your point is, because she wants it, she should have it.
No.
June 30, 2019 @ 7:39 pm
You might want to read it again chief.
June 30, 2019 @ 7:30 pm
Justin Bieber fresh from his not fight with Tom Cruise has now stepped in to defend Scooter and take on Taylor. This is going to get messy.
July 1, 2019 @ 4:46 am
….and I nto the fracas steps The Bieb! ….no…no… wait….hold up a minute, sorry, his Biebness needs just a quick minute to pee in that mop bucket over there and then to tether his pet monkey to the back of his Lambo, then he will be ready to duke it out with Tay Tay for Scooter’s honor.
June 30, 2019 @ 7:58 pm
I would like to see the finances behind all this. Wouldn’t be surprised if Kanye comes out telling Taylor he owns her masters like he owned Wiz Khalifa’s child.
June 30, 2019 @ 10:11 pm
That crossed my mind, too.
July 1, 2019 @ 6:20 pm
LOL… Possibly
June 30, 2019 @ 8:14 pm
– The frustrating thing for me is the timing of everything.
The real gripe here – Taylor not owning her masters – was true the second she gave up the Big Machine negotiations and signed with UMG/Republic directly. I feel like so many fans are missing that point, in part because of Taylor’s clever phrasing, and instead thinking this was a situation of Borchetta and Braun conniving to screw over Taylor Swift.
There are also a lot of potential discrepancies about the deal itself. Even if we don’t go down the rabbit hole of (did Taylor know about this deal during the shareholders meeting, or did she truly find out this morning), Braun buying the company has been rumored for a long-time. Hits Daily Double ran a story about it in early May, and while they’re good at this sort of stuff, they’re obviously not going to have as much knowledge as Taylor and her dad would.
Braun, himself, has also partnered with Borchetta in the past (they co-promoted the artist “Who Is Fancy”) … so this notion that there was no way Borchetta would have sold to him is craziness.
– Borchetta’s post about the contract terms seems to weaken Taylor’s argument a bit. It suggests she was willing to sign a 7-year-deal with Big Machine in exchange for her masters; they wanted 10. While I get not wanting to lock yourself into a 10-year deal if you could get 7, if what Borchetta posted was true, it would suggest that she very much was willing to sign a long-term contract in exchange for her masters.
– The other thing too: I see all these artists picking sides and commenting, but what about the Big Machine artists? I’d imagine pop-leaning guys like Florida Georgia Line, Brett Young and Thomas Rhett may appreciate someone as shrewd and influential as Scooter Braun in their corner (as he’s been very successful with Dan + Shay), while some of the smaller, more traditional acts may have a problem.
But the point is that Taylor has to be willing to consider the entire Big Machine roster, not just herself, in this situation. Was there anyone was music-savvy as Braun willing to buy Big Machine? Was there anyone willing to spend $300 million? If not, then – you can’t fault Big Machine for taking the deal.
June 30, 2019 @ 9:26 pm
I have just posted an update with Scott Borchetta’s statement. I still think that Taylor Swift has a legitimate beef here, but as she’s done in the past, she might have embellished some things to paint herself as more of a victim, and it ultimately could undercut her argument. Then again, Borchetta is no Boy Scout, so who knows who the real spin doctor is here.
I may have more on this when the dust settles and we have more facts than perspectives. I would suspect a counter statement from Swift soon.
June 30, 2019 @ 10:10 pm
Basically, I think the two things we need to know are:
1) What was the negotiation process leading up to the deal sheet Borchetta included in his blog? To put it another way, how much did Taylor Swift truly push to simply buy her masters – as opposed to getting them as a signing bonus? And how receptive would he have been if she offered stupid money for them?
2) What other offers were in play to buy either her collection or Big Machine outright?
Question 1 gives us more insight into how unfairly, if at all, Swift was treated with regard to her masters.
Question 2 gives us more insight into whether Borchetta truly betrayed Swift by selling to someone she doesn’t like.
June 30, 2019 @ 10:19 pm
I don’t think Scott’s post helped him at all – he essentially confirmed everything Taylor said: he didn’t offer her the chance to buy back her masters. He offered her a 10-year sentence, one which she knew she couldn’t count on the particulars of since she knew he wanted to sell the label. Her father wasn’t involved in the meeting last week and the 2 lawyers were bound by confidentiality agreements. He texted her late last night (Taylor was in London at the time of his 9 pm text so it wouldn’t have gotten to her until the early morning hours), so its definitely possible she woke up, saw the headlines and then saw his text. She’s every right to be pissed IMO.
June 30, 2019 @ 10:36 pm
— But if you look at the screenshot in his post, it says that Taylor Swift herself proposed a 7-year contract in exchange for the masters.
That’s the issue here – in her blog, Taylor makes a reasonable case for why she wouldn’t sign another long-term contract with Big Machine. But if she was, in fact, willing to re-sign a 7-year deal … that would literally negate her entire point.
There’s nothing unscrupulous about Big Machine not wanting to meet Taylor’s exact demand. There is something unscrupulous about refusing to negotiate in her ballpark.
Taylor’s blog suggests the latter situation. Scott’s blog suggests the former.
— I’m seeing this London thing online, and people are making a mistake with the time zone.
Yes, she may have been sleeping when she got the text. But remember that the story didn’t break until like 10AM in New York, which is 3PM in London. It’s highly unlikely she was asleep until 2:59 PM.
Not that it’s too relevant either way; just want to clarify that issue.
