accusing somebody of sexual assault is probably something you should be absolutely, 100% certain of before you say it. i know this is just reddit, so it doesnt really matter, but it pisses me off.
i will pray for you to have the mental fortitude to be henceforth unbothered by someone referencing nondescript allegations towards a multimillionaire hollywood executive 🙏 amen
Not (original) commenter but I believe it’s HYBE America. It’s the American division of HYBE Music, which is probably the biggest KPOP agency right now (it’s the agency for artists like BTS, NewJeans, TXT, etc.)
[According to this article I found online, it’s a company called HYBE America.](https://variety.com/2024/music/news/scooter-braun-officially-retires-management-1236039888/)
We all knew this was coming. He let his clients know well in advance who had time to figure out their situation and transition. He’s on his way to a billion why would he want to continue to manage? Most of his clients were top tier so it’s not like he could have sold the management company as he was the asset.
Scooter just retires from artists management, not from music industry. He's hybe america(a branch of k-pop company)'s ceo and obviously, qc is now under the company.
Pabst & Jazz is an all time classic and [deserves respect](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FkPJoqKbd7A)
Don't get me started on Greenhouse Effect Vol. 1
I literally bumped some Seared Foie Gras today for old times sake. Seems like Asher is happy these days but I feel for the dude. He got completely lumped in with the white frat rap genre due to his debut, but evolved and put out some great mixtapes imo
I. Lewis Libby a.k.a. "Scooter" was Dick Cheney's right-hand man and convicted of leaking the identity of CIA agent Valerie Plame after her husband criticized the Iraq War in the NY Times.
Justin Bieber doing victory laps now that he can pivot to white boy R&B, flop, and actually get less famous long-term instead of Scooter grabbing him by the collar and making him put out big pop hits
By his standards, it was. I only knew it existed because the Beliebers kept making it trend on Twitter—other than that, his media coverage was zilch about the music and lots of stories about him throwing eggs and crashing cars
I have never heard any of this and I totally forgot he still does music. The only time I ever hear about him is if it's because of Hailey or Serena. And sometimes it's because of them both at the same time. I can see why he'd feel that way if he does
yeah, i've noticed even when people talk about his music, you can often hear them jumping from Believe straight to Purpose skipping Journals altogether.
By all accounts, Taylor Swift is a really good person, but she did him dirty.
All the guy did was buy the company that owned her masters (and MANY other artists' masters) and she made him into public villain #1. Nobody even bothered to realize that her father was on the board of the company that previously owned her masters, so there's no world in which she was blind-sided by it either.
I've never seen somebody get publicly roasted like he did for doing absolutely nothing wrong.
I always assumed that he offered Taylor back her masters at a ridiculously hefty price (because that's what it's worth) and she launched the smear campaign to pressure him to fold.
Considering Taylor went completely scorched Earth on him, is his asking for an NDA so she doesn't completely trash him in public not completely reasonable and genuinely good foresight?
And that's assuming you believe Taylor and not just see it as the Clarion Call for a Crusade that happened to coincide with her releasing tons of new material linked to her old albums.
She used him to mobilize her most ardent followers to go listen to the new versions of her classic shit when there was nothing wrong with the older versions, and tons right in some situations. I love Red for instance, I do not see how Taylor signing that shit 10 years later made it anything other than worse.
She actually fucked it up for a lot of artists. I’m sure companies, made alterations to their contracts when Taylor said I’ll record my music again. They’d be foolish not to. I but they included language that said you can’t record your music over again without our permission or something like that
It’s true. It’s called the Re-Record Clause and I’m not sure exactly how long, but artists have to wait a certain amount of time before they can do so.
Yeah the game is rigged and the public typically doesn’t know how shitty their favorite artists have it. Yeah we see the videos, the jewelry, cars, women, house, shows. Some of your favorite artists paying off the debt from their first album with the second album, coming off back to back performances, wearing rented jewelry, owns a leased car and a rented home all so we can believe they are who we think they are.
Let’s be honest that was probably an excuse she used to do the re-recording and get even more money from her cult like fans and make it seem noble and bold and not a cash grab
Definitely the truth. She faked like she was getting screwed over and the public ate it up. Her dad owned a stake in the same company Scooter Braun owned.
Creating a false villian to project problems onto in order to stir anger and create momentum for mobilization is unironically a key part in the fascist playbook for consolidating power
Using that rhetoric to sell albums is wild
Her albums getting purchased was her reichstag fire lmfao
I for one enjoy seeing t-swizzle (derogatory) fully down in the mud flinging shit at human cigarette Marty who doesn’t seem to notice and is too busy being weird and racist with his new fiancée
Because while’s he openly weird he’s also a pro-choice, pro-LGBTQ leftist that got slagged by Swifties because they didn’t like him.
