opinions

Taylor Swift vs. Her Masters: An In-Depth Breakdown Guide

Thank you for being patient with me while I figure out what new content I want to put on this blog next. This semester has been very trying, but with everything slowing down, I wanted to return and work on some new pieces. For today’s post, I wanted to tackle a new style of writing, because I haven’t published any non-creative work on here yet! So, I’m very excited about this piece, and I’m very passionate about the subject matter, and not just because it’s about Taylor Swift. So many people have come up and asked me exactly what is happening, and I hadn’t seen anything like this post out there yet, so I decided to be the one to write it. It’s very lengthy, but I think it’s very informative about what is happening regarding Taylor Swift, her masters, and the music industry as a whole. So sit back, grab a snack and some water, and enjoy!


It’s no secret that Taylor Swift is one of the biggest artists of our generation, going from country princess to pop superstar in a matter of years - in fact, she just won Artist of the Decade at the American Music Awards this past Sunday, and will be presented as Billboard’s first ever Woman of the Decade on December 12th. Since arising in 2006 with her self-titled album, Swift has made her mark on the music industry’s map with some groundbreaking accomplishments, self-written music, and highest grossing tours. However, the road to success is not always smooth.

I’m talking about the battle she’s been facing with her former record label, Big Machine Records, over owning the master recordings to her past six albums. In November 2018, Swift made an Instagram post discussing the move to her new label, Universal/Republic Records. In her heartfelt letter to her fans, she said, “It’s also incredibly exciting to know that I’ll own all of my master recordings that I make from now on.”

Now, let’s backtrack: what does it mean to own your master recordings? Why is this such a big deal to Taylor Swift? Basically, a master recording is the original recording of a song or an album. In Swift’s case with Big Machine, because the label owns her master recordings, Swift only earns royalties off of her songs. So, Big Machine makes money whenever someone buys or streams a song or album, or whenever a song is used in other media, while Swift gets only a percentage of money back once she has repaid the label’s investment. It’s not just about money, though. Because the label owns her masters, Big Machine can do whatever they please with Swift’s old music, and they don’t have to consult her at all. For someone who writes all of her music, this is a pretty big deal. Taylor Swift started writing music at a young age, and some of her biggest hits were written on her bedroom floor after school. As she says in the prologue for her 2015 album 1989, she says, “These songs were once about my life. Now they are about yours.” Every single song Swift writes is basically a page from her diary (which you can also see in the deluxe editions of her newest album, Lover).

Swift had many things to consider when her contract with Big Machine Records ended. Clearly, her masters was one of the top priorities on that list. In an all-telling Tumblr post Swift wrote when it was announced Scooter Braun bought Big Machine Label Group, she said:

For years I asked, pleaded for a chance to own my work. Instead I was given an opportunity to sign back up to Big Machine Records and ‘earn’ one album back at a time, one for every new one I turned in. I walked away because I knew once I signed that contract, Scott Borchetta would sell the label, thereby selling me and my future. I had to make the excruciating choice to leave behind my past. Music I wrote on my bedroom floor and videos I dreamed up and paid for from the money I earned playing in bars, then clubs, then arenas, then stadiums.

Enter Scooter Braun from stage right.

As many of you know, Scooter Braun is the manager of big artists such as Justin Bieber, Demi Lovato, Ariana Grande, Kanye West - the list goes on. In the same Tumblr post, Swift goes on to list the infamous incidents that Braun and his clients took part in; most notably, the illegally recorded phone call between Kim Kardashian, West, and Swift concerning the line in West’s song, Famous, from his 2016 album Life of Pablo (I feel like me and Taylor might still have sex / Why? I made that bitch famous (God damn) / I made that bitch famous), following a music video featuring a replica of Swift’s naked body.

