Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CNBC)   Private equity firm buys Taylor Swift's masters for over $300 million and she suddenly realizes she was a slave all along   (cnbc.com) divider line
    More: Interesting  
•       •       •

1216 clicks; posted to Entertainment » and Main » on 17 Nov 2020 at 12:05 PM (9 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



74 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2020-11-17 10:16:43 AM  
To be fair, she's one hellaciously well-paid "slave."
/commercial music is a commodity, Ric Romero reports...
//support independent music
///no, it's Becky
 
2020-11-17 11:15:04 AM  
I'll keep streaming this kind of stuff from youtube or my free spotify account. I can't even begin to recall the last commercial album I bought that wasn't straight from an artist. Copyright laws have been broken for years and I refuse to respect them.
 
2020-11-17 11:23:24 AM  
Scooter pocketed a shiatton of cash made off her back. He barely lifted a finger. Capitalism for the win.
 
2020-11-17 11:27:33 AM  
"This is the second time my music had been sold without my knowledge," Swift said in her Twitter post Monday.

I don't agree with this. We all shrug and accept vulture capitalists consuming everything. Why? This kind of bullsh*t damages the industry and hurts the artists.

According to Swift, Shamrock said that before the sale Braun had required that the firm make no contact with her or her team, or the deal would not go ahead.

The singer said that she also learned from Shamrock that under the deal Braun would continue to profit from her old music catalog, consisting of six albums with her former record label Big Machine, "for many years."


And worse:

Swift has been trying buy back her masters for the past year but said Braun's team wanted her to sign an "ironclad" non-disclosure agreement before seeing Big Machine's financial records, "which is always the first steps in a purchase of this nature." The NDA was said to have required her to "never say another word about Scooter Braun unless it was positive."

Swift said her legal team told her this was "absolutely not normal" and that they'd only an NDA like this to "silence an assault accuser by paying them off."


F*ck this system of exploitation.
 
2020-11-17 12:10:26 PM  
No, poor little very rich girl has been carping about it for at least a year.
 
2020-11-17 12:11:07 PM  
You mean to tell me that a popstar who sang about junior high romance up until she was pushing thirty isn't the savviest negotiator?
 
2020-11-17 12:12:10 PM  

edmo: Scooter pocketed a shiatton of cash made off her back. He barely lifted a finger. Capitalism for the win.


And if you read about it he still has control over the music it's just some other entity actually owns them.
 
2020-11-17 12:12:57 PM  
It's clear in this thread that no one has ever created anything worth $300 million.

Idgaf about her music, my sister loves her and that's all that really matters to me.

She definitely needs to dilute their brand. Professional suicide, but that's what I would do - not having more than a few songs to my name.
 
2020-11-17 12:13:44 PM  

Michael J Faux: You mean to tell me that a popstar who sang about junior high romance up until she was pushing thirty isn't the savviest negotiator?


Or maybe it's a system designed to suck in, chew up, and spit out young artists before they have the resources and connections to be able to fight back. Just saying.
 
2020-11-17 12:14:00 PM  
Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2020-11-17 12:15:09 PM  

KiltedBastich: Michael J Faux: You mean to tell me that a popstar who sang about junior high romance up until she was pushing thirty isn't the savviest negotiator?

Or maybe it's a system designed to suck in, chew up, and spit out young artists before they have the resources and connections to be able to fight back. Just saying.


Both can be true.
 
2020-11-17 12:22:19 PM  
An interesting game, aspiring musicians.

The only winning move is not to play.
 
2020-11-17 12:22:23 PM  
If she was enslaved, and I am totally willing to take her word on it, the entire might of the US military needs to descend on the music industry to liberate artists and kill slavers.  Slavery is wrong, and we should use every weapon in the universe to stop them.  If the slavers surrender, we need to hold slavery trials in public.  And hang the slavers after they are found guilty.

No mercy for slavery.  Total destruction of slavers.
 
2020-11-17 12:23:25 PM  

KiltedBastich: Michael J Faux: You mean to tell me that a popstar who sang about junior high romance up until she was pushing thirty isn't the savviest negotiator?

