taylor swift iridescent smoke bombs thread 2019 - lover

They are undoubtedly scum. But Taylor Swift isn't the first pop star to sign a dodgy contract and she won't be the last.

Also, she already has more money than she could ever spend, so we're not exactly talking about Morris Levy ripping off Frankie Lymon here.

― does it look like i'm here (jon123), Thursday, November 14, 2019 8:41 PM (one hour ago)

whenever you type "they are undoubtedly scum, but" you should probably just stop there and hit the back button

Thanks for that.

i think it's possible to think someone is a total scumbag and also think that it's not super great that a hugely popular musician is giving their fans licence to harass and doxx someone with very young children

lol we've really reached "think of the children!"

I’m shocked that a famous person would take to twitter to air out their grievances

I don’t think it’s too common for a star of her stature to “activate” her stanbase in this manner (if it was, this wouldn’t be news)

Yeah, there's airing your grievances and then there's literally having a direct call to action and saying "So this is where I'm asking for your help. Please let Scott Borchetta and Scooter Braun know how you feel about this", and then also asking them to put pressure on the other artists managed by Scooter, knowing full well what that means in terms of how her fans will respond. Her fans aren't sitting there typing well reasoned e-mails on business ethics and artistic ownership. They're frothing and baying for blood because someone didn't respect their queen, which is exactly what her wounded narcissistic ego wants.

Step back for a second and look at this whole dumb situation and it's one insanely wealthy and privileged multi-millionaire wielding her social power to unleash an attack on another two insanely wealthy and privileged multi-millionaires. If only people with influence put this amount of passion into something that actually mattered to the world.

i agree, scooter braun should give the masters to taylor and put all the money he was going to spend on them into something that matters more to the world

if this was twitter this is where I'd tell triggercut to just take the L

I think Taylor stans have been letting Borchetta and Braun know how they feel for quite awhile now.

maybe we should hook this thread up with the Literary Clusterfucks 2013 thread

Swift’s hope, she said, was that these artists might “talk some sense into the men who are exercising tyrannical control over someone who just wants to play the music she wrote.”

surprised to see ilxors defend this self-pitying bs

Yay for self-pity, but sending fans after other artists seem problematic?

Borchetta 'n' Braun denies the allegations: https://pitchfork.com/news/taylor-swifts-ex-label-denies-her-tv-licensing-claims/ Though not totally convincing.

surprised to see ilxors defend this self-pitying bs

― groovemaaan, Friday, November 15, 2019 7:42 AM (three minutes ago) bookmarkflaglink

damn you got us, even though this thread is mostly full of people not defending her rn

I think Taylor stans have been letting Borchetta and Braun know how they feel for quite awhile now.

Braun was definitely swarmed for a few tweets after Taylor initially complained about the Big Machine deal, but I don’t think there was doxxing and death threats like were being reported y’day

Just last year, Taylor was granted a restraining order against an obsessed fan with weapons; she knows that she (like every superstar) has mentally ill fans who may be violent

Also, one of the “several other artists” managed by Braun suffered an attack at a concert a few years back (not aimed at her personally)

Don’t want to make a mtn out of what is hopefully a molehill, but Taylor’s tweet doesn’t seem very responsible for all these reasons.

Also, one of the “several other artists” managed by Braun suffered an attack at a concert a few years back (not aimed at her personally)

Are you talking about Ariana? She's not managed by him anymore iirc

He's still her manager.

https://scooterbraun.com/music

(and if you go to that site's main page it's flogging the CHARLIE'S ANGELS soundtrack she helmed)

I hope Psy can withstand all the tweets

a nashville buddy of mine who works for b1g m@chine just informed me that their office is on lockdown today

aaaaand she's informing me they sent the office staff home for "security reasons"
i mean you can be a taylor stan and hate scooter and whatever but these are HR people for crissakes

Did Taylor sign the contract or not? She either signed it and needs to shut up because those are the terms she agreed to, or she didn't sign it, and these guys need to be held accountable. Which is it? Did she not actually sign the contract?

what contract are we talking about here

Yeah, there's airing your grievances and then there's literally having a direct call to action and saying "So this is where I'm asking for your help. Please let Scott Borchetta and Scooter Braun know how you feel about this", and then also asking them to put pressure on the other artists managed by Scooter, knowing full well what that means in terms of how her fans will respond. Her fans aren't sitting there typing well reasoned e-mails on business ethics and artistic ownership. They're frothing and baying for blood because someone didn't respect their queen, which is exactly what her wounded narcissistic ego wants.

Step back for a second and look at this whole dumb situation and it's one insanely wealthy and privileged multi-millionaire wielding her social power to unleash an attack on another two insanely wealthy and privileged multi-millionaires. If only people with influence put this amount of passion into something that actually mattered to the world.

― triggercut,

No.

a lot of people in the comments of the variety post agree that you shouldn't ever complain about the terms of a contract you signed. i don't really think this is a reasonable position but ymmv

xxp

lots of ppl in here very passionate about the sanctity of record label contracts

Did Taylor sign the contract or not? She either signed it and needs to shut up because those are the terms she agreed to, or she didn't sign it, and these guys need to be held accountable. Which is it? Did she not actually sign the contract?

