Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 48
Like Tree132Likes

Thread: Taylor Swift Paints Scooter Braun as Manipulative Bully

  1. #16
    Elite Member BITTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    GUTTED
    Posts
    25,441

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lucianodel View Post
    Not only an eternal victim, but also a bully she is!
    She'll use social media and her wretching singing to do it.
    DawnM74, crayzeehappee and joebob like this.
    "To be [black] in this country and to be relativity conscious is to be in a rage almost all of the time." ~ James Baldwin

  2. #17
    Elite Member NickiDrea's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    2,492

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Novice View Post
    Depends what they wanted for them though $300m??? More? It’s not inconceivable that they put an inflated price on them as they could be a golden egg for the buyer of the whole stable.
    The $300 million price was for the entire label/group. That included the rights to her music. They were selling everything as a package. Honestly if she didn’t have the cash, she probably should have gotten an investor and bought everything herself. She had the option of getting the rights if she either did six more albums with them or bought everything outright, she just chose not to.
    fgg and DawnM74 like this.
    "Thankfully I'm an educated multi-millionaire who knows better than to speak to perverted unjust cops without my lawyer. "
    "I think she's psychotic...what do I do?" - Jenny Schecter

  3. #18
    Elite Member faithanne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    On the Hellmouth
    Posts
    13,333

    Default

    It's been a while since I've worked in the business, and things might be a lot different now, but back then North America was pretty much the only territory that retained masters in perpetuity. Most (all?) of the other major territories gave artists their rights back after a certain period (usually 7-12 years IIRC) after the expiry of the term, or sooner if the artist had already recouped and was in a good bargaining position.

    The US deals always offered much lower royalties, and worse terms in general - but because of the size of the market, and the potential for all involved to earn enormous amounts of money, the US record companies could pretty much walk away from anyone who tried to get a better deal, because there were hundreds of thousands of other hopefuls willing to step in and sign their lives away as clueless minors. No amount of good advice is going to stop a kid who thinks this is going to be their only chance - I've witnessed it more times than I can count.
    "You're going to die tomorrow, Lord Bolton. Sleep well."



  4. #19
    Elite Member sputnik's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    fellow traveller
    Posts
    56,146

    Default

    ^^^^
    this.
    it should not be that hard, or that expensive, for an artist to retain the rights over their own material.
    Swift is shrewd and calculating and I think it’s made her unpopular but i think it’s a good thing. People admire that in men all the time. it also sets her apart from a lot of her peers. She doesn’t throw her weight around for a lot of things but when she does she seems to be pretty thorough about it - her harassment case, telling apple they couldn’t have her music if they didn’t pay the artists, coming out as a liberal after years of refusing to be at all political, etc. she might be starting something here.
    I'm open to everything. When you start to criticise the times you live in, your time is over. - Karl Lagerfeld

  5. #20
    Elite Member KrisNine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Sleepy night night land
    Posts
    23,574

    Default

    ^ I agree. The majority of these deals border on predatory. Young musicians, desperate for a deal. There’s really no shopping around because all the labels do the same thing. Then the label gets to sell your music to anyone to sell anything from denture cream to tampons. So, knowing how this scooter creep acted with the whole Kim and Kanye thing makes me think Taylor has every right to be concerned.

    And the the deal of offering her one new album for the label to get back the rights to one old master, so wouldn’t she always be one album in the hole? Or were they not going to be owning the rights to the new music?
    sputnik, mostroop and Waterslide like this.

  6. #21
    Elite Member Novice's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Beyond Caring, then hang a left.
    Posts
    45,373

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by NickiDrea View Post
    The $300 million price was for the entire label/group. That included the rights to her music. They were selling everything as a package. Honestly if she didn’t have the cash, she probably should have gotten an investor and bought everything herself. She had the option of getting the rights if she either did six more albums with them or bought everything outright, she just chose not to.
    All they are quoted as saying is “you had the chance to buy them back but you passed” - they don’t mention any terms, conditions or price.

    So $300m was a bad choice, but my point was they could have been asking for any amount - yes as much as the whole deal was worth so that she didn’t buy them back as her original recordings are a massive, massive asset.

  7. #22
    Elite Member MsDark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Northwest MS/Memphis TN
    Posts
    30,338

    Default

    I don't know the enough of details here, but it has always really bothered me that artists...especially as big as Taylor Swift...aren't able to easily own the rights to their own music. There's something weird about that whole set up. These label owners are raking it in and most of these artists are not business people or business minded in the least, and grateful for what they get without realizing how much they're probably getting screwed out of so the real guy making money can profit.

    Also, I know this is judgy as fuck, but I look at the people defending this dude. His wife (pfft...right) and a couple of kids who have obviously been taken advantage from the get go, weren't lucky enough to have the kind of support that TS did, of adults who were smart enough (and rich enough on their own outside of the music industry) to keep them from being taken advantage of. And even though it's perhaps not entirely fair. I do look at how messed up Bieber and Demi are to this day and this makes their judgement somewhat questionable in my eyes. They're gonna side with the guy who manages to keep the checks in their hands to keep them afloat while they're in rehab for "exhaustion".
    My Posts Have Won Awards. Can Any Of You Claim The Same? -ur_next_ex

    "I don't have pet peeves. I have major psychotic fucking hatreds, okay". ~George Carlin

  8. #23
    Elite Member Beeyotch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    30,033

    Default

    ^That's a good point

  9. #24
    Elite Member MohandasKGanja's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Wherever my kids are
    Posts
    31,588