Or maybe it's a system designed to suck in, chew up, and spit out young artists before they have the resources and connections to be able to fight back. Just saying.


No its Becky.
 
2020-11-17 12:29:16 PM  
She is worth 360 million.  She could buy it, stil be worth 60 milion, and then leverage it to get her money back.

if I had 360 million you would never see me again wearing clothes or without a drink in my hand while I was going full Marlin Brando on my private island.
 
2020-11-17 12:33:18 PM  
And she can get them back if she performs for each of the firms' execs' kids' birthday parties for the next 10 years.
 
2020-11-17 12:33:34 PM  

Ishkur: An interesting game, aspiring musicians.

The only winning move is not to play.


Musicians these days seem to follow one of two paths. One is hoping for commercial success which involves jumping into the machine that does things like this or going the indie DIY route and having some fun but also knowing you'll always have a day job. You gotta know going into the first one, that you're going to be screwed over and profited from. That's what the whole system is designed to do. Make as much money for a corporation that it can while paying everyone else as little as possible. But if you want to be a Taylor Swift or Beyonce with all the money and fame, you gotta play that game.
 
2020-11-17 1:01:43 PM  
So how much money is she making off these recordings? I mean someone else owns the masters right? But don't they have to pay her royalties (both as the performer and the song writer) every time the songs are played? So if the masters are worth that much she must still be making a shiat ton off those songs.
 
2020-11-17 1:19:16 PM  
I still believe she knew what would happen to her masters when she signed her contract. Doesn't she have another breakup song or five to write? Or another whine about Kanye?
 
2020-11-17 1:26:32 PM  
She needs to write a sassy song about all of this.
 
2020-11-17 1:28:01 PM  
Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2020-11-17 1:40:21 PM  
"This is the second time my music had been sold without my knowledge," Swift said in her Twitter post Monday.

The clue in there is that you already sold it. It's like making a boat and then selling it to someone and going "hey, that's my boat" when they sell it.

It's weird to me that anyone gives this vapid non-entity so much coverage about this rather than laughing in her face. Anyone in the creative industries has this. Don't want someone selling your art? Don't sell it to them.
 
2020-11-17 1:40:58 PM  

mechgreg: So how much money is she making off these recordings? I mean someone else owns the masters right? But don't they have to pay her royalties (both as the performer and the song writer) every time the songs are played? So if the masters are worth that much she must still be making a shiat ton off those songs.


From what I heard she is crating new masters of her old work so she can make money off them and won't have to pay any fees to the owners of the old masters.
 
2020-11-17 1:43:45 PM  
Wow. Some of you guys need to reflect on your responses in this thread. It's pretty ugly.
 
2020-11-17 1:45:42 PM  
Did a lawyer review the initial contract and explain its terms to her in a way she could understand? If so and she still signed it, sorry no sympathy for her. If she did have a lawyer and he didn't do his job properly, she should sue said lawyer. If she didn't have a lawyer, then again, no sympathy.
 
2020-11-17 1:48:45 PM  

groppet: mechgreg: So how much money is she making off these recordings? I mean someone else owns the masters right? But don't they have to pay her royalties (both as the performer and the song writer) every time the songs are played? So if the masters are worth that much she must still be making a shiat ton off those songs.

From what I heard she is crating new masters of her old work so she can make money off them and won't have to pay any fees to the owners of the old masters.


I read that too, and I believe she can do that because she still owns the rights to the written songs but not the recording.

And it would be kind of funny if she did it, since it would completely destroy the $300 million value that the investment firm payed for those recordings.
 
2020-11-17 1:49:21 PM  

Champion of the Sun: Wow. Some of you guys need to reflect on your responses in this thread. It's pretty ugly.


Fark music threads are pretty consistently ignorant, toxic bullshiat. Have been for as long as I can remember.
 
2020-11-17 1:59:05 PM  

mechgreg: groppet: mechgreg: So how much money is she making off these recordings? I mean someone else owns the masters right? But don't they have to pay her royalties (both as the performer and the song writer) every time the songs are played? So if the masters are worth that much she must still be making a shiat ton off those songs.