June 30, 2019 @ 11:13 pm
Hey Deanne,
If you’re looking for someone to defend Scott Borchetta, you’ve come to the wrong place. All I’m saying is there is a difference between not communicating with Taylor Swift at all about the sale, and Borchetta (potentially) sending Taylor a text message, and Taylor Swift not receiving it until after she read it in the press (just as one example). I personally want to see Taylor Swift respond to what Scott Borchetta has said before I say any more on this matter. This is a very messy situation, and the facts are fluid. My baseline opinion is that ALL artist should have complete creative control of their music, and their masters should be their property as the default, not vice versa.
June 30, 2019 @ 10:16 pm
You’re missing the point of her posting. Her point is that she was screwed and decided to move on. Her point was to warn other artists not to let happen to them what happened to her. Scott screwed her and owed her a personal call.
“Thankfully, I am now signed to a label that believes I should own anything I create. Thankfully, I left my past in Scott’s hands and not my future. And hopefully, young artists or kids with musical dreams will read this and learn about how to better protect themselves in a negotiation. You deserve to own the art you make.”
June 30, 2019 @ 8:54 pm
“If you don’t own your masters, your masters will own you.”-Prince
This is not a new tale. Hell, in the 80s, McCartney gave Michael Jackson investment advice. Jackson used that same advice to buy the Beatles rights and catalog, outbidding McCartney., his old pal. Jackson’s estate then sold it to Sony.
June 30, 2019 @ 9:26 pm
I hope artists RUN away from Borchetta! Now he says he didn’t know her feelings toward Scooter? Dude this guy! Look close Nash b/c this is what he did to his biggest artist! Slimy
June 30, 2019 @ 9:38 pm
Can I ask what this REALLY has to do with country music? I’m not trying to be a contrarian or obnoxious. I just honestly wonder what this will do, in real terms, to the music that you and your readers actually like and champion.
June 30, 2019 @ 10:07 pm
Big Machine is still a noteworthy country music label – that still has a few of the industry’s biggest acts on its roster. That, alone, makes it relevant here.
The fact that it was bought by Scooter Braun, a savvy yet pop-centric music executive, makes it especially relevant here. Keep in mind that two of his biggest “moves” within the country space are helping Dan + Shay become stars and getting Tori Kelly on Chris Lane’s recent radio single.
Then you have the broader point about artist rights and label politics.
Do I think Trigger HATES the idea that there’s some SEO upside to covering this story? Of course not. But he’d be crazy not to cover something that’s clearly relevant to country and music at large.
June 30, 2019 @ 10:31 pm
I get what you’re saying. On the other hand, I’m not seeing the tie in to actual country music. I guess this gets complicated by the fact that there is this country music:
https://savingcountrymusic.com/saving-country-musics-best-country-albums-of-2019-so-far/
Which I don’t think will be AT ALL affected by this, and then there is:
This stuff. Taylor’s old masters. Possible Beiber collaborations, etc. I get the whole argument about not giving up on the mainstream. I get it. But we have these discussions about what is country music, and stereotypically I feel like most of the readers here think the linked story above is country music, not this shit. So this is one label. So one label that will somewhat effect “this shit” is going to have maybe somewhat of a more pop influence than the shit we’ve already seen. OK? And? What will that really effect?
June 30, 2019 @ 10:28 pm
This issue has MASSIVE implications in country music, both big and small. As I said in the article, this is not just about Taylor Swift, whatsoever. Alex Williams is a Big Machine artist. Reba McEntire is a Big Machine artist. Aaron Lewis is a Big Machine artist. The Mavericks, Sunny Sweeny, Hank Jr., Ronnie Dunn, and others have albums and songs in the Big Machine library. This deal affects their music directly. Saving Country Music’s 2013 Album of the Year was The Mavericks’ “In Time.” It was released by Big Machine Records.
But even bigger than that is this line that Scott Borchetta wrote to Taylor Swift in his supposed text message to her: “This move will give us more pop culture super-power than ever before and I’m so excited about the future.”
THIS is really the big story, and the big concern here. I get that the pillow fight between Taylor Swift and Borchetta is exciting at the moment. But soon the dust will settle from that, and we will have one of country music’s most powerful labels directly aligned with the pop world, and actively looking to “activate synergies” between the two entities.
I started Saving Country Music not as a music recommendation site, but to be an industry watchdog. I can’t imagine a more important topic than one about an artist fighting for control of their masters, and a label located on Music Row looking to become a “pop cultural super power.”
If you don’t want to read about it, I totally understand. But this is a very big deal, and I intend to cover it. I intend to cover other music too.
June 30, 2019 @ 10:36 pm
“This deal affects their music directly.”
How exactly? Have you heard their plans for it?
“This move will give us more pop culture super-power than ever before and I’m so excited about the future.”
I know this guy has come clout but again how is this going to effect actual country music? I get the watchdog stuff. I’m just trying to understand how it could get any worse than it already is, despite this guys excitement for the future.
July 3, 2019 @ 2:51 am
I can’t even get my had around the aim to create a “pop cultural super power”.
What’s that even supposed to mean?
Man, shouldn’t it be about art?
Shouldn’t it be about songs that resonate and create a connection?
If you want to summon a “cultural super power”, which ulterior aims do you have? What is your agenda? It sounds f***ng scary. If that agenda is to create an ever faster money-printing hub it might actually even be the least worrisome. This ultimately sounds worse, like a manipulative entertainment kraken that’s supposed to create and shape what listeners will demand to then exploit it, a relentless customer milking machine meant to never let us out of its sight and grip. Shudder.
Couldn’t Scott Borchetta just live happily from all the millions he’s made, enjoy Daiquiris on a yacht for the rest of his days and never worry about a thing? What kind of psychopath are you when you can’t get your mouth full enough and feel the need to get more and more bloated, to want to spearhead a super power (even if it’s only a “pop cultural” one)?
