Scooter Braun refutes (Taylor's Version) of master recordings battle
The record exec says he offered to sell Taylor Swift back the master recordings of her first six albums, but she refused to negotiate
Music News Scooter Braun
Scooter Braun gave a new interview (to Variety) this week, with the billion-dollar dealmaker and record exec going on in length about his partnership with Korean record label Hybe, his long-time relationship with artists like Justin Bieber and Ariana Grande, and his thoughts on a peaceful resolution to the Israel-Palestine conflict. (No, really; they asked!) None of which anyone is likely to have paid especially large amounts of notice to, since they were presumably speed-scrolling through the entire conversation looking for the part where Braun talked about Taylor Swift.
Braun’s public narrative has been inextricably linked to Swift’s star for a few years now, ever since the Red artist let it be known how unhappy she was that the exec—who managed Kanye West during many of the heights of his “Screwing with Taylor Swift” career—had purchased the master recordings of her first six albums when he bought her former label Big Machine Records. Notably, Swift was decidedly un-shy about mobilizing her fanbase to pressure Braun into selling her the rights to her music back—which, Braun swears, he tried to do.
“All of what happened has been very confusing and not based on anything factual,” Braun said in the interview. “I don’t know what story she was told. I asked for her to sit down with me several times, but she refused. I offered to sell her the catalog back and went under NDA, but her team refused. It all seems very unfortunate…I find her to be an incredibly talented artist and wish her nothing but the best.”
All of which, weirdly, tracks more closely than you might expect with what Swift herself said about the attempted deal on Twitter last year. The major difference in the stories stretches back to that NDA Braun mentioned in passing—Swift says that it was incredibly restrictive, and would have basically banned her from saying anything negative about Braun ever again, just to get a seat at the negotiating table. (The Variety interview doesn’t touch on the terms of the agreement, but does note that Braun’s team swears that negotiations had begun in earnest when talks broke down.) The NDA was the non-starter in Swift’s version of events, and so dramatically a non-starter that she went on to refuse business dealings with the private equity firm that ended up buying the masters from Braun, since that deal involved the exec getting a cut of future profits from her songs.
It remains to be seen whether this latest bit of press will shake off Braun’s sole public identity as “that guy who Taylor Swift hates.” (He noted that he’s especially unhappy about having been labeled a “bully” in the exchange.) Swift, meanwhile, is now nearly two albums into her (Taylor’s Version) initiative, in which she re-records all of her old albums to re-capture them from outside control so that this sort of thing never happens again.
65 Comments
(He noted that he’s especially unhappy about having been labeled a “bully” in the exchange.)I don’t know enough about the whole drama to know if ‘bully’ is a fair rap, but anyone who brings an NDA to a music rights negotiation is clearly an asshole.
This.If you demand an NDA be signed before even taking the meeting, which means you can go in in bad faith knowing you won’t accept any deal whatsoever, you just want the NDA signed so they won’t talk bad about you.You’re probably as asshole.
If you’re doing hardball negotiations, why would you ever want those negotiation tactics to be disclosed?Sorta seems like standard procedure. You don’t hear about what happened in settling those settlements that have NDAs on them before those settlements are settled.You never hear like, “he settled for $10 million in the trial, but the settlement negotiation wasn’t under NDA so the lawyer and plantiff told us this is what happened during it.”
Eh, I can think of 100s of reasons I’d want an NDA before doing something like this. Two issues right off the top if I offer T. Swift a price and the deal falls thru I don’t want to be locked into that price with the next party I negotiate with. They want the deal I offered her and maybe that deal was just for her. Second, in the same way it might effect negotiations with other artist. Maybe I want to charge Paul McCarthy more than T. Swift but if the terms of my previous negotiations get made public I can’t.
I don’t know enough about the whole drama to know if ‘bully’ is a fair rap, but anyone who brings an NDA to a music rights negotiation is clearly an asshole. That’s probably true, but at the same time, agreements like that are pretty common.Before negotiations, after negotiations, before court proceedings, after court proceedings . Basically they’re going to settle for X million dollars at some point, and no one will admit fault.