From what I heard she is crating new masters of her old work so she can make money off them and won't have to pay any fees to the owners of the old masters.

I read that too, and I believe she can do that because she still owns the rights to the written songs but not the recording.

And it would be kind of funny if she did it, since it would completely destroy the $300 million value that the investment firm payed for those recordings.



I think that's the goal, and I have to say my hat is off to her. I don't know if anyone has ever intentionally gone back and recreated their entire back catalog of work like that. The "gimmick factor" alone (especially to her later fans) would be worth it and she'll sell a ton of them.

Maybe even put all six albums in a single box set and sell them at a discount just as a middle finger to Braun.

I know what he didn't isn't illegal, and she's overplaying the naïve angle, but at some point you have to get sick of the way artists have gotten jerked around for all of history.
 
2020-11-17 2:16:59 PM  

Nadie_AZ: Swift has been trying buy back her masters for the past year


She should be talking to Nikki Sixx.
 
2020-11-17 2:29:38 PM  

ModernPrimitive01: Musicians these days seem to follow one of two paths. One is hoping for commercial success which involves jumping into the machine that does things like this or going the indie DIY route and having some fun but also knowing you'll always have a day job. You gotta know going into the first one, that you're going to be screwed over and profited from. That's what the whole system is designed to do. Make as much money for a corporation that it can while paying everyone else as little as possible. But if you want to be a Taylor Swift or Beyonce with all the money and fame, you gotta play that game.


Whether you're writing music, books, making films, doing video games, or business software there's all sorts of decisions around costs, security, risk, rewards and freedom.

Doing indie stuff is often about having more creative freedom, and you do pay for that. But it's also the case that you get all the rewards, too. You write Minecraft or make the next Gangnam Style and it goes viral, you keep the profits. Joss Whedon says he made more money from Dr Horrible's Sing-Along Blog than he did from The Avengers. Because he and everyone involved took a share, took a risk.
 
2020-11-17 2:31:32 PM  
"If you don't own the masters, then the master owns you."

- Chuck D
 
2020-11-17 2:36:41 PM  
This unfair system was an unfair system before as well, so fark her for trying to change it. She is just as mouthy as all the other women I hate.
 
2020-11-17 2:39:02 PM  

mechgreg: I read that too, and I believe she can do that because she still owns the rights to the written songs but not the recording.

And it would be kind of funny if she did it, since it would completely destroy the $300 million value that the investment firm payed for those recordings.


two problems. 1) if she makes them too similar, she'll be in breach of copyright for copying the recording. 2) no-one cares. People are going to play the original recording because that's what's familiar.

Also, I have no idea why anyone would spend $300m on anything related to Taylor Swift. She's an attractive woman who writes a soundtrack to her soap opera life. The songs ain't bad, but they aren't great. No-one is covering them or using them in film soundtracks. When her looks fade, people will stop caring about her.
 
2020-11-17 2:43:26 PM  

NikolaiFarkoff: I don't know if anyone has ever intentionally gone back and recreated their entire back catalog of work like that.


A couple of Ozzy Osborne solo albums were reissued a while back, and rather than pay royalties to the people who originally played on it, Sharon decided that the touring band Ozzy had at the time* would re-record the tracks instead.

*which included Faith No More drummer Mike Bordin
 
2020-11-17 2:54:55 PM  

farkeruk: 1) if she makes them too similar, she'll be in breach of copyright for copying the recording.


Would she?

If she is the one who wrote the songs (I think she generally does... I haven't checked authorship on her whole catalog), I am not sure they can really say she copied the recording. She just made another. I'm no entertainment lawyer, but I thought the issue with the masters was that the rights are to those particular recordings, not the songs in however they may be performed or recorded.

I don't think she ever explained right out what her problem was with Scooter Braun. It seems like she just expected they'd grant those masters over to her at some point. But usually you won't get rights of first refusal for free. I get that the music industry is highly exploitative of new artists- that's not good, but that's the way it is. You pay to play to get started. She did, just like every other artist. Eventually they may gain control over all their early works, but I haven't seen anything explaining how she thought it would happen short of the music rights fairy showing up and handing over the legal ownership of said masters.
 
