Taylor Swift acts like a child at nearly 30!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:what exactly does this mean? Does she have to pay him to play her old songs?

No, she'll still receive royalties off the music they own. It means that Scooter has control over what happens to her songs, like, where and if they get played.

Her music sucks, so hopefully he’ll throw it in a vault never to be played.

She is obnoxious and Her frequent tantrums are getting old, but her music is no worse than 99% of the current artists out there. She caters to tweens and young teens and puts on a clean show. So long as that is her market she’s going to keep raking in the dough. And frankly - good for her.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's a business transaction. Why is she dredging up old crap?

Not enough drama in her life, I guess. Plus she has a new album coming out.

Because either you agree or don’t agree that artists should be able to own their own, or at least part of their own, music /artistry.

Because she was never actually given the opportunity to own her own music.

Because nothing changes if nothing changes.

Because someone like Scooter Braun looks specifically for young, unknowns? Yep, that’s business, but I don’t think it’s exactly fate and chance that’s who his clients are. Part of his philanthropy work could be ensuring these artists get a fair shake, but it isn’t.

Taylor had the opportunity to own her own music. She needs to ask her guardians why they signed away those rights in her contracts when she was under 18.

NP here. If her guardians signed away her rights in her contracts when exactly did she have the opportunity to own the music?

[Anonymous]

Plenty of artists don’t their songs used for commercials etc...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's a business transaction. Why is she dredging up old crap?

Not enough drama in her life, I guess. Plus she has a new album coming out.

Because either you agree or don’t agree that artists should be able to own their own, or at least part of their own, music /artistry.

Because she was never actually given the opportunity to own her own music.

Because nothing changes if nothing changes.

Because someone like Scooter Braun looks specifically for young, unknowns? Yep, that’s business, but I don’t think it’s exactly fate and chance that’s who his clients are. Part of his philanthropy work could be ensuring these artists get a fair shake, but it isn’t.

Taylor had the opportunity to own her own music. She needs to ask her guardians why they signed away those rights in her contracts when she was under 18.

NP here. If her guardians signed away her rights in her contracts when exactly did she have the opportunity to own the music?

She had the opportunity when her guardians were signing her contracts. The people to be pissed at for not letting her own her music is her parents. Unless she had some other guardian signing her contracts, but I thought her mother was her original rep. If her music was so important to her why did her parents sign her rights away?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:what exactly does this mean? Does she have to pay him to play her old songs?

No, she'll still receive royalties off the music they own. It means that Scooter has control over what happens to her songs, like, where and if they get played.

Her music sucks, so hopefully he’ll throw it in a vault never to be played.

She is obnoxious and Her frequent tantrums are getting old, but her music is no worse than 99% of the current artists out there. She caters to tweens and young teens and puts on a clean show. So long as that is her market she’s going to keep raking in the dough. And frankly - good for her.

And that’s why her music sucks. She is an adult pandering to teens who love ppl with no actual talent. Her music is just so poppy and not memorable at all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:what exactly does this mean? Does she have to pay him to play her old songs?

No, she'll still receive royalties off the music they own. It means that Scooter has control over what happens to her songs, like, where and if they get played.

Her music sucks, so hopefully he’ll throw it in a vault never to be played.

I’m guessing the 350 odd million dollars that people paid to see her beg to differ.

Kids love crap. What’s your point?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:what exactly does this mean? Does she have to pay him to play her old songs?

No, she'll still receive royalties off the music they own. It means that Scooter has control over what happens to her songs, like, where and if they get played.

Her music sucks, so hopefully he’ll throw it in a vault never to be played.

She is obnoxious and Her frequent tantrums are getting old, but her music is no worse than 99% of the current artists out there. She caters to tweens and young teens and puts on a clean show. So long as that is her market she’s going to keep raking in the dough. And frankly - good for her.

And that’s why her music sucks. She is an adult pandering to teens who love ppl with no actual talent. Her music is just so poppy and not memorable at all.

I'm not a teen and I like her music. I'm not a fan but I like pop and her music is poppy. Other people don't like her music. That's fine. What does it have to do with her being unable to own or purchase the rights to her own music?

[Anonymous]

Taylor Swift is always in a fight or feud with someone. It is getting so boring.

Now she doesn’t like the man who bought the company that she willingly left? Tiresome.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:what exactly does this mean? Does she have to pay him to play her old songs?

No, she'll still receive royalties off the music they own. It means that Scooter has control over what happens to her songs, like, where and if they get played.

Her music sucks, so hopefully he’ll throw it in a vault never to be played.

She is obnoxious and Her frequent tantrums are getting old, but her music is no worse than 99% of the current artists out there. She caters to tweens and young teens and puts on a clean show. So long as that is her market she’s going to keep raking in the dough. And frankly - good for her.