June 30, 2019 @ 11:44 pm
I just checked out the good ole top 20 Billboard Country songs, and I’d argue that there isn’t more than 1-2 max songs that 95% of people who listen to actual real country would ever listen to (and i think that’s being generous). So let’s replace AT BEST 1 or 2 of those top 20 songs with a Big Machine amazing vision of the future song (again being generous). I guess my question is, what will that REALLY do to country music? Maybe there will be some Taylor back catalogue remix pop culture songs every now and then? Those might be better than half the shit on the top 20 right now. I mean, check out Morgan Wallen – “Whiskey Glasses” as just one example. Can new Big Machine ownership do any worse than that?
July 1, 2019 @ 1:33 am
I like that song, and I listen to “real country” so you lost me… I believe I’ve only heard eight of the songs in the Top 20 though. That’s because I generally listen to “real country” but sometimes I might be around a jukebox, a TV on CMT, or a stereo where someone is playing something like the aforementioned “Whiskey Glasses.”
July 1, 2019 @ 7:19 am
And fair enough, that’s why I didn’t use 100%. But did I really lose you? In practical terms, (not hyperbolic), do you REALLY think this ownership change at one label will effect the country music you listen to?
June 30, 2019 @ 10:11 pm
Awww, poor Taylor. Sounds like she’s practically living in a cardboard box. I guess if she gets too hungry, she can always go back to crapping on C(c)ountry music’s grave. There’s probably still some 11 year olds who’ll listen.
I’m so happy that Taylor got screwed. “Sad and grossed out”, is how I felt when I first heard her on CMT 13 years ago.
July 1, 2019 @ 1:41 am
Her first single, “Tim McGraw” is so incredibly inoffensive. It’s a 15 year old girl, and it sounds pretty great to my ear in the current state of country radio. Sad and grossed out is how your post makes me feel.
July 1, 2019 @ 7:44 am
…”Sad and grossed out is how your post makes me feel.”…
Oh thank goodness. Hopefully teardrops fell on your guitar after you read my post.
July 1, 2019 @ 6:57 am
I remember when SCM wasn’t filled with Swift apologists. It is amazing how her poor little sweetheart act still fools people.
Folks go on and on about her business savvy and then when she is outflanked, the excuses and white knights appear.
It is part of the music business. She signed the contract. Labels have a right to keep the masters. Big Machine is not a villains for refusing to sell.
July 1, 2019 @ 10:44 am
People have short memories.
In 2006, Tay-Tay came out with a pop-“Country” song, which was titled after one of her fellow C(c)ountry music-murdering predecessors.
The song sucked, and so did she.
But she hasn’t rapped yet, so she’s a “Country” legend.
July 1, 2019 @ 11:09 am
LOL Obviously most here don’t think she’s a country legend, but you have a point. Here we are talking about her and her.
July 1, 2019 @ 12:29 pm
Yes she has rapped. Rather poorly but it was a little funny. It was for a bit of the opening of the cmt awards. “You don’t want to fight me in my extra small white T” that was the opening line
March 7, 2020 @ 12:21 am
Her first three albums were so-called country music with a pop influence. But she doesn’t even pretend to be country in the next four. They are mostly electronic music, and yes, there are several rap songs. And none of it sees much play on “country radio” stations that play Florida Georgia Line, Sam Hunt etc.
Nobody is claiming that post 2012 Swift is country.
June 30, 2019 @ 10:19 pm
Why does Taylor dislike Scooter Braun? I don’t recall hearing anything about that in the past.
June 30, 2019 @ 10:56 pm
Braun represents Justin Bieber and used to be Kanye’s manager. Taylor has had issues with both of those artists in the past. And there may be even more to it that happens behind the scenes, but his representation of those two artists was what was key about the picture she posted along with her statement. The picture was a screenshot of a Facetime conversation Bieber posted to his Instagram between Kanye, Scooter, and Justin where they basically taunted Taylor during that time in 2016 when everyone was piling on Taylor about the Kim/Kanye song/video/phone call recording situation. Braun also used to represent Todrick Hall, one of Taylor’s best friends. And Todrick wrote a song a while back about how awful his time with Braun was. He also released statements on Twitter today supporting Taylor and basically calling out Braun for being in Todrick’s words “evil,” “homophobic,” and that Braun made it clear “from his own mouth that he is not a Swift fan.” I’m sure that is not someone that Taylor would be thrilled to now have control of her music and be making money off of her work.
July 1, 2019 @ 1:25 am
Thankfully we have got Hank III, outlaw or texas country and bunch of other musicians that can play beyond that sad circus.
July 1, 2019 @ 8:13 am
Yes, except Hank III has been battling Curb Records for two decades for control of his own music too. They’ve been re-appropriating his creative works just like I’m sure Big Machine will do with Taylor Swift’s. That’s why these concerns can affect all music artists and fans.
July 1, 2019 @ 9:06 am
Borchetta trying to get 10 more years of Swift in exchange for her masters reminded me of Mike Curb. I read that she has control of distribution. Does that mean they can’t re-release music and dump greatest hits packages on the market without her approval?
July 1, 2019 @ 8:11 pm
I really don’t understand how so many folks don’t see the relevancy of this situation. History repeating itself.
July 1, 2019 @ 1:43 am
Her first single, “Tim McGraw” is so incredibly inoffensive. It’s a 15 year old girl, and it sounds pretty great to my ear in the current state of country radio. Sad and grossed out is how your post makes me feel.
July 1, 2019 @ 2:06 am
What master’s of Hank Jr’s are included in this? Suspecting it’s just the stuff since he signed with them in ‘15 for him to be just another name on the list?
This ticks me off for the sheer fact that they’ve made Swift the victim, again???? The only reason I know Scooter Braun’s name is because of that punk Bieber. So “Skooter”s an automatic weasel Already knew what Borchetta was, he signed Swift???? So a trifecta of assholes. Just hope it all implodes & doesn’t end up negativity effecting REAL Country Music????