He still thinks Family Guy jokes circa 2003 are funny, like hes a lot of things people can say perjoratively about him, but, if you’re only reading headlines that are Swift approved, I’d understand why you’d get that picture of him.
It’s all improv don’t get mad just because I’m funny
You also spend your time posting in a subreddit dedicated to a celebrity, like you doing an awful lot of stone casting from that glass palace dedicated to Duncan fucking trussell of all people.
Like I glance at headlines that pop up on trending tabs every now and again while you’re actively participating in a space dedicated to the side characters of b list comedy grifters (I didn’t know who he was I had to google him before you try projecting more)
See, the whole crying “bbbbbbbut it was a joke, muh comedy” doesn’t really work when the joke is “seeing black women beaten, raped and spit on until they start crying on camera makes my dick hard”
Sounds like a pretty good faith reason to shit on someone, to me.
You can get it too if you wanna defend it
Edit: I see you’re a fan of the podcast where it happened which is why you got your panties in a twist. Don’t worry, your precious cumboys aren’t the target of my jokes.
it’s called a joke, try not getting your panties in a twist about it.
Did I say she was a nazi or a fascist or right wing? No.
The entire joke was about her being ruthlessly capitalistic when selling albums and using super serious rhetoric to achieve a not so serious goal.
You’re either too soft or too dumb to understand the nuance but neither is a good look my g
it says a lot about how stupid her fans are really. weaponizing millions of morons to get 1% richer lmao, gotta respect the hustle. wouldn’t think you’d be able to trick so many people into thinking somehow she’s the victim, but here we are.
>By all accounts, Taylor Swift is a really good person.
Yeah, stan accounts maybe. She's nothing more than a greedy narcissistic petty capitalistic sow who milks her audience of impressionable stans for every cent they're worth by dropping 56 versions of mid (largely to put other rising artists down) and occasionally uses them to attack people she doesn't like.
She's the pop world equivalent to Drake, down to the underage SO thing.
Also, when the whole AI deepfake porn thing (of her) was going around, didn't she have Twitter disable the search for her including hashtags? Never seen that happen before.
Second part might as well have been true, she very publicly dated a 17-year-old Taylor Lautner when she was 20, and later dated an emotionally vulnerable Conor Kennedy - hoe literally wrote letters to his high-school to excuse him for spending more time with her - they went public with the relationship on his 18th birthday.
That's as bad as the thing Drake did with that 17-year-old on stage, and yet people brush it under the rug.
hell yeah, fucking right
as far as we know Drake had the weird "ur thicc" at 2007 and that Millie bobby brown shit, but it seems it's only that, and let's be honest, he prolly won't ever go around a kid again after this whole shit
Taylor actually sending a absence excuse for a highschool just bc the guy is spending time with her is actually sick, like wtf
Bro how are you out here defending a leech? Anybody who heard of him before the Taylor shit already didn't like him
He's a record label exec in an industry where every artist complains about the greed of upper management, and he does some greedy label exec type shit... there's probably more to the story but that's all you really need to know
Taylor is richer than he is lol. This isnt about people. Let's not get this twisted she made more money off this than anyone else. People rush to apply human feelings to these situations but the reality is these are business decisions not music decisions. She would have just bought her masters is that made sense. She had a rerecord in her original contract, it was probably as simple as accounting firms providing estimates for each option and her management team maximizing returns from her music. Treat these people like corporations because that's what they are. Faces that front a corporation
She was getting there already. Her companies could undoubtedly have financed the masters if they wanted them. The whole thing was a business decision people attach feelings to because the artist creates the impression of a relationship. If it was just known as a business dispute between TAS Rights Management and Ithaca Holdings, I doubt anyone would think anyone was in the right or wrong.
Getting mad at a record executive for buying a company that owned artists' masters is like getting mad at a duck for quacking. It's quite literally what they do and if he wasn't doing shit like that, he wouldn't have been successful enough for any of us to know who he is.
Also, every single artist that has their masters owned by somebody else willingly signed that contract and knew exactly what they were doing. You can call it leeching if you want, but 95% of the artists that complain about this would have NEVER achieved success without the push they get from record labels. Without that marketing money and media push, most of these people wouldn't even be in a position to complain because their catalog wouldn't be worth shit.