2020-11-17 3:11:34 PM  

akula: I don't think she ever explained right out what her problem was with Scooter Braun.

I don't have a link handy, but I recall that he tried to buy the rights on the sly (relative to normal music business dealings), and when she found out about it he arranged things to lock her out so his deal could go through.
 
2020-11-17 3:11:48 PM  
If you don't own your own music, you did it wrong.

But who cares?  That music already made its money, that $300 million investment was a waste of cash.  The world isn't going to want MORE Taylor Swift as time goes on.  Do you think the Britney Spears catalog is raking in dough right now?

Just take the lumps, Taylor.  Nobody wants you re-recording all your albums so they can buy them again.
 
2020-11-17 3:19:55 PM  

farkeruk: 1) if she makes them too similar, she'll be in breach of copyright for copying the recording


Not if she doesn't copy any part of the original. She has rights to the sheet music and lyrics, so as long as she doesn't actually duplicate the original tracks, but instead re-records them, she is not breaching copyright.
 
2020-11-17 3:21:12 PM  

farkeruk: No-one is covering them or using them in film soundtracks.


She has seven songs in movie soundtracks.
 
2020-11-17 3:22:11 PM  
Sorry, those were custom songs for those soundtracks. The rest of her catalog has appeared 52 times in movies and tv shows.
 
2020-11-17 3:24:47 PM  
If they are like every other private equity firm, they'll first try to shave a minute or two off the original tracks to reduce cost, then cut them up into pieces, selling the guitar, drums, bass and vocals separately.
 
2020-11-17 3:26:00 PM  

davynelson: Just take the lumps, Taylor.  Nobody wants you re-recording all your albums so they can buy them again.


Swift has about 40 million listeners per month on Spotify. If she re-recorded her original masters and then licensed them direct to Spotify at a discount (they normally pay $0.006 to $0.0084 per song, and would be delighted to sign a deal for her back catalog at $0.005), that would be worth significant money while crashing the value of the original masters.
 
2020-11-17 3:27:41 PM  
This thread needs some Swiftamine.

Swiftamine - SNL
Youtube PAhAz7JU0dg
 
2020-11-17 3:46:05 PM  

akula: I don't think she ever explained right out what her problem was with Scooter Braun


He was a manipulative creep, from what I remember.
 
2020-11-17 3:56:54 PM  

NEDM: akula: I don't think she ever explained right out what her problem was with Scooter Braun

He was a manipulative creep, from what I remember.


So she says. But she's kind of given to drama, so I have a hard time placing too much stock in her own descriptions. Not that I have a problem believing that music industry execs aren't creepy bastards, mind you. This IS a woman who has made a hell of a career (and a LOT of money) singing about her poor judgment of men, after all.

I get the desire to have control of her own body of work. I do. I'm just not sure on what terms she thought that was going to happen absent a large financial outlay.
 
2020-11-17 3:59:25 PM  
This thread is a goldmine.
 
2020-11-17 4:32:17 PM  
Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2020-11-17 4:37:39 PM  

Michael J Faux: KiltedBastich: Michael J Faux: You mean to tell me that a popstar who sang about junior high romance up until she was pushing thirty isn't the savviest negotiator?

Or maybe it's a system designed to suck in, chew up, and spit out young artists before they have the resources and connections to be able to fight back. Just saying.

Both can be true.


Except that the way you phrased it, you're blaming a teenager at the start of her career for not being able to get the better of a gigantic corporate system that has made an industrial process out of exploiting musicians. Whether you like her music or not, you're blaming the wrong party.
 
2020-11-17 4:49:16 PM  
Fark user imageView Full Size

I think Taylor Swift is pretty, and I enjoy seeing pictures of her.
 
2020-11-17 4:49:45 PM  
"The music business is a cruel and shallow money trench, a long plastic hallway where thieves and pimps run free, and good men die like dogs. There's also a negative side."

― Hunter S. Thompson
 
Displayed 50 of 74 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking





On Twitter



  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.