July 1, 2019 @ 8:11 am
Hank Jr.’s “It’s About Time” was released on Big Machine. Whether he owns his own masters, I don’t know. I just wanted to underscore that this was not just a Taylor Swift problem, or even a major label radio country problem. Alex Williams is a guy who regularly tours opening for Cody Jinks and Whitey Morgan. He’s also signed to Big Machine.
July 1, 2019 @ 4:02 am
A lot of people don’t understand the recording industry. Prince was a perfect example of what is going on with Taylor Swift. She no longer has ANY say on her earlier music and this is problematic. She created that music,now EVERYONE and ANYONE can destroy it. Yes, she rich BECAUSE of that very same music that SHE created. As an artist she now no longer has control of what happens to that music. This EFFECTS the entire music industry yr.after yr.
July 1, 2019 @ 4:32 am
Beside Taylor Swift this is the most important message:
“This move will give us more pop culture super-power than ever before and I’m so excited about the future.”
More monogenre.
More pop music released as “country” music.
More pop artists releasing “country” music.
More duets with pop artists.
More Dan + his Shay “fabric softener” acts.
More pop songwriters & producers coming to Nashville because…well…the weather is better?
With Scooter Braun a new elephant is in the room. Playing with the big Nashville boys (& girls) now. Can he change the way Nashville is making business & how long will Scott Borchetta play second fiddle to SB?
Country music must evolve: Scooter Braun on the HoF board…god help us all.
July 1, 2019 @ 7:55 am
Big Machine had 10% market share in 2018. So even if 50% of what they pump out now becomes more pop (somehow more than than it already is), that number would be 5% of market share. So by a stretch, 5% of the market (which many of us, myself included) never listen to anyway) will become more pop. The reaction to this story is sensational and emotional, which I understand. I’m just not seeing any fact or evidenced based arguments that it will have a MASSIVE impact. So far just a lot of assumptions and hyperbole.
July 1, 2019 @ 9:04 am
The market share can change. The way Scooter Braun makes deals can change the “country” industry.
Country music is already under fire for being too white, not enough female artists & the Lil Nas X fiasco.
The last thing country music as a format needs is more pop. Not on “country” radio, the charts or Bebe Rexha winning country awards.
But 5% more pop on radio means more pop-“country” on tv, award shows & the majority part of the audience will start to accept Bebe Rexha, rap acts, soap-opera music acts like Dan + his Shay winning awards & becoming members of the HoF or the Opry.
In the days of Spotify & YouTube it should be easy to dig deeper & find better music & better acts…but as long the majority is satisfied with edm/rap/rock/r’n’b/whatever labeled & sold as country music…5% more pop hurts.
It’s not the music alone…it’s the way the artists are presented. The image, the glitz & glamour, the (fake) feuds & the (fake) relationships + the endless stream of collaborations…FGL & LoTrash feat. Thomas Rhett, Lil Nas X, Lil Piss, Lil Shit, SuzieXXL & Pink Umbrella with a song written by Ariana Grande & produced by Justin Bieber & PuPu Da Don-Man.
Imagine “country” stars Kelsea Ballerini & Maren Morris fighting on an award show stage who is the bigger c..t or Carrie Underwood storming the stage because she deserves the award & not Miranda Lambert.
It’s all about “pop culture super-power”. Thank you Scooter & Scott.
July 1, 2019 @ 9:15 am
Good points. I’d argue though that the effort to duplicate the Baby Rexa thing, for example, is already well under way. The other major labels don’t give a shit about country. Maybe this guy will be slightly better at it. Ok. And it hurts, ok I agree. But my point is how “MASSIVE” is this? And if you have some sort of crystal ball that shows you this specific example turning into a Kanye awards show moment for country music, more power to you. I’m just trying to figure out what this ownership change means, in the perspective of the real world.
July 1, 2019 @ 4:40 am
So her dad was an investor in the label she was signing to and she was 15 at the time? Her dad didn’t think to negotiate this for her ahead of time or is that now it works? I can’t imagine any 15 year old making these types of decisions without parental involvement so isn’t her dad to blame here or am I missing something?
July 1, 2019 @ 5:07 am
When her dad signed that deal she wasn’t Taylor Swift she was just a 15 year old kid they were desperate to get on a label that would let her record her music..
In hindsight a lot of artists would like to go back and renegotiate their contracts knowing what they do now but they’re at the mercy of the Scotts and Scooters of the industry and they don’t have half the clout Taylor Swift has.
July 1, 2019 @ 5:51 am
I guess the first sentence says it all. If they were desperate (not sure why if she was only 15) and signed on the dotted line, it’s their fault.
July 1, 2019 @ 7:00 am
Exactly. It is called personal responsibility. It is quite amazing, actually. Many of the posters defending Swift are the same people who hammer mainstream artists for recording radio friendly material (to keep their careers in Nashville) for not taking a stand and risking their careers to keep real country music going. But it is all excuses for Miss Swift.
They all made their choices. To excuse one and not the other is hypocrisy.
July 1, 2019 @ 8:43 am
I can’t speak for anybody else but myself so I will just call you dumb for that hot take on my own behalf.
I’m a staunch defender of artists right to record whatever music they want. Doesn’t mean I have to like it or listen to it.
You guys trying to make this into just a Taylor issue can’t see the forest for the trees. If somebody of Taylor’s stature can’t get control of her masters what chances do you think smaller artist have?
July 1, 2019 @ 10:24 am
Many of the posters defending Swift are the same people who hammer mainstream artists for recording radio friendly material (to keep their careers in Nashville) for not taking a stand and risking their careers to keep real country music going.