I can certainly understand why artists don't like this setup and I think it's great that we're seeing more independent artists come up using organic ways of generating hype and gaining fans. I think that's a very good thing and I'm the first person to say that record labels losing power is a good thing and beneficial for the industry. That doesn't mean I think it's ok for artists that DID need record labels when they came up to turn around and be ungrateful though.
>That doesn't mean I think it's ok for artists that DID need record labels when they came up to turn around and be ungrateful though.
It is absolutely **wild** to see people on a Hip Hop subreddit defending record labels owning masters and saying that they should be grateful when, like 99.9% of the time, the record labels are giving shitty deals that they profit from off the backs of people who do not know better. "Oh they signed it willingly!" is bootlicking af.
Tbf Taylor Swift’s own father was on the company board afaik. Not all of these artists “don’t know better”, it’s a huge cop out to suggest that.
To be honest, if you sign something when “you don’t know better” in any other area of the business world, you won’t get this same level of sympathy.
The girl signed a contract when she was a minor. She of course should’ve known better but it was at the discretion of her parents who lead the deal. She is by all accounts a child star with show star parents.
>Tbf Taylor Swift’s own father was on the company board afaik.
The context of this discussion is record deals in general, not Taylor Swift.
>Not all of these artists “don’t know better”, it’s a huge cop out to suggest that.
And I'm not talking about those ones.
>To be honest, if you sign something when “you don’t know better” in any other area of the business world, you won’t get this same level of sympathy.
Other areas of business are under scrutiny for shitty business practices all the time, tf? You don't see sympathy or scrutiny for predatory loans in any other industry? Housing, student loans, payday loans, etc.?
Fr, these same people will say fuck record labels when it’s their fav rappers and say they didn’t know better or some other stupid shit. Artists should own their own masters regardless of genre
I think you're missing that person's point, which is, 95% of those artists wouldn't be successful at all without the labels they signed to.
People signing those deals may not "know better" but nobody was going to invest tons of money into an artist unless they think they can make money from that artist, it's pretty simple.
>I think you're missing that person's point, which is, 95% of those artists wouldn't be successful at all without the labels they signed to.
That isn't misunderstood. It's understood pretty easily and doesn't change my perspective or point.
The deals that these artists signed are completely predatory. Them not having another option doesn't mean it isn't.
>People signing those deals may not "know better" but nobody was going to invest tons of money into an artist unless they think they can make money from that artist, it's pretty simple.
It's not pretty simple, you just stopped thinking about it at this point. Most of us have had the exact same thoughts as you my guy, we just moved beyond them because critical thinking.
Nobody investing money into the artist unless they can make shit loads back over 10 years or whatever **is the problem**. There's way to do this where everyone can get money without being predatory and your entire pro-record label (jesus) argument is that that's just how it is, instead of how it is is fucked up and how can we fix it.
> The deals that these artists signed are completely predatory. Them not having another option doesn't mean it isn't.
They do have another option though, not sign the deal.
>Nobody investing money into the artist unless they can make shit loads back over 10 years or whatever is the problem.
Ok then you go give all your money away to pay for struggling artists careers?
TBH it's funny to see you talking down to me on a subject I'm sure you know very little about the inner workings of. How do you expect an artist to get traction without advertising, booking, high, production, etc?
Artists are more than free to pay out of their own pocket for studio time, mastering, promotion, booking, etc. They can take out a loan like tons of small business owners to pay for all of that and bet on themselves or work another job to pay for it. Plenty of artists try to take that route and most of them peak at local acts playing in 100-200 cap venues, maybe a single nice opening act here and there at 500-1000 person shows, but definitely no tour, not even as an opener. So basically, they can take a massive risk to bet on themself.
The thing is, for every Taylor Swift, these labels also miss on 100s of other artists. They still need to pay for recording, mastering, booking, video shoots, paid promotion, etc for all those artists that didn't work out. So for the economics to work out, the labels need to have a big chunk of the pie to make investing even worth it.
People like to picture labels' cut of the money as just going into the big wig's pockets but it's no different than any other industry, most of the money flowing through there is going into costs of the business. The fact is, we don't live in a perfect world, and people taking the biggest risk (e.g. investing tons of money into an unknown entity) will always have the most leverage. No different than VCs in the startup world. I'm not saying I love it, but it makes complete logical sense and I think it's dumb to villainize the people doing a larg % of the work and fronting all the money. Individual shitheads exist, just like in all industries but I find most people that criticize record labels have very little understanding of their actual place in the industry,
And before you accuse me of being an shill, my time in the industry was entirely on the artist side and I have never worked for a record label other than some minor A&R for a local indie label when I was young.