And that’s why her music sucks. She is an adult pandering to teens who love ppl with no actual talent. Her music is just so poppy and not memorable at all.

I'm not a teen and I like her music. I'm not a fan but I like pop and her music is poppy. Other people don't like her music. That's fine. What does it have to do with her being unable to own or purchase the rights to her own music?

Stop! Taylor Swift was given the opportunity to buy back her rights/music and she didn’t like the terms. The point is she sold those right, like most musicians do, and left the label. Her current hissy fit is about the guy who bought the entire label/company - not just her music - and she called him “gross” and a bully.

She doesn’t have the right to bellyache and pout - and certainly needs to grow up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:what exactly does this mean? Does she have to pay him to play her old songs?

No, she'll still receive royalties off the music they own. It means that Scooter has control over what happens to her songs, like, where and if they get played.

Her music sucks, so hopefully he’ll throw it in a vault never to be played.

She is obnoxious and Her frequent tantrums are getting old, but her music is no worse than 99% of the current artists out there. She caters to tweens and young teens and puts on a clean show. So long as that is her market she’s going to keep raking in the dough. And frankly - good for her.

And that’s why her music sucks. She is an adult pandering to teens who love ppl with no actual talent. Her music is just so poppy and not memorable at all.

I'm not a teen and I like her music. I'm not a fan but I like pop and her music is poppy. Other people don't like her music. That's fine. What does it have to do with her being unable to own or purchase the rights to her own music?

Stop! Taylor Swift was given the opportunity to buy back her rights/music and she didn’t like the terms. The point is she sold those right, like most musicians do, and left the label. Her current hissy fit is about the guy who bought the entire label/company - not just her music - and she called him “gross” and a bully.

She doesn’t have the right to bellyache and pout - and certainly needs to grow up.

The label made her. She also made the label.

The music industry, like so many others, is unfair, treats artists terribly, and has no business sense. But since Taylor Swift is obnoxious, it's fine!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:what exactly does this mean? Does she have to pay him to play her old songs?

No, she'll still receive royalties off the music they own. It means that Scooter has control over what happens to her songs, like, where and if they get played.

Her music sucks, so hopefully he’ll throw it in a vault never to be played.

She is obnoxious and Her frequent tantrums are getting old, but her music is no worse than 99% of the current artists out there. She caters to tweens and young teens and puts on a clean show. So long as that is her market she’s going to keep raking in the dough. And frankly - good for her.

And that’s why her music sucks. She is an adult pandering to teens who love ppl with no actual talent. Her music is just so poppy and not memorable at all.

I'm not a teen and I like her music. I'm not a fan but I like pop and her music is poppy. Other people don't like her music. That's fine. What does it have to do with her being unable to own or purchase the rights to her own music?

I like pop music too but hers is like nails on a chalkboard. Guess it’s just too aimed at teens for me to get into. She could’ve purchased her music but didn’t and like a teen she’s whining. I just can’t relate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:what exactly does this mean? Does she have to pay him to play her old songs?

No, she'll still receive royalties off the music they own. It means that Scooter has control over what happens to her songs, like, where and if they get played.

Her music sucks, so hopefully he’ll throw it in a vault never to be played.

She is obnoxious and Her frequent tantrums are getting old, but her music is no worse than 99% of the current artists out there. She caters to tweens and young teens and puts on a clean show. So long as that is her market she’s going to keep raking in the dough. And frankly - good for her.

And that’s why her music sucks. She is an adult pandering to teens who love ppl with no actual talent. Her music is just so poppy and not memorable at all.

I'm not a teen and I like her music. I'm not a fan but I like pop and her music is poppy. Other people don't like her music. That's fine. What does it have to do with her being unable to own or purchase the rights to her own music?

Stop! Taylor Swift was given the opportunity to buy back her rights/music and she didn’t like the terms. The point is she sold those right, like most musicians do, and left the label. Her current hissy fit is about the guy who bought the entire label/company - not just her music - and she called him “gross” and a bully.

She doesn’t have the right to bellyache and pout - and certainly needs to grow up.

The label made her. She also made the label.

The music industry, like so many others, is unfair, treats artists terribly, and has no business sense. But since Taylor Swift is obnoxious, it's fine!

The label that earned her 350 million dollars before the age of 30 and took a chance on her? Yeah, bad people who were mean to little Taylor and her parents! And then offered to sell her back her music and/or buy the label?

Where do you see her being treated terribly? I should be treated as poorly!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:what exactly does this mean? Does she have to pay him to play her old songs?

No, she'll still receive royalties off the music they own. It means that Scooter has control over what happens to her songs, like, where and if they get played.

Her music sucks, so hopefully he’ll throw it in a vault never to be played.