But if it’s true that the NDA included “you can’t say unflattering things about me ever again”, then yeah fuck him for ever.
That’s the problem, though. It could range from “Don’t ever say anything bad about me, ever” (which, fuck that) up to “hey, don’t tell people what we’re willing to charge you so we can negotiate each artist separately.” (which, isn’t great but not the worst thing in the world)
Exactly. ‘Cause the second one is a component of a confidential business agreement, while the first is weaselly bullshit. She’s apparently alleged that the NDA included the weaselly bullshit, and if that’s true then i wouldn’t have signed it either.
Hell how about I plan on still running this business after these negotiations and it will hurt my business if you, a powerful person with lots of money and legions of fans, talk shit about my company.
i can’t imagine why you might want that clause when you are dealing with a person who built a significant part of the rise of their musical career on the concept of bad mouthing their ex-partners.
Meh. She says her piece, he says his piece. If one of them slanders the other, then they go to court.
yeah, but you need something to go to court on. The US has extremely difficult to prove slander or libel laws. That is why Swift was able to become well known for writing songs going after all of her old boyfriends without any of them being able to sue her for libel or slander. dealing with someone with that history and deserved reputation, i would want some sort of written guarantee that she wouldn’t put me in her next album. That way even if she used euphimisms, i could sue her
I’ll say this: i’m not a Swifty. I’m pretty sure i’ve never heard one of her songs all the way thru. I’ve heard enough snippets to gather that she’s not for me. So i don’t know the answer to this question:
Has she actually sung things about any of her exes that skirt that line of being actionable? Or is just the usual broken-heart stuff, except it’s salacious because people think they know who it’s about?My feeling is that, if i had a strong sense that the person i was about to get into business with was probably going to say untrue and damaging things about me, i probably just wouldn’t get into business with that person. Or, if i really wanted/couldn’t avoid said business relationship, i’d be prepared to give interviews from time to time in which i said, “She seems to be alluding to me, but what she said isn’t true.”Unless, of course, what i wanted to keep her from saying were true things about me… In which case, i hope i’d be adult enough to just take my lumps like a man.
Libel laws are the barrier protecting T Swift from legal action over her mountain of nondescript heartbreak songs. You heard it here first.
It’s not the MOST promising thing (and I don’t fully trust him) but Taylor has legions of loyal fans and she is not shy about using them to put pressure on people. (Ginny and George… and during WOMEN’S HISTORY MONTH, PEOPLE.) In some cases, I might bring an NDA as well to avoid some unneeded trial by public.
Sorry but I will never back anyone named Scooter. I’m gonna have to go with team Swifty on this one.
What about Scooter from Sex and the City? Weren’t you rooting for the lil’ guy?
No, especially not him
Yeah, this guy should lose just on the basis that his name is “Scooter” and that he’s decided to keep it. I mean, if I was named “Scooter,” that name would have been changed when I turned 18.
And Braun is brown in German, so a “brown scooter” speaks a piece of shit to me.
All I can think of is the angry redneck from “South Park” who’s constantly trying to pick fights.
What about successful German hardcore techno outfit Scooter?Do they not have your back??
Never!
Man, that’s disappointing. I’ll go and tell frontman HP Baxxter, he’ll be so bummed.
Ok, he’s fine
Especially when your given name is “Scott”. Jeeshush, why intentionally use the nickname of a 9 year old?
Hmmm.There was Scooter Gennett, 2nd base for my Nashville Sounds and Milwaukee Brewers. He was pretty great for us..And there’s Scott Nichol, forward for my Nashville Predators, and still in our system as GM of the Milwaukee Admirals and Director Player Development. His teammates called Scooter (i think because in his prime he was a very fast skater), and he was and is pretty great for us.Other than that, yeah, keep a wide berth of Scooters. They’re not even supposed to be on the sidewalk. (This is a very good pun.)
Scooter Braun refutes (Taylor’s Version) of master recordings battleThere’s gotta be a term for it, where someone uses the wrong word and it somehow drives the right word out of your head and it takes a lot longer to figure out what that correct one actually is than it would have taken otherwise.Anyway. No, not “refutes”. Scooter Braun disputes.
