Scooter Braun: I don’t know Taylor Swift | I'll never truly understand that situation

[Duolingo 160,501]

Scooter Braun opens up about his feud with Taylor Swift, saying he "never truly understood the situation": 

"I don’t know Taylor Swift. I think I’ve met her in my life three times. I have never had a substantial conversation with her in my life. I one time got invited to a private party by her. She told me she had the utmost respect for me. I told her I had the most respect for her. You don’t spend $300 million buying a label that she’s on unless you’re excited at the opportunity to work with her. I will never truly understand that situation. To this day, I wish her nothing but the best." 

“I learned a tremendous amount from it. I chose to grow from it. I’m grateful for it at this point in my life. But I think there’s this big misconception that, like, we knew each other and we had this feud and I managed her for years. And people are usually shocked to find out that I legitimately don’t know her and didn’t have many interactions with her and never really knew her." 

 

[onTheBrink 439]

He's probably not very nice behind the scenes because most of them aren't. However, he did nothing wrong when it came to her masters. Taylor Swift is a professional victim.

[AVeryGagaHolyDick 31,169]

11 minutes ago, onTheBrink said:

He's probably not very nice behind the scenes because most of them aren't. However, he did nothing wrong when it came to her masters. Taylor Swift is a professional victim.

Buying the masters was creepy af though. It was legal, but it’s twisted

[Hadrian 2,170]

I'm sure "iT's nOt tHe sAmE tHiNg" but nobody I've ever personally known has ever been excited when their apartment complex was bought out by someone else, or when their workplace was been merged into a larger company. 

[Jill 31,556]

19 minutes ago, onTheBrink said:

He's probably not very nice behind the scenes because most of them aren't. However, he did nothing wrong when it came to her masters. Taylor Swift is a professional victim.

 

Just now, Hadrian said:

I'm sure "iT's nOt tHe sAmE tHiNg" but nobody I've ever personally known has ever been excited when their apartment complex was bought out by someone else, or when their workplace was been merged into a larger company. 

The objective thing to point out here is that, apart from Scooter Braun, the main issue was one of artists and their relationship with copyright. Taylor argued (accurately) that it isn't fair for artists to not own the masters to the work they made. This helped change old practices in the industry for the better.

[Gagasdisease 336]

7 minutes ago, Jill said:

 

The objective thing to point out here is that, apart from Scooter Braun, the main issue was one of artists and their relationship with copyright. Taylor argued (accurately) that it isn't fair for artists to not own the masters to the work they made. This helped change old practices in the industry for the better.

Agree BUT she did sign that contract and basically wanted to get away with it later on and it's just not how it works...

At least the media attention on this served as a lesson to every artist out there watching

[Jill 31,556]

1 minute ago, Gagasdisease said:

Agree BUT she did sign that contract and basically wanted to get away with it later on and it's just not how it works...

She signed it when she was a teenager. That's the point. The industry doesn't have your best interests at heart.

Edited Friday at 12:23 AM by Jill

[Gagasdisease 336]

2 minutes ago, Jill said:

She signed it when she was a teenager. That's the point. The industry doesn't have your best interests at heart.

No it doesn't. But a contract is a contract. If you're a teenager then your parents have to look out for you. 
While I agree that artists should own their masters, at the end of the day, she/her parents signed them away. It doesn't make what he did ethical but she or her parents are not victims either if no one forced them to sign that contract.

[dit 46,725]

he is so manipulative and gross. For years he planted stories against her and even got his artists (Justin Bieber included) to literally post mocking her online for the whole Snake Gate thing lol. Then to rub it in he bought her masters in a sneaky deal. While it was legal...imagine having someone who dislikes u and you dislike buying your life's work. it feels cruel and like he wanted her under his foot.

Edited Friday at 12:51 AM by dit

[gagzus 21,169]

Him saying he never understood the situation but he sold her masters back to her last year because the original tracks weren’t making him money anymore, so he clearly DID understand.

I whack on Taylor a lot on here and even to do with the masters situation, but that being said he shouldn’t have bought the rights to a STRANGER’S music 

[jackweller 521]

[Alxjcgn 2,070]

1 hour ago, Gagasdisease said:

No it doesn't. But a contract is a contract. If you're a teenager then your parents have to look out for you. 
While I agree that artists should own their masters, at the end of the day, she/her parents signed them away. It doesn't make what he did ethical but she or her parents are not victims either if no one forced them to sign that contract.

I still find it shocking her parents didn't have a lawyer or anything help understand the contract... maybe not a fair contract but I really doubt they snuck it in there that she wouldn't own the masters. 

 

1 hour ago, Gagasdisease said:

Agree BUT she did sign that contract and basically wanted to get away with it later on and it's just not how it works...

At least the media attention on this served as a lesson to every artist out there watching

It did definitely help out the system and artists deserve to own their masters

Edited Friday at 01:59 AM by Alxjcgn

[Jill 31,556]

2 hours ago, Alxjcgn said:

I still find it shocking her parents didn't have a lawyer or anything help understand the contract... maybe not a fair contract but I really doubt they snuck it in there that she wouldn't own the masters. 

You're arguing against a strawman without mentioning several important facts. To start with, in the industry the company and the executives obviously always have more leverage. This makes it difficult for artists working conditions to improve, even with lawyers, because there is always the (fairly easy and straightforward) option to fire them or sign someone else.

Secondly, in the past, the industry's contractual practices were much more severe, and you barely ever heard of any "artist as auteur" movement outside of experimental indie music, independent record labels, etc. The vast majority of the time, the leverage was so immense that it was all-encompassing.

Thirdly, the problem didn't start with Taylor Swift waking up one day and saying "I want my masters", but rather because Scooter Braun bought them (by buying Big Machine) without any intervention or negotiation with Taylor, who accounted for a huge percentage of that purchase. He later sold them without doing anything of the sort either. The record label also denied her a right of first refusal and refused to even consider her offer for the masters. The subsequent moves by both parties did something that hadn't been achievable in a long time, which is establishing the artist's right as an auteur to control the copyright or master of their creations.

Record labels ARE NOT the creators of the music, yet until a few years ago (and even now), they continue to be the ones financially speculating and massively benefitting on all these products. Beyond the details, what all of this also did is allow up-and-coming artists (a famous example being Olivia Rodrigo) to have significantly more leverage than they would have had in the past, thanks to the fact that record labels now know the public is no longer really on their side.