She is obnoxious and Her frequent tantrums are getting old, but her music is no worse than 99% of the current artists out there. She caters to tweens and young teens and puts on a clean show. So long as that is her market she’s going to keep raking in the dough. And frankly - good for her.

And that’s why her music sucks. She is an adult pandering to teens who love ppl with no actual talent. Her music is just so poppy and not memorable at all.

I'm not a teen and I like her music. I'm not a fan but I like pop and her music is poppy. Other people don't like her music. That's fine. What does it have to do with her being unable to own or purchase the rights to her own music?

Stop! Taylor Swift was given the opportunity to buy back her rights/music and she didn’t like the terms. The point is she sold those right, like most musicians do, and left the label. Her current hissy fit is about the guy who bought the entire label/company - not just her music - and she called him “gross” and a bully.

She doesn’t have the right to bellyache and pout - and certainly needs to grow up.

The label made her. She also made the label.

The music industry, like so many others, is unfair, treats artists terribly, and has no business sense. But since Taylor Swift is obnoxious, it's fine!

The label that earned her 350 million dollars before the age of 30 and took a chance on her? Yeah, bad people who were mean to little Taylor and her parents! And then offered to sell her back her music and/or buy the label?

Where do you see her being treated terribly? I should be treated as poorly!!

So you think the fact that she wrote, recorded, and performed most of this music doesn’t mean she should get compensated for that work for the rest of her life? That the personal value of her artistry can gonto any fat cat who was smart enough to sign a contract with her?

I’m also assuming you’ve never copmplained about your boss taking early lunches, doing whatever, while they make more money than you do, and take the credit for yur hard work.

Taylor Swift had no idea, nor did her parents, that she would be TAYLOR SWIFT one day. She’s come a long way since those early days, and that’s where the industry both hedges bets AND preys On young artists.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:what exactly does this mean? Does she have to pay him to play her old songs?

No, she'll still receive royalties off the music they own. It means that Scooter has control over what happens to her songs, like, where and if they get played.

Her music sucks, so hopefully he’ll throw it in a vault never to be played.

She is obnoxious and Her frequent tantrums are getting old, but her music is no worse than 99% of the current artists out there. She caters to tweens and young teens and puts on a clean show. So long as that is her market she’s going to keep raking in the dough. And frankly - good for her.

And that’s why her music sucks. She is an adult pandering to teens who love ppl with no actual talent. Her music is just so poppy and not memorable at all.

I'm not a teen and I like her music. I'm not a fan but I like pop and her music is poppy. Other people don't like her music. That's fine. What does it have to do with her being unable to own or purchase the rights to her own music?

Stop! Taylor Swift was given the opportunity to buy back her rights/music and she didn’t like the terms. The point is she sold those right, like most musicians do, and left the label. Her current hissy fit is about the guy who bought the entire label/company - not just her music - and she called him “gross” and a bully.

She doesn’t have the right to bellyache and pout - and certainly needs to grow up.

The label made her. She also made the label.

The music industry, like so many others, is unfair, treats artists terribly, and has no business sense. But since Taylor Swift is obnoxious, it's fine!

The label that earned her 350 million dollars before the age of 30 and took a chance on her? Yeah, bad people who were mean to little Taylor and her parents! And then offered to sell her back her music and/or buy the label?

Where do you see her being treated terribly? I should be treated as poorly!!

So you think the fact that she wrote, recorded, and performed most of this music doesn’t mean she should get compensated for that work for the rest of her life? That the personal value of her artistry can gonto any fat cat who was smart enough to sign a contract with her?

I’m also assuming you’ve never copmplained about your boss taking early lunches, doing whatever, while they make more money than you do, and take the credit for yur hard work.

Taylor Swift had no idea, nor did her parents, that she would be TAYLOR SWIFT one day. She’s come a long way since those early days, and that’s where the industry both hedges bets AND preys On young artists.

What are you talking about? She will be comp’d on her music for the rest of her life.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Taylor Swift is always in a fight or feud with someone. It is getting so boring.

Now she doesn’t like the man who bought the company that she willingly left? Tiresome.

Thank you, PP. This is it in a nutshell. And, while Taylor continues her hissy fit, Scooter Braun is becoming richer each day. Her first 6 album sales have increased since the feud. Good job, Scooter. Taylor, focus on your current/next tour and grow up. All new artists start out the same way by relinquishing rights to their master recordings for a specified period in exchange for a major record deal, royalties from sales and earnings from concerts. The owner of the record company owns the rights and can do as he pleases. He could have offered Taylor first right of refusal but he decided not to probably because she’s too damn difficult to deal with. He sold to an executive and talent manager that Taylor hates. Reading Scooter’s bio, he doesn’t sound like the monster Taylor is trying to make him out to be. I think it reflects poorly on Taylor more than Scooter or the guy who sold him Taylor’s masters.