Swift goes on to say, “Now Scooter has stripped me of my life’s work, that I wasn’t given an opportunity to buy. Essentially, my musical legacy is about to lie in the hands of someone who tried to dismantle it.” Of course, if Swift did buy back her masters before the sale, then Big Machine Records wouldn’t have sold for $300 million. And of course, Braun wouldn’t have been able to afford this without help from The Carlyle Group (fun fact: The Carlyle Group is a private investment firm linked to funding the war in Yemen, but that’s a different story). Not only is owning her masters important to Swift, but the fact they were sold to Scooter Braun left her feeling “sad and grossed out.”

In retaliation, Big Machine Records founder Scott Borchetta released a statement to “debunk” her statement, saying, “Out of courtesy, I personally texted Taylor at 9:06pm, Saturday, June 29th to inform her prior to the story breaking on the morning of Sunday, June 30th so she could hear it directly from me…I guess it’s possible that she might not have seen my text. But, I truly doubt that she ‘woke up to the news when everyone else did.’” The rest of the statement outlines the sale of Big Machine Records and what was being sold on Swift’s part, even going so far as to include text messages to and from Swift to prove that there was no bad blood (pardon my pun) between him and Taylor. However, the mentions of Swift’s masters seemed to be missing from the conversation, which was the whole point of why Taylor Swift spoke out. In a text message to Swift, Borchetta said, “I want you to know that I will continue to be the proud custodian of your previous works and will continue to keep you and your team abreast of all future plans for releases of you[r] work.” While Borchetta may wish Swift the best, it’s clear this was nothing but a business transaction, and a stab in the back to Taylor no less.

All was quiet on the home front after that, really. On August 25, 2019, Swift did an interview with CBS for their Sunday Morning segment. There, the deal between Scott Borchetta and Scooter Braun was brought up once again. On the topic, Swift said:

I knew he would sell my music; I knew he would do that. I couldn’t believe who he sold it to, because we’ve had endless conversations about Scooter Braun. And he has 300 million reasons to conveniently forget those conversations.

She claims no one in her inner circle knew about the deal; not even her own father, Scott Swift, who is a shareholder in Big Machine Records. However, when the idea of re-recording her albums came up, Swift unveiled she definitely plans to go through with it.

Let’s back up again: why would Taylor Swift re-record her albums? Isn’t once enough? Well, not when it’s important to own your masters. Legally, how will this work?

While Swift’s contract with Big Machine Records was never unveiled, most contracts allow an artist to re-record either two years after the original agreement has expired or five years after the initial release of the album. Besides 2017’s reputation, all Swift’s albums could potentially be re-recorded if she chose to do so. While Swift is the songwriter on every single one of her songs, she doesn’t have to worry about copyrighting lyrics; however, she may have to rework the sound of her songs due to an original production clause that may be in her contract.

So, imagine how devalued Big Machine Label Group will become once Taylor Swift takes back her masters upwards of 80 songs in her collection.

But again, all quiet on the home front for several months after the summer sweept us by. Swift released self-owned album Lover, featuring singles ME! ft. Brendon Urie of Panic! at the Disco, You Need to Calm Down, and the title track, which sold 679,000 pure copies in its first week, becoming the album with the highest selling first week in 2019. There was no more noise from Big Machine Records or Swift on the matter…

Until Swift was announced as AMA’s Artist of the Decade, one of the highest achievements in the music industry. This caused yet another debacle concerning her masters and rerecording her music. But how could it? She was simply given the opportunity to perform multiple smash hits from her previous albums to celebrate this great achievement.

Loopholes, baby!

Once again, Swift took to her social media accounts to give the news to her fans directly. In the post, she states her case: “Scott Borchetta and Scooter Braun have now said that I’m not allowed to perform my old songs on television because they claim that would be re-recording my music before I’m allowed to next year.” I have to hand it to them, that’s very sneaky. No matter how live an award show might be, award shows are always aired a few minutes behind so network editors have a chance to alter the feed and catch any swear words said on air, amongst other things. Because the show isn’t live, her performance would be considered pre-recorded, therefore considered her re-recording her old music. Of course, she’s allowed to sing all of her old songs live still, as seen on her August 23, 2019 performance of Good Morning America (and I was there!). When she goes on her festival trek this upcoming year, she will be able to sing her songs live in those venues. So long as nothing is recorded, she will be fine, according to this logic. In this post, Swift also mentions she’s been working on a Netflix documentary about her life for years, but Borchetta and Braun have declined her use of any old music or performance footage. Interestingly enough, Swift continues on to disclose the terms Borchetta laid out for her in order for her to use her old music legally:

Scott Borchetta told my team that they’ll allow me to use my music only if I do these things: If I agree to not re-record copycat versions of my songs next year (which is something I’m both legally allowed to do and looking forward to) and also told my team that I need to stop talking about him and Scooter Braun.