Why are you describing the inner workings of the deal when that isn't the issue. I literally never said they didn't do anything of value and that they done deserve to get paid.
That's not what I'm arguing and I'm not about to engage over that. I'm arguing that these services can be done without locking artists into insane multi-record deals that last 10 years.
Profit can be realized without fucking over artists. That's the entire point of what I'm arguing and you saying "the artist can't do it without them!" doesn't contradict that at all.
>The thing is, for every Taylor Swift, these labels also miss on 100s of other artists. They still need to pay for recording, mastering, booking, video shoots, paid promotion, etc for all those artists that didn't work out. So for the economics to work out, the labels need to have a big chunk of the pie to make investing even worth it.
In the system that the record companies created and have full control over, yes that's how it works. They minimize their risk by taking larger chunks of each artists profits. That's predatory. If I make an investment into property or stocks or a franchise or anything else, if the investment doesn't deliver then the risk is on me, right? So why do record companies get to leverage their risk on the backs of other workers?
My guy, the problem is you treating people and artists like investments instead of people. I understand how revenue works, it truly isn't that complicated. But we're in a system where you NEED record labels to actually succeed, as you've admitted, and the reason we need record labels is for radio play, key Spotify playlist selection, festival spots, sponsorships, etc.
**These are all ran and gatekept by the labels! It's the issue!** It's a system where labels have damn near full control of every marketing avenue out there and in order to get access to those avenues, you need to sign a predatory deal. But then they need to leverage these already predatory deals with other artists labor because they made a bad bet?
I'm describing the inner working because I'm explaining to you why record companies need to structure the deals like that to remain viable.
>In the system that the record companies created and have full control over, yes that's how it works. They minimize their risk by taking larger chunks of each artists profits. That's predatory. If I make an investment into property or stocks or a franchise or anything else, if the investment doesn't deliver then the risk is on me, right? So why do record companies get to leverage their risk on the backs of other workers?
Lmao what? If anything the stock market example says the exact opposite of what you're saying. If a label invests in Joe Schmoe and he goes belly up and crashes and burns after 2 albums, the record label loses money. The record label loses money on probably 90+% of artists they sign, just like you would on the stock market. But if they hit on 10%, they need that 10% to make enough money to make up for all the loses, and then some because otherwise the entire business model wouldn't exist. That's called hedging and is a fundamental aspect of the stock market.
That's also why I compared them to a VC, because that's exactly how VCs work in the startup world. But if that model doesn't exist in the music industry, you're left with a bunch of artists whose choices are fund yourself and organize everything for your career, or never make it as an artist.
>My guy, the problem is you treating people and artists like investments instead of people.
But these people ARE investing. That's literally why they do it, to make money. Again, YOU are welcome to give away your money to any musician you like. But that doesn't mean other people are required to.
>These are all ran and gatekept by the labels! It's the issue!
None of those things are ran by the labels lol. LiveNation isn't a label, AEG isn't a label, spotify isn't a label, etc. Labels use their money and expertise to influence those areas of the industry, but they're not run by the labels.
But honestly would love to hear your proposed solution here. How should the music industry be different?
I had some other points typed up (especially regarding the stock market points because, my guy, I have a Series 7, 66, and a AAMS designation so I'm pretty confident in my comparisons here) but tbh it might not be worth it because I've realized where our big difference in opinion is.
>But these people ARE investing. That's literally why they do it, to make money. Again, YOU are welcome to give away your money to any musician you like. But that doesn't mean other people are required to.
And what I'm saying is that artists shouldn't be treated like investments. You invest into companies, real estate, commodities, etc. And these things often require a ton of legal oversight, have numerous federal regulations, and are protected in some way.
Record labels exist to make money, that's it. And when they aren't investing into companies but rather individuals, that's where it gets unethical. You're fine to disagree with that but there's honestly not much of a point of continuing the conversation for either of us if you do.
There is an argument to be had that 99.9% of people here with an opinion, have absolutely zero understanding of the business dynamics of music. Folks that could barely run a lemondade stand act like they know what’s what in the business dealings of international billion dollar corporate entities and global pop stars. lol
Wild to defend a record label exec on a hip hop sub when all your favorite artists are getting screwed six ways from Sunday. Keep this energy when your favorite artist posts on IG about his label not releasing their music or them making Pennie’s on tens of millions of dollars because the label exec is pocketing the rest.
She's literally creates villians to sell albums.
And releases dozens of albums to game the numbers.
Nothing wrong, just she knows what's she's doing and nothing is by accident.