― brotherlovesdub, Friday, November 15, 2019 3:00 PM (seven minutes ago)bookmarkflaglink

i think you should take a walk

I'm new to this conflict, but from what I read, her company sold the rights to her early music to a different company who says she can't perform her old songs because that would violate the contract. They must be referring to a legal document if they're warning her with action. Did she sign a contract that limits her ownership of her music? Are these guys not following the language in the contract, or is Taylor not following the language in the contract. Is that clear Brad? As I said, I haven't been following this, but it seems like it should be pretty clear. Either there's a contract that she signed that limits her ability to perform / record these songs, or there isn't and she doesn't need to listen to what they say.

are you conducting a deposition

tis the season. I recognize your tactics from watching the republicans today avoid the actual facts and legality of the situation. It's like artists bitching about their streaming royalties. They signed the fucking contracts, they need to live by the terms they agreed to. It's all in a pursuit of being rich and famous, and when they want more money, they start to freak out about the terms they agreed to. If i'm wrong, please let me know how. Maybe she never signed on to the terms they are trying to hold her to. In which case, then I'm fully on her side.

I recognize your tactics from watching the republicans today avoid the actual facts and legality of the situation

dude are you fucking serious

it's Friday, go to happy hour

tis the season. I recognize your tactics from watching the republicans today avoid the actual facts and legality of the situation. It's like artists bitching about their streaming royalties. They signed the fucking contracts, they need to live by the terms they agreed to. It's all in a pursuit of being rich and famous, and when they want more money, they start to freak out about the terms they agreed to. If i'm wrong, please let me know how. Maybe she never signed on to the terms they are trying to hold her to. In which case, then I'm fully on her side.

― brotherlovesdub, Friday, November 15, 2019 3:14 PM (one minute ago)

ok u sound like a psycho...

Ppl definitely continually disbelieve Taylor swift or think she’s overreacting w/r/t her dealings with shitty folks (cf kanye, kim, that groping DJ) so I guess this wouldn’t be any different. I don’t think she needs the attention, I think this situation feels weird in terms of her not being allowed to perform certain songs for this purpose (I have no reason to believe she’s not telling the truth), idk I’m not even a fan here but people really dislike her a lot and do not trust her motives for reasons that seem a bit more to do with perceptions of her persona vs what she actually deals with.

I'm serious about asking if anyone thinks she signed a contract that binds her to the terms these guys are trying to hold her to. The other part was joking. Do you know if this is violating the terms she signed on to or is your reaction just 'leave britney alone'?

i'm not even a taylor swift fan but being against her doing this is completely bizarre to me. like there's a lot of projected animus itt lol

to use a comparison made a few minutes ago, some posters be acting like Ken Starr looking for perjury traps.

i have no idea what the contents of the contract taylor swift signed when she was 16 are; presumably they allowed braun to obtain the ownership of her masters when he purchased big machine with the support of the carlyle group, without taylor being able to do much about it. it's possible in the terms of her og big machine contract that taylor would've only been able to obtain ownership her masters "one album at a time" through negotiating another deal with big machine which came across to me as a little extortion-y but i'm no lawyer. taylor swift's lawyer denies that this offer was ever on the table though. both braun and borchetta weirdly evasive about what taylor can and can't do in their statement ("we haven't blocked the netflix doc or her ama performance" =/= "we haven't blocked her old songs or the performance of her old songs in this venues"). imo "did she sign a contract??? bc if she did she should stfu" seems to not even be the point of this whole thing

thankfully ilx is a court of law where we can get this whole thing sorted out

Well, the end result of this conflict will only be decided by looking at the contract with lawyers, so absolutely nothing else matters. Did she sign the contract (and more specifically, what does the contract say she can do) is the entire point of this thing.

i assume you'll get the answer to these questions by posting the same thing over and over again on a message board

Well, the end result of this conflict will only be decided by looking at the contract with lawyers, so absolutely nothing else matters. Did she sign the contract (and more specifically, what does the contract say she can do) is the entire point of this thing.

― brotherlovesdub, Friday, November 15, 2019 3:34 PM (seven minutes ago)

the thing about this point you keep repeating over and over is that isn't even necessarily true. social pressure is very powerful

So you think in lieu of having legal footing to support her, Taylor is correct in rallying her fans to pressure the company to release her from her contract? I agree social pressure is powerful. It's also dangerous. If she can get out of a bad contract by getting Twitter angry, then more power to her. Hopefully nobody dies over some Taylor Swift royalties.

yeah if she can leverage her power by applying public pressure to scooter braun & scott borchetta in order to extract what she wants i don't have a problem with that. you think they wouldn't do the same? and is that less moral than chaining an artist to a contract they signed as a teenager?

the arguments itt in favor of executives trying to fuck over an artist are

1. think of the record company employees children
2. she should put her energy into doing something like curing cancer
3. the record company gave its employees the day off
4. a taylor swift stan might kill somebody

Yeah Taylor is going about unleashing her stans in a kind of iffy way, but lol @ the folks itt suddenly concerned about the sanctity of record label contracts.

I'm sure there's never, ever been a case in the entire history of the music business where the terms of a contract are being interpreted in wildly different ways by the artist and the label. I'm guessing she's hoping public pressure might help more quickly than waiting for drawn out legal battle.

xp the arguments itt in favor of executives trying to fuck over an artist are

No, they're arguments against the paragraph in Taylor's tweet that begins "Please let Scott Borchetta..." (or at least 1, 3, and 4; I don't rep for pt. 2)

Ftr, it sounds like these guys are indeed being total dicks (and their slippery statement only seems to reinforce that), and if Taylor had tweeted her complaint w/out that paragraph I'd have no problem w/it

But unleashing toxic stans does not seem cool to me

she's unleashing her stans on very powerful people. this is part of the game they are willingly playing.

I am not a fan of Taylor Swift in the slightest but I do think this is one of the few scenarios where I not only am okay with a megafamous person unleashing her fans upon someone but actively support it.