Like who?
July 1, 2019 @ 10:25 am
“dumb hot take”
Facts over feelings, buddy. Your entire post is feelings about how singers should be instead of the reality that is. Singers can sing whatever they want if they self-release or sign a contract allowing them. A label has a financial stake in the artist, they shouldn’t be blamed for wanting some level of control. It is their money being used. Letting an artist record whatever they want is not the answer and often ends poorly.
I was talking in general hence the pronoun, “they.” Reading comprehension is your friend.
July 1, 2019 @ 11:19 am
Do you really want to throw the facts over feelings out there when you’re out here trying to diminish people for being Swiftie apologists and Taylor herself?
Same thing with comprehension when you can’t comprehend the gist of the argument Trigger was making because your own personal bias against her blinds you to fact and basic human compassion.
July 1, 2019 @ 4:16 pm
People being Swift apologists ties into my argument. It is not the same thing. Try again. Everyone advocating for Swift is ignoring the very real point that Big Machine is under no obligation to sell her the masters.
I understand Trigger’s argument and I soundly reject it. I love the website but the label is always made out to be the bad guy. Without labels, country music (including all the singers championed here) wouldn’t be heard at the national level. Labels have every right to keep the masters. They are not villains for refusing to relinquish their rights. Artists want their masters to make money. So do the labels but they are made out to be the villains for the same motive.
Basic human compassion? Get out of here with that hyperbole. She isn’t being kidnapped. She willingly entered into a contract.
July 1, 2019 @ 4:48 pm
CountryKnight,
I wrote an entire paragraph in this article about how what Taylor Swift is going through with her masters is very commonplace. I also pointed out how she attempted to embellish her story to try and take advantage of the whole “man attacking a woman” hysteria present in today’s society. I also said how it’s hard to sympathize with her when she’s worth $360 million. However it has been the underlying stance of Saving Country Music for over 11 years now that artists should be allowed creative control of their music, and ownership of their masters. I started this site as an organization called “Free Hank III” that fought for that very thing. That doesn’t mean that Taylor Swift didn’t sign a contract relinquishing her masters. She did, just like Hank III did. Everybody knows this. All I’m saying is that I believe it should be a baseline stance of all music advocates that artists get to keep creative control of their music. Yes, Taylor Swift signed those rights away. I never used the term “stolen.” That’s your term. I’m simply making a more broad point. If artists’ masters were dealt with more equitably as an industry standard, these types of conflicts would not arise, and there would be less artists getting screwed.
And also, as I said in the article, I think all of this is burying the lead. The ramifications of this deal on music and country music specifically are what’s important here. I honestly look at all of this Taylor Swift stuff as an aside and distraction.
July 1, 2019 @ 5:23 pm
You can’t tell the difference between a Swift apologist and somebody who sees a bigger picture that if this situation can happen to Taylor Swift it can happen to whatever artist you listen to. Keep up the hard man act and missing the point though.
July 1, 2019 @ 8:32 am
Imagine not ever getting a chance to rectify any mistakes you’ve made in your past. Behold the perfect man with the ability to see into the future!
July 1, 2019 @ 10:12 am
Now do imagining that everyone can just nullify contracts that they signed on good faith.
July 1, 2019 @ 10:21 am
Imagine constructing a strawman that dumb. Congratulations, you did it. Tapout accepted.
ScottG, exactly. I have the same problem with athletes who sign a contract and then hold out a year later for more money.
July 1, 2019 @ 11:22 am
It’s almost like people buying themselves out of contracts or contract renegotiations don’t exist.
July 1, 2019 @ 1:59 pm
Nah, it’s more like it does exist, but doesn’t happen every time.
July 1, 2019 @ 10:02 am
@ Same Old – That’s exactly what I’m thinking. Taylor Swift was a minor at the time, just 15, so legally SHE couldn’t sign her recording contract. Her dad or maybe both of her parents signed the contract on her behalf making it legally binding. She trusted her parents to make the best decision for her which I think at the time they believed it was. Could be they simply didn’t know better. Was it just her dad or did her folks also hire an entertainment attorney to read over and explain the fine print and stipulations of the contract to the Swifts? Including what *could* happen just in case she blows up, what she would have rights to as opposed to what the label has rights too, i.e., her masters? Do most new artists even think about this at the start of their careers? Not every artist makes it and surely if they do make it they don’t all become as huge of a success as Taylor Swift or Garth Brooks.
Maybe her dad or lawyer didn’t negotiate wisely on her behalf back then?? I can understand that her parents supported and believed in their daughter from the start, but neither of them, including Scott Borchetta could’ve ever known just how huge of a star Taylor would become. I think this is a lot of what you said, “if only I’d known then what I know now.” Once you’re in the biz, get experience, make money, see how people in the biz/the biz itself TRULY operates you wake up (aka you become woke) to the harsh realities of the entertainment industry.
All these artists regardless of their age when they get started are so caught up with getting signed to a label, making money, sharing their talent with the world and becoming famous that they don’t realize how much of a BUSINESS show business really is! When they achieve a considerable amount of success, money and make a name for themselves (often turning into a brand) that is when they look back at their original deal and finally realize that they should have gotten a better deal or maybe shouldn’t have signed with the label in the first place. Contract signer’s remorse. Contract is signed and binding, very little to do to get out of the original agreement. There’s remorse that turns to hurt and anger. Typical first contract signers remorse. The label owns you and YOUR music. Of course Taylor’s new deal is more beneficial to her. But not much she can do about getting control of her early work.
Borchetta selling out to Scooter will ultimately dilute even further the present day country music sound to becoming even more pop/urban/edm/rock influenced than it already is. Might as well get ready for more pop collabs, more artists like FL GA Line, Kane Brown and Sam Hunt. That’s where the future of country music for the next generation is headed at rapid speed. It’s quite sad tbh.