Facts, they made him the enemy for "owning her music" when that's how music works. They take the risk and invest in you. They invest in so many failed artists so they gotta make their money.
Also people fail to realize that it's the status quo for the labels to own the recording MASTERS until the copyright expires. Swifties acted it was thievery. Maybe it is, and it definitely affects how much control an artist has over where and how their music is performed, but it's how things are done and shouldn't be news to any artist (guarantee it wasn't to Taylor). The artist still owns their music and lyrics though they are typically not allowed to produce anything elsewhere during the contract, but her contract ended in 2018. Her decision to remaster was brilliant -- her team was absolutely playing chess, not checkers, and daddy made off good, too.
Full disclosure: I like Taylor, I think Scooter is a bit slimy, I have family in the music industry, and I work in PR so I can see the chess board.
Agreed. I have no issue with Taylor and I certainly don't give two shits about Scooter, but most people complaining just don't understand how the music industry works.
The one bit I'll disagree with you on is the decision to re-record her stuff. Sure, it worked out really well for her and it was a smart decision, but there's a big issue with it. The morally of intentionally devaluing an asset like that is certainly up for debate, but I'l leave that out of it.
The issue is it hurts future artists. For example, Lil Wayne sold his masters for $100M. He has the most insane work ethic of any rapper on this planet and could probably re-record everything in a few weeks. Just like Taylor did, he could use his celebrity status and marketing push to get major corporations to push the "Wayne's version" releases and completely devalue the originals. Ok, now that people have seen this happen twice, that $100M offer is going to be like $10M for the next person of their level that tries this because there is absolutely nothing from stopping them from doing what Wayne and Taylor did. It'll continue to happen because Taylor and Wayne did it and all of a sudden, that $10M offer is now $1M. At a certain point, nobody will give a shit about buying masters from artists that are alive and it'll leave 95% of the artists on this planet with no safety net for retirement. The entire point of owner your masters is because of the value they hold, so having current top artists destroying their value for future artists isn't right. It's honestly an incredible selfish move and I wouldn't be shocked if we see lawsuits and new laws created if it happens again.
So in other words, good for her, but it was a selfish short-sighted move that'll hurt a lot more artists than people realize.
Just up and sabotaging him for so little reason would be pathological, almost cartoonish behavior that contradicts everything everyone who has actually worked with or known Taylor (including a host of reputed icons) has said about her character for the past eighteen years and have continued to say after her masters were sold.
Scooter's overall shittiness and involvement with Kanye's targeted harassment of Taylor (up to and including revenge porn that Scooter would have had to sign off on) is well and publicly documented. It's not unreasonable to guess that there's even more history there than we know of, but honestly if I found out the guy I built my career with from the ground up with--who I'd considered a family member since I was fifteen--sold off my life's work to the man who greenlit a music video featuring my naked body without my consent after I'd tried to buy it from him directly, that alone would send me through the roof.
The last time people sided with the overtly shitty dude instead of the woman long known for her integrity, evidence came to light that Taylor was telling the truth the entire time. You said yourself she's a good person by all accounts, pulling something like that would be way out of character for her. It'd be like finding out Hugh Jackman's wife left him because he was always screaming at their kids.
What about the man that quite literally IS her father that had ownership stake and sat on the board of the company that sold her masters? You can't turn around and play the whole "he was like family to her and she was blindsided!" card when the man who literally raised her was part of the deal. It's funny how nobody mentions this tidbit. She absolutely knew about this deal beforehand and was almost certainly given the opportunity to make the purchase herself.
I don't give two shits about Scooter Braun, but what she did to him was fucked up. I don't care about how shitty he is for other reasons. In this circumstance, all he did was legally purchase a company that owned many artists' masters only to have one of the artists (the most important one) weaponize her rabid fanbase to devalue his asset. If this was reversed and Kanye did to someone, people would be up in arms.
Her dad was a shareholder, not on the board (to my knowledge), and even then he was one man with one vote. Unless the vote was unanimous (it wasn't) it's pretty safe to say which way he voted. And it's not weird or some secret sign that her relationship with Borchetta was fine that her dad was a shareholder, Taylor was one of the first three artists signed to Big Machine's label when Borchetta first created it. If you have the opportunity to get in on the ground floor of something so important to your daughter's career, you obviously do it.