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MsDark View Post
    I don't know the enough of details here, but it has always really bothered me that artists...especially as big as Taylor Swift...aren't able to easily own the rights to their own music. There's something weird about that whole set up. These label owners are raking it in and most of these artists are not business people or business minded in the least, and grateful for what they get without realizing how much they're probably getting screwed out of so the real guy making money can profit.
    It is weird because in almost every other artistic venue it seems like it is very easy to copyright your own original work. Because I have never produced art or music for sale by a third party, what I do not know is how they handle the fact that they want to be able to distribute your music for a set period of time, or infinity, and that you can transfer that right. Models give up the right to a photo of themselves in perpetuity all the time. But a painting? Or a song? It seems like this situation speaks to the incredibly disadvantaged situation musical artists are in when they are trying to get a break and a studio who will produce and promote their work.
    holly likes this.

  10. #25
    Elite Member NickiDrea's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    2,492

    Default

    This is why more and more people are going to independent labels. To control their music.

    It’s a nasty business but literally every business is. The main job is making money for the label and shareholders, not being fair to the artists. It sucks but honestly business sucks. This same thing happened to Rihanna, but she got her masters. She didn’t have to do as many albums as Taylor would have done to get them back, though. It’s all about your initial contract. People are desperate for fame and will sign anything. Taylor was still in a VERY different situation than most artists are when she signed her first contract though, just like Beyoncé was.
    "Thankfully I'm an educated multi-millionaire who knows better than to speak to perverted unjust cops without my lawyer. "
    "I think she's psychotic...what do I do?" - Jenny Schecter

  11. #26
    Elite Member MsDark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Northwest MS/Memphis TN
    Posts
    30,338

    Default

    I would not want to be a shareholder of any label who treats their artists like this. They're trying to turn it around and make this look like something it likely isn't. That she turned down the same money deal someone else jumped on, when in reality they probably wanted not only money but something worth more than any amount of money for her, like her making x number of albums for them.

    Fuck them in the eye sockets. And screw Demi and the Biebs for taking up for them and not sticking together with fellow artists.
    My Posts Have Won Awards. Can Any Of You Claim The Same? -ur_next_ex

    "I don't have pet peeves. I have major psychotic fucking hatreds, okay". ~George Carlin

  12. #27
    Elite Member Flygirl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    3,200

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MsDark View Post
    I would not want to be a shareholder of any label who treats their artists like this. They're trying to turn it around and make this look like something it likely isn't. That she turned down the same money deal someone else jumped on, when in reality they probably wanted not only money but something worth more than any amount of money for her, like her making x number of albums for them.

    Fuck them in the eye sockets. And screw Demi and the Biebs for taking up for them and not sticking together with fellow artists.
    You are feeling pretty feisty today, aren’t you?

  13. #28
    Bronze Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    84

    Default

    The music biz is a scam, I worked for a label for years and my advice to any musician since has always been...... "don't sign till they NEED you"

    Most artists are actually signing onto a form of indentured-servitude or a long bank loan (that likely cannot ever be re-paid)......EVERYTHING a record label does for an artist is billed back to the artist at top rates and deducted from their sales meaning you can VERY quickly be in debt even if selling well (ever seen a legal charge/fee for something simple like sending a fax, the music and film biz are FULL of 'em)..... so many bands I worked with were eventually 'let out' of their contract by doing a 'free' album so as to offset the BS costs/expenses they had supposedly racked-up according to the accounting department.

    Those bands that have expensive riders requiring heaps of hookers and blow, well they pay too, the promoter just deducts the cost of hookers and blow from the artist portion of the gig money... as you would if you were a promoter.

    The ONLY artists that do well are the ones who the label needs more than the artist needs the label......or the ones like Taylor who have massively overbearing/hard-arse management that looks out for them rather than being caught up in the excitement of just being 'signed'.

  14. #29
    Elite Member faithanne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    On the Hellmouth
    Posts
    13,333

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by secretgoldfish View Post
    EVERYTHING a record label does for an artist is billed back to the artist at top rates and deducted from their sales meaning you can VERY quickly be in debt even if selling well
    Well that's not quite true, although I agree with most of the rest. But no artist I've ever worked with has been in debt to the record company - they just stay unrecouped, forever. It's not like once they get dropped they have to pay the label back the balance. That's why the label takes the biggest cut of royalties (and charges the recording costs back to the artist) because they're the ones taking the risk. I don't agree with it, but that's their reasoning.
    "You're going to die tomorrow, Lord Bolton. Sleep well."



  15. #30
    Elite Member Bluebonnet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    11,643

    Default

    Not a fan of poor widdle victim, Taylor. Nor of her “singing.”
    DawnM74, crayzeehappee and joebob like this.

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. 'We hear you Taylor': Apple music bows down, changes its tune, to Taylor Swift
    By *Wookie-Chick* in forum Music and Music Videos
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: June 22nd, 2015, 05:04 AM
  2. Replies: 16
    Last Post: May 10th, 2014, 08:49 PM
  3. Taylor Swift & Taylor Lautner: Farm Date
    By mb86 in forum Famous Style
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: March 26th, 2010, 05:27 PM
  4. Taylor Swift and Taylor Lautner split
    By mrs.v in forum Latest Gossip
    Replies: 35
    Last Post: January 2nd, 2010, 11:40 AM
  5. Replies: 26
    Last Post: November 11th, 2009, 10:01 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •