Taylor Swift acts like a child at nearly 30!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She wasn’t given a chance to buy it back. She offered to buy it back and they refused, they would only let her get it back if she signed a new contract with them, and then would give her one album back for each new one she created for them.

That is her side of the story. I don’t know the truth either but if her father, who she has a close relationship with, approved the sale, I tend to think she was given the rights to buy her music back.

I agree she is way too old for this childish social media tantrum.

Where are you seeing that her father approved the sale? I can’t find that reported anywhere.

+1. I read that they didn’t tell her father about the sale because they didn’t to take the chance that he would tell Taylor.

Doesn’t surprise me at all. Taylor Swift’s dislike of Scooter Braun is well known, and the way thus all went down feels like retribution for Swift leaving Big Machine.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is my issue with her. Really like her music, it's fun and catchy (honestly - liked some of her older country songs she released when she was younger even better than her current music) but she acts like an immature teen. And I say that as someone who wasn't even aware of this recent drama.

I also agree. I think she’s a very talented songwriter and singer. But she is like stuck as a teenager. It’s bizarre.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is the point to posting it on social media, we can't give her masters back to her? It's bad optics. Take this to court if she has legal standing.

Because record label contracts are hugely asymmetrical, even for Taylor Swift. I guess you don't care...

+1. And the only way for that to change is for the industry dynamics to be mad especially public so that public pressure can do its work.

Come on! Calling someone “gross” and a “bully” isn’t the way to do it. Taylor is nearly 30! Calling the new owner of her early work a poop head and meanie isn’t working.

How is it not working? It made you look.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She wasn’t given a chance to buy it back. She offered to buy it back and they refused, they would only let her get it back if she signed a new contract with them, and then would give her one album back for each new one she created for them.

That is her side of the story. I don’t know the truth either but if her father, who she has a close relationship with, approved the sale, I tend to think she was given the rights to buy her music back.

I agree she is way too old for this childish social media tantrum.

Where are you seeing that her father approved the sale? I can’t find that reported anywhere.

+1. I read that they didn’t tell her father about the sale because they didn’t to take the chance that he would tell Taylor.

Not true. And this I know for a fact. Her father and the former owner both told Taylor about the sale.

LOL, sure you do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is the point to posting it on social media, we can't give her masters back to her? It's bad optics. Take this to court if she has legal standing.

Because record label contracts are hugely asymmetrical, even for Taylor Swift. I guess you don't care...

+1. And the only way for that to change is for the industry dynamics to be mad especially public so that public pressure can do its work.

Come on! Calling someone “gross” and a “bully” isn’t the way to do it. Taylor is nearly 30! Calling the new owner of her early work a poop head and meanie isn’t working.

How is it not working? It made you look.

Yes, it made me look but not favorably. That’s the point.

[Anonymous]

Taylor’s baby act looks pretty ridiculous now. She’s too old for it.

Btw, the mean, “gross” guy who bought her former label is only 35. They could have been in high school together at the same time - they are generational contemporaries. So the little-girl act really doesn’t work here.

[Anonymous]

She's got my sympathy. FWIW

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:She's got my sympathy. FWIW

Not mine.

She is a petulant child and has been since she came out. She cannot sing or dance. I will give it to her that she can write a catchy song but nothing memorable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She's got my sympathy. FWIW

Not mine.

She is a petulant child and has been since she came out. She cannot sing or dance. I will give it to her that she can write a catchy song but nothing memorable.

And she doesn't own her own music. Like her or hate her, does that make sense?

[Anonymous]

Taylor is pretty business savvy when it comes to song and record promotion. At the end of her rant she promotes her new album being released next month. This is really all just advertising and promotion - create and stir and get people to buy your new music,

She is now turning this into a big online thing and her rabid fans will attack Scooter. Scooter's wife has already posted asking to be left alone.

[Anonymous]

Taylor always has drama before an album release,

Katy Perry drama

Kardashian . Kanye phone call

this is nothing new.

[Anonymous]

Stupid question but what does it mean in practical/logistical terms that Braun owns her catalog?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She wasn’t given a chance to buy it back. She offered to buy it back and they refused, they would only let her get it back if she signed a new contract with them, and then would give her one album back for each new one she created for them.

That is her side of the story. I don’t know the truth either but if her father, who she has a close relationship with, approved the sale, I tend to think she was given the rights to buy her music back.

I agree she is way too old for this childish social media tantrum.

Where are you seeing that her father approved the sale? I can’t find that reported anywhere.

+1. I read that they didn’t tell her father about the sale because they didn’t to take the chance that he would tell Taylor.

Why would she (so blatantly and publicly) lie about this?

Not true. And this I know for a fact. Her father and the former owner both told Taylor about the sale.

[Anonymous]

^^ OOPs, my post was embedded. Meant to ask — why would she lie?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:^^ OOPs, my post was embedded. Meant to ask — why would she lie?

Publicity. She linked her new album to the “poor little me” diatribe. She always does this. And, yes - it’s getting old.