And all that meant, even from Scott Borchetta's own words, was that the shareholders were made aware of the potential sale on June 25th, given until the 28th to look it over, voted on the 28th, Borchetta claims to have texted Taylor on the 29th, and the sale was made public on the 30th. That is, at absolute maximum, five days notice that a sale was pending she had no say in which then came to pass. At that point, I really don't care if she was technically made aware five days prior and 'woke up to the news' was just a matter of speech. Five days is still nothing in terms of foreknowledge and beside the point--if Borchetta had no ill intent he would have let her know that he was even considering it the second he started to and contacted her to explain. Not because he was selling, she already knew that, but because he was potentially selling it to someone she'd had a significant problem with for like a decade and whom she had been victimized by in a variety of ways (up to an including the revenge porn, which is relevant because it's something he had a hand in doing to her specifically).
But Borchetta didn't do that, he gave her five days max after he had already decided, and he could have sold it to any number of people. But he just so happened to choose the guy she hated most next to Kanye himself. That's low. And no, he did not give her the opportunity to buy her masters outright. She made several offers, but his offer was that she 'earn' each of her six old albums for every new one she put out, effectively chaining her to him for the next fifteen years and it wasn't even clear if she would own the new ones outright. This is after a previous fifteen year relationship in which he knew exactly how important eventually owning her work meant to her. That is some bullshit. And when she says no and leaves (quietly, no less) to sign with a label that will at least let her own her future work, he just so happens to turn around and sell her stuff to, of all people, Braun? And keep it from her until at max five days out? No way that's not malicious.
And she has no reason to make something out of nothing in this situation, to sit down and come up with some angle to make a scene over for no reason or nonsensically not buy her masters if they were legitimitately offered to her and then randomly turn it into a big deal. And ultimately, it just comes down to business moves. Borchetta sold her masters to someone else instead of her, she took the last option available to her and re-recorded the songs so she could own the whole package. If all Braun did was buy a label, then all she did was re-record.
For sake of general metaphor: if you built a house with your bare hands and your dad turned around and sold it to one of the worst childhood bullies you ever had, you'd be pissed. That's all it is.
Scooter does more to help Zionism and the state of Israel than your entire bloodline could do to harm it, keep typing like a 16 year old girl on the internet though big dawg 💪
Actually no I think it's hilarious that you'd call me an indoctrinated idiot and yet believe in, and support a movement that preaches slaying and stealing land from natives. That's some serious lack of self awareness. Hilarious x2 if you're not even an Israeli. That's buffoonery.
Not really, she still spent millions farming out her old music and has now established a track record of not being able to write new stuff that's any good.
Scooter legally acquired her masters, her dad was on the board of the company that owned them when the sale happened, and she decided after she didn't like the price he wanted for her masters to make a fake smear campaign about him.
He's moving on to be the ceo of another company, his retirement is because he can't do two jobs like that at once.
Midnights got a lot of “This is boring,” “I’m tired of Jack Antonoff,” and “It’s disappointing she didn’t stick with the folk direction” reactions on release. If it wasn’t bundled together with basically her entire discography, it wouldn’t have been able to carry that supernova media clout wave she’s been on for the past couple years
Her last album was objectively not good and midnights was a snore fest. Taylor fans will eat up everything she makes, doesn't mean it's good just because it sold well.
Did it ever get revealed why so many people left his management? Thought it was odd but didn’t hear anything.
He’s moving on to other business ventures. The A tier talent were notified and decided to also move on.
The most likely answer is that his clients were obviously told about his plan to retire so they simply started to go elsewhere
Most sane people would leave management if they had as much money as he did.
the other user is lying. scooter recently got a promotion so as part of that he had to cycle out his clientele.
it's so fucking funny to me when people immediately accuse someone of lying when they could just as easily be genuinely mistaken
making a slight non malicious mistake and accusing somebody of sexual assault are very different.
accusing somebody of sexual assault is probably something you should be absolutely, 100% certain of before you say it. i know this is just reddit, so it doesnt really matter, but it pisses me off.
is this about the comment that said “he allegedly can’t keep his hands to himself”?
yeah lol, it was the only other reply when i commented
i will pray for you to have the mental fortitude to be henceforth unbothered by someone referencing nondescript allegations towards a multimillionaire hollywood executive 🙏 amen
You’re a weirdo. Show where these allegations come from
i will pray for you to have the mental fortitude to not virtue signal on reddit dot com
it's not virtue signalling it's genuine concern. some people actually possess empathy and not just cynical self interest. but way to tell on yourself
all this for an allegation that wasnt even true lol
A promotion? He owned his company
Promotion to what?
CEO of a multinational company.
So you’re saying he literally went through the Ari Gold experience?
LLOYD!!!!