Previously, the terms to Swift re-recording her albums had been murky, but she’s seemed to clue us in more here. Still, we have no idea what she is planning on doing with this new project. In any event, it seems that Borchetta and Braun are trying to silence her efforts to own what’s hers. “The message being sent to me is very clear. Basically, be a good little girl and shut up. Or you’ll be punished. This is WRONG.” Personally, this is what angers me the most. The incessant sexism in the industry is at play in as two grown men attempt to dismantle a female artist’s career simply because she’s decided to speak up. This has also been seen in Kesha’s case with music producer Dr. Luke, if anyone is interested. Swift is within her rights to re-record her albums, and threatening her isn’t going to stop her from doing so, much to the discontent of BMLG. She goes on to ask the public for help in being vocal about this matter, saying, “Please let Scott Borchetta and Scooter Braun know how you feel about this.” Overall, this statement was a plea from an artist who just wanted to be able to perform her life’s work at the American Music Awards, and wants to continue to do so at any other recorded event until November 2020 when this is not an issue for most of her work.

This post sparked a response from Big Machine Records. Once again, their post had been strategically phrased to make it seem as if Borchetta or Braun have not done anything wrong her: “At no point did we say Taylor could not perform on the AMAs or block her Netflix special. In fact, we do not have the right to keep her from performing live anywhere.” The keyword here is live. They specifically do not bring up the idea of recordings of live performances for a reason. Big Machine Label Group also made the claim, “The truth is, Taylor has admitted to contractually owing millions of dollars and multiple assets to our company.”

In order to debunk both of the statements made by BMLG, Swift’s publicist, Tree Paine, tweeted a statement, including statements made by BMLG that stated, “Please be advised the BMLG will not agree to issue licenses for existing recording or waivers of its re-recording restrictions in connection with these two projects: The Netflix documentary and The Alibaba ‘Double Eleven’ event.” (The Double Eleven event mentioned was a performance Swift did while in China, where instead she performed songs off of Lover to avoid issues). Paine goes on, “In addition, yesterday Scott Borchetta…flatly denied the request for both American Music Awards and Netflix.” In Paine’s clearer statement on the matter, it shows Taylor Swift’s original statement was certainly correct and not in any way made up. All Borchetta and Braun were attempting to do was control Swift’s music. As for Swift owing Big Machine Records money, Paine does not hesitate to debunk that theory too. “An independent, professional auditor has determined that Big Machine owes Taylor $7.9 million dollars of unpaid royalties over several years.” Yikes.

So, BMLG obviously released a new statement regarding Swift’s predicament was published:

The Big Machine Label Group informed Dick Clark Productions today that they have agreed to grant all licenses of their artists’ performances to stream post show and for re-broadcast on mutually approved platforms. It should be noted that recording artists do not need label approval for live performances on television or any other live media. Record label approval is only needed for contracted artists’ audio and visual recordings and in determining how those works are distributed.

It seemed that Borchetta and Braun quickly changed their minds about Swift being able to perform her old songs once they received bad PR from the incident. However, the language used here is still similar to the language used in the first post: they focus on live performances and live media. Despite it all, they granted permission for her old songs to be re-broadcasted, and Swift fans rejoiced. But, Dick Clark Productions released a statement of their own, saying, “At no time did Dick Clark Productions agree to, create, authorize or distribute a statement in partnership with Big Machine Label Group regarding Taylor Swift’s performance at the 2019 American Music Awards. Any final agreement on this matter needs to be made directly with Taylor Swift’s management team. We have no further comment.” So, what is the truth?