Seems like the correct word to me. What doesn’t work is the sentence structure itself–the parentheses in particular.
The parentheses are wrong grammatically. They are, imo, still clever because of how Taylor Swift has been naming her re-releases.
I dunno, refute usually means proving something to be false, while dispute is to contend in argument against something. In this case he seems to be refuting against claims by (attempting) to prove them as false with the details of the NDA described in the article. I guess they kind of weirdly might both work in this case?
It’s ALSO means “deny or contradict (a statement or accusation)”.
Dispute is an improvement (in that it’s a valid word to use here, unlike ‘refute’, which definitively sides with Braun), but I think a more precise word would be ‘rebut’.
I have no particular skin in this game, but there’s a troubling tendency for people to trust the “he” of a he-said-she-said more than the “she”–like how Amber Heard was turned against as one by social media because of claims that Johnny Depp made that were no more or less concrete than her claims–and the truth is always more complicated.
I don’t think many people will side with Braun on this considering how long Swift has been at it, how frustrating it’s been and how he’s some rich executive. The Heard-Depp situation also isn’t exactly a great comparison to this, since if anything the takeaway was that in that case two bad people were going at it.
Seems like it’s the other way around because she is famous and beloved by the public while he is not famous outside industry/fan circles and the general perception of music executives is not good. Personally I hate both of them for doing everything in their power to encourage the popification of country music. Chet Atkins did the same thing in the 60s but at least he could play and appreciate the good stuff even if he knew it wouldn’t sell.
I’m more surprised we didn’t believe the “her” side* of this since Amber Heard’s ex-girlfriend accused her of abuse before dropping the claims when lawyers got involved.*The her side being Amber Heard’s ex girlfriend.
Are you really surprised, though? I’m assuming you’re referring to Tasya van Ree, who was less famous and coded as the more “masculine” of the pair, which fits neatly into outdated ideas about who can be abused in a relationship; plus, people do love to titter at dyke drama, which was one of Van Ree’s complaints about how the issue was handled when she issued her statement about it:“In 2009, Amber was wrongfully accused for an incident that was misinterpreted and over-sensationalized by two individuals in a power position,” the statement read.“I recount hints of misogynistic attitudes toward us which later appeared to be homophobic when they found out we were domestic partners and not just ‘friends’. Charges were quickly dropped and she was released moments later.”https://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/celebrity/amber-heards-ex-tasya-van-ree-says-2009-domestic-violence-arrest-was-misunderstanding-20160610-gpfxhe.html
Look, you two. You’re both kinda in the wrong here. So just let me own the rights to Taylor Swift’s music. It’s only fair.
I support this plan.
I’ve worked in the industry for over 40 years. Anything this creature says is suspect. He works in an industry best described by Hunter S. Thompson. He’s successful at it. Nuff said.
Taylor Swift is the most disingenuous pop star I have ever seen in my life.Calling her a liar is not strong enough.
Let’s see… do we trust the guy who ended up with the master recordings as part of a deal with a label, or do we trust the lady who notably rallied her fans to attack a little seen TV show and then said nothing when some of those same fans hurled racist insults at the show’s minor star?This is a case where I don’t really trust Scooter’s version, nor do I trust Taylor’s, so I’m gonna say they’re both awful, awful people, and they should settle their petty dispute privately instead of just trying to have a contest in the court of public opinion on who’s the “good one.”
I’ve got an off topic question regarding Taylor Swift. There is a commercial where Taylor Swift opens up a closet full of identical cardigans and chooses one because it’s going to be a chilly day. Is she known for cardigans or something, i’m confused by this dumb commercial every time i see it.
Haven’t seen that ad, but I’d bet it’s meant to be a play on this cut from her Folklore album last year! The “cardigan” is referenced again in another song later on the record (“Betty”) so I suppose that was enough to make her the cardigan-girl for synergistic ad purposes. Hope this helps!
It absolutely does, thank you, because it’s the same dumb sweater as the end of that video.