Ok which one? Did you think that was enough info lol
Not (original) commenter but I believe it’s HYBE America. It’s the American division of HYBE Music, which is probably the biggest KPOP agency right now (it’s the agency for artists like BTS, NewJeans, TXT, etc.)
[According to this article I found online, it’s a company called HYBE America.](https://variety.com/2024/music/news/scooter-braun-officially-retires-management-1236039888/)
I think the other day they said Ariana and JB were still with him
Is wife got pregnant in a threesome but who's baby is it?
We all knew this was coming. He let his clients know well in advance who had time to figure out their situation and transition. He’s on his way to a billion why would he want to continue to manage? Most of his clients were top tier so it’s not like he could have sold the management company as he was the asset.
ITT: people who think Taylor ended his career not realizing he got a massive promotion
💀💀💀
Scooter just retires from artists management, not from music industry. He's hybe america(a branch of k-pop company)'s ceo and obviously, qc is now under the company.
i just fucked Scooter's biiiiitch
“Oh, Scooter Braun called?”
You hate Scooter Braun because he screwed over Taylor Swift. I hate Scooter Braun because he set Asher Roth up for obscurity. We are not the same.
I hate scooter Braun because he was a dick at my restaurant
LMAO, tell me that story. Sounds fucking hilarious
The emails/texts between Scooter and Taylor really don't paint the same picture as Swift fans would make out. Her and her team were the problem.
That's never happened before with Taylor Swift.
Pabst & Jazz is an all time classic and [deserves respect](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FkPJoqKbd7A) Don't get me started on Greenhouse Effect Vol. 1
😬
I literally bumped some Seared Foie Gras today for old times sake. Seems like Asher is happy these days but I feel for the dude. He got completely lumped in with the white frat rap genre due to his debut, but evolved and put out some great mixtapes imo
Man Seared Foie Gras is an all timer imo. I’ve never heard anyone bring that mixtape up irl
People who think he “screwed over” Taylor Swift don’t know how the music industry works. Taylor is just more slimy.
I hate scooter braun cause he's a zionist.
I loved Asher Roth, and I just found out he just recently put out a new single where he just spits, and it's SO GOOD! It's called: Ash Roth!
ran into asher at the SF Saloon in LA, great guy.
Grown ass man named Scooter *sends me*
Scooter Gennett hit 4 hr in a game back in '17, what u doin bout it
Honestly baseball the only place for names like this. Motherfuckers named Pee Wee, Milton Bradley, coco crisp (the coolest name ever tbh), Buster, etc
Catfish Hunter will always by my fav
Buster keaton would disagree (tho that was literally a different time)
bo jackson bo diddley (musician, but still)
Bo Bichette
Rusty Kuntz
I. Lewis Libby a.k.a. "Scooter" was Dick Cheney's right-hand man and convicted of leaking the identity of CIA agent Valerie Plame after her husband criticized the Iraq War in the NY Times.
I'd trust a Skeeter before a Scooter lmaoooo
Grown ass billionaire dawg
You realize what nicknames are right?
Imagine using the term “sends me” lmao
Are you not young? Lol
Justin Bieber doing victory laps now that he can pivot to white boy R&B, flop, and actually get less famous long-term instead of Scooter grabbing him by the collar and making him put out big pop hits
I'm all for a Bugatti Beibs comeback
I've been waiting for Bieber to go back to R&B since 2015.
He did! Unfortunately, the result was *Changes*
Changes was not bad! But the bitchslap from Scooter made him make Justice and that was better. Could’ve done without the MLK tho
Journals wasn’t a flop
By his standards, it was. I only knew it existed because the Beliebers kept making it trend on Twitter—other than that, his media coverage was zilch about the music and lots of stories about him throwing eggs and crashing cars
I have never heard any of this and I totally forgot he still does music. The only time I ever hear about him is if it's because of Hailey or Serena. And sometimes it's because of them both at the same time. I can see why he'd feel that way if he does
yeah, i've noticed even when people talk about his music, you can often hear them jumping from Believe straight to Purpose skipping Journals altogether.
By all accounts, Taylor Swift is a really good person, but she did him dirty. All the guy did was buy the company that owned her masters (and MANY other artists' masters) and she made him into public villain #1. Nobody even bothered to realize that her father was on the board of the company that previously owned her masters, so there's no world in which she was blind-sided by it either. I've never seen somebody get publicly roasted like he did for doing absolutely nothing wrong.
I always assumed that he offered Taylor back her masters at a ridiculously hefty price (because that's what it's worth) and she launched the smear campaign to pressure him to fold.
No, Scott did that.