Obviously, some deal was made so Swift was able to perform her old songs in a medley at the AMAs over the weekend. There, Swift had a lineup of songs, both new and old, featuring Love Story from Fearless (which won album of the year at the Grammys in 2010), I Knew You Were Trouble from Red, and Blank Space and Shake it Off from 1989 (which won album of the year at the Grammys in 2016). None of the details of the final outcome were publicized, except for the absolutely stunning performance she gave. As well as Artist of the Decade, Swift left with five other awards that night, making her the most awarded musician at the AMAs ever with 29 total awards.

There’s one last part to this story that needs to be told: Scooter Braun himself made a statement on his Instagram concerning himself, his safety, and Taylor’s apparent unwillingness to be amicable. In this post, he claimed, “Since your public statement last week there have been numerous death threats directed at my family.” He goes into detail about how terrible the past week since she released the statement has been for him, and how concerned he is about his safety. “I assume this was not your intention but it is important that you understand that your words carry a tremendous amount of weight and that your message can be interpreted by some in different ways,” he continued. In another picture in the same Instagram post, he includes an actual message sent by an unidentified user with a hedgehog as their profile picture.

However, several Twitter users may have debunked this claim too. Least to say, the hedgehog profile photo seems to come from an animal Instagram account that Braun’s wife, Yael, follows. It was also pointed out that Taylor Swift fans usually have photos of Taylor Swift in their profile pictures, not of a hedgehog, leading them to believe that the death threat shown may have been manipulated by Braun. Thank you to the Swiftie community for being the world’s greatest detectives yet again.

In his statement, Braun goes on to say, “This is a world filled with toxic division where people express their opinions over social media instead of having conversations in person. I want no part in that.” Then, he claims to have never wished pain on Swift because of this business deal, and that he’s willing to do whatever it takes now that his safety was in question. On the subject of performing though, he said, “As the world now knows you can and should perform any song you would like at the AMAs. I have never and would never say otherwise. You do not need anyone’s permission to do so legally but I am stating it here clearly and publicly so there is no more debate or confusion.” All I see throughout this statement is Braun trying to create Swift into the bad guy, blaming all following actions on her and that he never wished any harm onto her, even though he is the manager behind many clients that have harassed her and he has never done anything to rectify those mistakes.

In other news, according to Google, the definition of the term gaslighting is to manipulate (someone) by psychological means into questioning their own sanity. Neither Swift nor anyone from her team has answered Braun’s post.

Now, I’m sure some of you are asking by now why I care so much about this subject matter, going so far as to write this in-depth, informative piece.

As someone who has been writing her own stories since she was about six years old, I find what is happening to Taylor Swift incredibly disgusting. I believe you should own all the art you create, and Taylor Swift is no exception to that belief. Yeah, I love Taylor Swift, but that’s not the reason I’m on her side. I’d like to believe if I wasn’t a Swiftie, I would be on her side still, because this isn’t just a Taylor Swift issue. If someone as big as Swift is going through this battle, imagine what female artists that are younger and just coming into the music business are going through. I’m so sick of powerful men trying to discredit women in their fields of choice. It’s happened with Taylor Swift over and over again, it happened with Kesha’s battle with Dr. Luke, and it happened to an artist named Madison Beer as well. I’m sure there are countless other artists we have no idea about too.

The fact of the matter comes down to this: Taylor Swift is willing to buy back her art, and she hasn’t been given the opportunity to do so. Instead, her art and the rest of BMLG has been sold to Scooter Braun, a man who has been at the heart of so many public incidents in the music industry, for $300 million. Now, BMLG is feeling threatened because Swift will eventually re-record (although what did they expect?) and now they’re attempting to stop her from doing so because they like the money and the control they get from owning her work.

Least to say, I will not be shocked if something like this happens again.

My final words, I guess, are these: believe women, believe in owning your own art, and stand up for what you believe in no matter who tries to scare you.


Picture Credits


share the love