July 1, 2019 @ 5:06 am
She may complain she didn’t have the option of buying her masters. Well she definitely did. If she truly believed in herself she could’ve bought the whole label. She’s worth a reported 360 million and and the sale was for 300 million. She would have owned her own and could’ve given them back to the other artists. Leaving her with a cool 60 million and a bright future.
July 1, 2019 @ 6:47 am
Was she offered the chance to buy it? Do you have some inside info on the sale?
July 1, 2019 @ 6:56 am
It was publicly offered for sale it has been rumored for years. She could’ve gotten lawyers to sit down and work out the arrangements.
July 1, 2019 @ 10:47 am
Rumored for years? So, you don’t have any real insight to the sale? Thanks for clearing that up, Chuck.
July 1, 2019 @ 10:04 am
If Scooter paid $300 million, then she could bought it for $300,000,001.
This is a business.
July 1, 2019 @ 11:52 am
Why would she want to buy a $300 million business? He used her as a pawn.
July 2, 2019 @ 7:36 am
From Financial Times –
“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.”
July 1, 2019 @ 7:03 am
It is easier and cheaper to play the poor damsel in distress. Especially when you know the media and social media will have your back against those evil men and record labels.
July 1, 2019 @ 11:10 am
Being “worth” $360M doesn’t mean you have $300M in cash lying around to spend.
July 14, 2019 @ 7:05 am
So not having $300m in cash laying around was more important than gettIng control of her music. Yet she wasted no time buying a house next to the Kennedys. Actions almost always speak louder than words. She made her choices and still whines.
Maybe she has bad attorneys. But she picked those too.
July 1, 2019 @ 5:28 am
Major labels have been exploiting and screwing artists for decades and the US govt has help them do it by building the intellectual property laws to allow them to get away with it, then exporting those IP laws to other countries under the guise of “free trade” agreements. Doesn’t that make you proud?
July 1, 2019 @ 6:25 am
For those putting down Taylor Swift, Sunny Sweeney has posted she is in the same boat, and she is very well-regarded around here. Don’t let your dislike of Swift overshadow the troublesomeness of this deal.
July 1, 2019 @ 7:08 am
My stance on Sunny is the same. Don’t sign away your rights. A singer has to decide what it is more important; their songs or a chance at riches.
Fact is, a record label is not at fault for wanting to retain the rights to songs. It is a business. Singers love the business aspect when it is making millions for them but once it is disadvantageous to them, the evil business narrative starts.
Big Machine took a chance on Swift. Part of that investment were song rights. She wants the cake all to herself.
July 1, 2019 @ 7:24 am
While I may not agree with your sentiment, I appreciate your consistency.
July 1, 2019 @ 3:52 pm
Thank you, sir.
I appreciate your post, you raised a good point. Please keep posting here!
July 14, 2019 @ 7:15 am
I watched a documentary on the prog group Kansas and while the drummer lightly lamented that Kansas didn’t own their music, he noted that producer Kirshner put up a million dollars for their first album, which went nowhere, a million for the second album that went nowhere, then a million for the third album that went nowhere, and Kirshner/Kansas didn’t get a hit until the fourth album.
Taylor seemed to be given artistic freedom in her recording, which is more than most young artists get. What she did with her money after that is on her.
July 1, 2019 @ 6:29 am
Signing away the rights to your music is the worst thing any artist can do. Your songs are everything.
I only signed one deal, for one album release, with a small independent label, and the one thing that convinced me to proceed with the deal was the promise of me retaining all rights to my music. This allowed me to benefit from the promotional power of an established label and then to later re-release the album again on my personal label. I didn’t make much money from the deal, but I kept my songs, and as an artist you can’t put a price on that.
July 1, 2019 @ 6:48 am
Taylor’s two new singles are underperforming like crazy by her standards and she is absolutely the QUEEN of deflection and victimhood. It’s what she does. Not defending anyone here but this is par for the course. She has always needed to be somewhere above the fold and if her music isn’t putting her there she will figure how to get there by becoming the victim. Don’t sleep on the fact that her new single that was supposed to be a Pride anthem backfired on her in that community as well as from the obvious more conservative crowd that she built her career on.
July 1, 2019 @ 9:27 am
I think this sale affects Trace Adkins, doesn’t it?
July 1, 2019 @ 1:24 pm
Trace is currently signed with BBR – Broken Bow Records. He was previously with Show Dog and Capital Records. He’s not associated with Big Machine.
July 1, 2019 @ 9:41 am
I feel like the part about making this become a “pop culture super power” is a heralding of things to come for the Music Row type of country music. My opinion is that this will pump more steam into the dumbing down and watering down of country music to make it palatable for even more people.
That said, to me this also telegraphs a more motivated, a more sought out, and a more successful independent country scene where the quality is still there. There’e a storm brewing and I feel like the artists who work hard and fight to weather that storm will emerge as nothing less than heroes for honest country music, more so than they already are (we can all name a few, but mark my words…there will be more).
July 1, 2019 @ 10:13 am
Never having been a Taylor Swift fan, I am probably biased in most cases against her. However, this is certainly an instance where I believe her story far more than the p.r. b.s. Borchetta blogged/posted. Where is the proof that she was willing to accept a 7 year re-signing? How can we believe he did not know about the hostile situation that existed between Taylor and Scooter? So much of his version screams revisionist history.
July 1, 2019 @ 10:30 am
Why?
Swift is just as much as a schemer as Borchetta. She knows how to play the game, too. And public sympathy will easily rally to her over a CEO.