Here is the ad, btw
By the way he says “we went under NDA,” which is the legal jargon used when you actually execute an NDA, so he either mispeaks or implies they signed.
This man and everyone like him in the entertainment industry should be stuck in a cell and left to rot.
Whatever happened between Braun and Swift, anyone so smug and self-satisfied he lets people call him “Scooter” into his forties has earned universal contempt.
Yeah, people who are comfortable with who they are really suck, don’t they?
I’m gonna unabashedly read between the lines here and conclude that Scooter Braun is a straight up sociopath and manipulator.I’m not going to elaborate.
It’s a rare artist that owns their early recordings. Frank Zappa, Prince, maybe Stevie Wonder. The Rolling Stones don’t. I don’t think the Beatles do, either. Saying “It’s not fair” years later is pointless.
This is my biggest thing, she signed a contract giving away her rights to that music. She wasn’t forced or coerced into it, she would have had agent/manager/lawyer/family all look over that first contract and all say “It’s standard for the industry, you won’t own the recordings but you do get to be a music star”.It’s just how the music industry is, especially for first contracts with no-name people. All they see is fame and fortune so they sign without thinking long term, how is that Scooters or anyone else’s fault? She could have demanded to keep the rights to her music and the original label could have told her to pound salt and do it on her own but she didn’t, got rich and famous and now cries foul? Fuck off.(Note, Micheal Jackson actually owned the Beatles songs…not sure about now. I know one of the surviving members tried to buy them back at some point)
She wasn’t forced, but she was certainly coerced – the only reason she’d have signed away her rights was that it was, as you say, ‘standard for the industry’. That is, someone like her is unable to get her songs published by a major company without agreeing to an exploitative term that is imposed in a price-fixing arrangement by a oligopoly. She was hardly presented with a free and fair choice – it’s not “or you can get 10% less money but you keep your rights”, it’s “give us all the rights or else no deal”. And it’s only because of market dominance and tacit agreement between the major players that this is able to happen.The contract may be legally binding, but a party to an unequal contract absolutely has a right to complain about it!
She doesn’t have a birth right to be a major label supported musician. You’re exactly right, she could have told them no and they could have said “fine, we won’t sign you”. That’s the literal deal she made: She makes music for them, they pay for it and promote it. She gets paid to make the music and perform the music, they own the recordings that they paid for. She could have done it all on her own, no one was stopping her. She could have found a very small label that gave her ownership over the masters. Would have it been much harder? Sure would, with a very good chance she would have never made it as big as she did or at all but she would have owned any recordings. She made a decision that would have been explicitly laid out to her, she has to learn to live with it or pay fair market value for the masters (or re-record in this case).I don’t have sympathy for a millionaire whining that they can’t get a little bit richer because of a contract they signed….that helped make them a millionaire.
Big Machine Records was a small label when se signed, and her father had helped grow it. She wanted to buy the records, but they didn’t give her a price and didn’t let her buy em, after that turns out they had sold it to the worst person she could imagine, Scooter who she had a story before
Good lord in heaven, I had to scroll so far down to find someone with a brain. This isn’t even a fight. If she had a legal leg to stand on, she’d be in court. She signed those papers fair & square, so she should’ve just taken the L and continued counting her millions. But no, she loves drama too much.
Scooter is probably not that great of a person but Taylor Swift can fuck off. There was no shady shit, she never owned those original recordings, she signed a contract giving up those rights and now cries foul. Don’t like it? Don’t sign that original contract where it would have explicitly stated she didn’t own the masters or pay the current owner (whoever it is) for the rights back. Getting your fan base all riled up isn’t going to do anything other than make you look like a whiney brat.
I’d love to take Taylor’s side, but ever since that 60 mins interview like 15 years ago, you know the one, where she claimed that her “shocked” face when she would come on stage and people where actually in attendance, was a genuine reaction. Like, gtfo here with that bullshit. Oh you were shocked that your concert, that was sold out, actually had people in attendance? How disingenuous can one be? She’s as fake as her song writing credits.
Hot take but I don’t like this Scooter guy