July 1, 2019 @ 11:25 am
OK I think people are missing the part of looking at it as a business. They took a chance on her when nobody else would. That means covering expenses, putting up the money for studio time, cutting demos, marketing and trips to radio station to have them play it, etc. Also, her father was a major share holder, so did her success and record cutting get bought with her daddy’s money. She is acting like a spoiled little brat that didn’t get her way. Her dad and management team could’ve advised her what she was signing when 15, were they not helping her, I doubt it. Plus, it is common place in the industry for artists to sign over rights, it’s the way the business works. She was offered the opportunity to buy them back if she signed, she didn’t. It’s a business deal, it’s not controlling, it’s ok I turn back over ownership of the material, by her signing on contract gives them a chance to recoup those possible foregone revenues. It’s business people, don’t forget to look at that.
July 1, 2019 @ 12:50 pm
Taylor Swift has every right to feel like she should own her masters, or at least have the opportunity to buy them back. Most anyone can sympathize with this, like someone taking your family photos, and holding them for ransom for you. However nobody is going to sympathize with Taylor Swift as a victim of the system at large. There’s arguably never been a bigger beneficiary of it. She got swept up in the emotion of it all and probably embellished her role as a victim. But it doesn’t mean she doesn’t have an underlying point.
July 1, 2019 @ 3:50 pm
That analogy doesn’t work, Trigger. No one stole her masters. She signed a contract with Big Machine. In exchange for a chance at everlasting fame and riches, and funding, they would take her on and have the rights to her songs.
It is not even close to the same thing. In your example, some thief broke into my house and swiped my family photos when in reality, Big Machine stole nothing. And 99% of family photos have no value. Swift’s masters do.
It is all feelings over facts.
July 1, 2019 @ 11:26 am
So what does this all mean for Midland, who are signed to Big Machine?
July 1, 2019 @ 12:47 pm
Midland is another band that definitely could be affected. At this point we don’t really know how all of this is going to shake out. A more traditionally-sounding band like Midland might get left out in the cold in the formation of Scott Borchetta’s “pop cultural super power.” They could also benefit from it. We’ll just have to see. But I definitely think it’s important to be aware.
July 1, 2019 @ 12:39 pm
I very much doubt this Braun guy can be as bad as Swift makes out.
July 1, 2019 @ 3:59 pm
I read a blurb today (didn’t pursue it) that he’s being courted for gov of ca- not much credibility to be gained in that-
July 1, 2019 @ 1:15 pm
I totally understand the necessity of this article on your website, Trigger. I wish there was a way this whole label could up and move to California or some other “Pop music haven.” The fact that a record label on music row will now be owned by people with intentions of making it have “more pop culture super-power than ever before” is very concerning for the distribution of real country music. Real country artists have to work hard enough as it is to get their work out to the public and now with the words like “super-power” coming from the mouths of record label executives on music row?? Yikes!!
July 1, 2019 @ 1:27 pm
The Major take away is, that artists should sign with Independent labels , read all the fine print. Keep your rights to your music if you really want to.
Taylor may have a point, but she still sounds like a priveleged brat with her blog. Her Dad and the lawyers must have known about everything up front . And since her Dad was still a shareholder, he knew about the sale for sure. Or any other impending sales or offers.
Possibly current artists will use this for their own negotiations and hopefully they have better lawyers. At least they were not tied up since the age of 15 with Borchetta. I have read it takes around 1 million dollars to support a new artist, so she was a nobody in the beginning. But once she started making money , her Dad and and the lawyers could have negotiated better.
July 1, 2019 @ 1:32 pm
FYI – For those wondering who has ever recorded for Big Machine:
Current Roster:
Brett Young
Carly Pearce
Cheap Trick
Dan Smalley
Danielle Bradbury
Eli Young Band
FGL
Jennifer Nettles
Josh Phillips
Justin Moore
Lady Antebellum
Lauren Jenkins
Midland
Rascal Flatts
Reba
Riley Green
Ronnie Dunn
Sheryl Crow
Sugarland
Cadallic Three
Thomas Rhett
Tyler Rich
Drake White
Aaron Lewis
Some notable former artists that once recorded for Big Machine:
Jack Ingram, Tim McGraw, Sunny Sweeny, Trisha Yearwood, Martina McBride, Hank Jr., Jimmy Wayne, Emerson Drive, Mavericks, Raelynn, The Band Perry, Greg Bates, Jackie Lee, Cassadee Pope, A Thousand Horses, Ashley Campbell, Maddie & Tae, Steven Tyler, and Zac Brown Band
July 1, 2019 @ 2:24 pm
Dan & Shay must be smiling with the leverage they have just been provided with. Warner must be scrambling behind the scenes to keep them since they invested a lot of $$$ in their boyband over the last couple of years. It would be interesting to see when Scooter Braun’s coercive power wins this battle.
November 7, 2019 @ 7:27 pm
………all of the ones listed did so after Taylor took the Big Machine label into orbit. Taylor Swift put Borchetta where he is today. As a human being, Borchetta is a worm. He should have gifted those masters to her. Greed is why he doesn’t. Taylor’s smarter than Scott Borchetta. I’m curious as to what her dad has to say about it. He’ll never say but I’m still curious.
July 1, 2019 @ 5:05 pm
Slightly off topic, but to those criticising Taylor’s parents for signing the deal, have you heard the Adam Caroll song ‘Old child country star’ about the guy whose uncle didn’t sign the deal for him and so he never got beyond singing at a bar?
Its a tough choice but it was probably the right one at the time.
July 1, 2019 @ 5:44 pm
Taylor Swift’s heroism is so grand that words can almost not describe it.
This is the most heroic that she’s been since she testified in court on behalf of a radio station that was being sued by a d.j. whom they fired for grabbing T.S.’s a-s-s (which is how she kept referring to it–sans the hyphens–on the witness stand). I believe she was nominated for the Congressional Medal oh Honor in that instance.
July 1, 2019 @ 7:54 pm
Oh, the suckitude of the life that Taylor must lead. How will she ever live with herself while not having control over her terrible music? I hope Kanye is somehow involved.
July 2, 2019 @ 7:39 am
You sound nice.
July 2, 2019 @ 1:22 am
That’s showbiz, baby!
July 2, 2019 @ 7:02 am
This story is important, but I think it’s a shame that it’s apparently generated about five times the passion of Trigger’s story on PledgeMusic’s failure.
July 2, 2019 @ 11:41 am
She needs a paddling. That is what they used to do with spoiled brats.
July 2, 2019 @ 8:44 pm
She has no say in who she is tied to for the next 20+ years regarding her first 6 albums. She is a slave to 2 men who she loathes. Anyone is their right mind would fight that with everything they have.
July 14, 2019 @ 8:00 am
She didn’t fight it with everything she had. She had enough money to buy the company. Instead she made a lamentful post on her blog. That didn’t cost her a penny. So she didn’t fight this with much at all.
July 3, 2019 @ 4:01 pm
From author Nola Ojomu at Complex “Taylor Swift Has A Long History Of Omitting Facts To Fit Her Own Narrative”. Read it. It offers a great take on Swift and all the examples where she plays the victim to some degree, while not being completely honest to her fans or herself. A lot of this is petty high school drama. She got paid for her music, they kept it. End of deal. Swift certainly could have come to the conclusion buying back her masters would have been a good business deal. That’s how business gets done in the real world. Maybe the owner should have just sold them to her for the $300 million instead of selling the whole company.
July 3, 2019 @ 5:13 pm
No, read this one. It’s not tabloid fodder. https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/02/opinions/taylor-swift-justin-bieber-isnt-a-feud-campoamor/index.html
July 5, 2019 @ 6:57 am
I think folks dislike of Taylor Swift has blinded then to the truth. I don’t remember this vitriol when Prince complained about WB owning his masters. Maybe we should get a sound bite from Reba McEntire, I betcha public opinion will change. Yea TS got emotional probably even attempted a sleigh of hand with the facts but the issue continues to be and will always be that record companies use their considerable bargaining power to get new artists to sign away their masters. Very few artists are in the position to say no because as a new artist you have no bargaining power. Many artists have accepted it as the price of doing business, many artists are afraid to make a fuss because the music industry is a small place and the record companies control your destiny and speaking out could adversely effect the artist and his or her ability to work with the best producers. Speaking out could have you blackballed in the industry. Prince who writes his own music and can play a gazillion instruments and is a Legend so he could not be stopped TS can be since she relies on producers to craft her sound. Let’s see what happens after Lover era is over. I see both sides of the argument but Taylor Swift is different from Sebastian Bach or Justin Beiber, she’s sold 50 million albums and 150 million singles during her time with Big Machine. She’s more than paid them back for the risk they took when she 1st started. Let’s be honest by the time her Fearless album in 2010 dropped and she sold a million albums the 1st week, Big Machine was basically managing her career and spending less money to promote her as she became a household name and folks were paying Big Machine to have her show up. That’s when she started touring. Her 1st tour made around 66 million but by the end of her contract her last tour made 345 million. Yes artists make their money on tours but studio gets part of that as well. So let’s not pretend Big Machine hasn’t recouped the monies spent on Taylor Swift so for them to ask her to work 10 more years in order to get her master is ridiculous, disingenuous, and amounts to indentured servitude. Her attorneys counters were legalize. It’s what attorneys do during contract negotiations. Had they offered her something more reasonable like 2-3 year deal, I’d be like well TS is full of it. But after 13 years of service now asking her to sign with them 10 years more is a bridge too far in my opinion and it’s clear they were trying to keep her masters as long as possible in order to drive up the value of the company for the sale.
July 5, 2019 @ 8:26 am
The author of the article you cite conveniently omits the fact Taylor Swift is worth hundreds of millions of dollars and could have bought back the masters herself. All of this rings hollow when there are millions of women fighting for greater things than money and climbing the business ladder. Try reading the book about Loretta Lynn called “Coal Miner’s Daughter” for some insight about a woman climbing up from a poor upbringing and truly making something of herself.
July 5, 2019 @ 9:34 pm
She wasn’t given the option to buy her masters. Borchetta didn’t give her the option because he wanted to sell his business and maximize what he could get by keeping her masters as part of the deal. So he sold her work to a prick. Hence, she’s pissed.
July 7, 2019 @ 9:25 am
Being worth a certain amount and having the actual money to buy back master recordings are 2 totally different things. Like Trigger, I’m waiting for the dust to settle because there is more to this story than what meets the eye.
July 6, 2019 @ 7:17 am
She knows hard ball when she sees it. Some would say she plays it pretty well herself.
July 6, 2019 @ 4:45 pm
No way, I was able to read through all those comments. Here’s what this is really about & it’s simple. Two basic rules = Do not do deals @ the crossroads & do not do deals unless an attorney involved with music takes a look at your contract!
July 9, 2019 @ 2:18 pm
I think people need to take off their Taylor Swift goggles for a moment and realize that Taylor Swift omits facts and embellishes parts of the story to help fit her narrative. When you have very famous people standing up and speaking very highly of the guy who bought the record company, the facts don’t seem to add up correctly. Plus she’s hawking a new album and what better way to draw attention to that than crying about how you were wronged. There was nothing illegal about this sale. She signed the deal. She could have signed with Thirty Tigers and kept all her masters. Big Machine offered a buttload of money. She took it and lost the masters. Cry foul all you want but there was nothing nefarious going on. Unless you think a business deal she didn’t know about was a crime.