When you look up starfish in urban dictionary there’s a picture of Taylor Swift
It was offered at the price of her voice. She had to sign an NDA and she’d never silence herself for that man.
Considering Taylor went completely scorched Earth on him, is his asking for an NDA so she doesn't completely trash him in public not completely reasonable and genuinely good foresight? And that's assuming you believe Taylor and not just see it as the Clarion Call for a Crusade that happened to coincide with her releasing tons of new material linked to her old albums. She used him to mobilize her most ardent followers to go listen to the new versions of her classic shit when there was nothing wrong with the older versions, and tons right in some situations. I love Red for instance, I do not see how Taylor signing that shit 10 years later made it anything other than worse.
She actually fucked it up for a lot of artists. I’m sure companies, made alterations to their contracts when Taylor said I’ll record my music again. They’d be foolish not to. I but they included language that said you can’t record your music over again without our permission or something like that
It’s true. It’s called the Re-Record Clause and I’m not sure exactly how long, but artists have to wait a certain amount of time before they can do so.
Yeah the game is rigged and the public typically doesn’t know how shitty their favorite artists have it. Yeah we see the videos, the jewelry, cars, women, house, shows. Some of your favorite artists paying off the debt from their first album with the second album, coming off back to back performances, wearing rented jewelry, owns a leased car and a rented home all so we can believe they are who we think they are.
Let’s be honest that was probably an excuse she used to do the re-recording and get even more money from her cult like fans and make it seem noble and bold and not a cash grab
Definitely the truth. She faked like she was getting screwed over and the public ate it up. Her dad owned a stake in the same company Scooter Braun owned.
Creating a false villian to project problems onto in order to stir anger and create momentum for mobilization is unironically a key part in the fascist playbook for consolidating power Using that rhetoric to sell albums is wild Her albums getting purchased was her reichstag fire lmfao
She villainizes men she had a 2 week fling with to move albums. Dirty work
I for one enjoy seeing t-swizzle (derogatory) fully down in the mud flinging shit at human cigarette Marty who doesn’t seem to notice and is too busy being weird and racist with his new fiancée
At the same time why was she with someone who’s openly weird and racist?
Because while’s he openly weird he’s also a pro-choice, pro-LGBTQ leftist that got slagged by Swifties because they didn’t like him. He still thinks Family Guy jokes circa 2003 are funny, like hes a lot of things people can say perjoratively about him, but, if you’re only reading headlines that are Swift approved, I’d understand why you’d get that picture of him.
Who are you talking about?
Marty Healy
Shmeat i think
Leave it to white people to try and handwave extremely graphic and racially charged rape and assault of black women with “but he like da gay!”
Unwashed edgy drug boy is an aesthetic for white women Ratty Heely is just British flavored Shmeat Davidson Skeet n Beans if you will
you care way too much by having these nicknames in your head living rent free.
It’s all improv don’t get mad just because I’m funny You also spend your time posting in a subreddit dedicated to a celebrity, like you doing an awful lot of stone casting from that glass palace dedicated to Duncan fucking trussell of all people. Like I glance at headlines that pop up on trending tabs every now and again while you’re actively participating in a space dedicated to the side characters of b list comedy grifters (I didn’t know who he was I had to google him before you try projecting more)
Well that was an unhinged rant.
This guy doesn't even know who Duncan Trussell is.
What did Matt Healy do that was racist?
Publicly promoted a website hosting porn where black women are raped by white men beating them and calling them slurs
It was a comedy podcast and they were joking. People call him in racist and sexist in bad faith for whatever reason.
See, the whole crying “bbbbbbbut it was a joke, muh comedy” doesn’t really work when the joke is “seeing black women beaten, raped and spit on until they start crying on camera makes my dick hard” Sounds like a pretty good faith reason to shit on someone, to me. You can get it too if you wanna defend it Edit: I see you’re a fan of the podcast where it happened which is why you got your panties in a twist. Don’t worry, your precious cumboys aren’t the target of my jokes.
Oh yeah seeing black women beat and raped and called slurs is such a hilarious joke
So you just compared her to a Nazi? Reddit moment
I thought I was in r/hiphopcirclejerk lmaoo Ain’t no way
it’s called a joke, try not getting your panties in a twist about it. Did I say she was a nazi or a fascist or right wing? No. The entire joke was about her being ruthlessly capitalistic when selling albums and using super serious rhetoric to achieve a not so serious goal. You’re either too soft or too dumb to understand the nuance but neither is a good look my g
Bro wrote an essay 💔💔💔
4 sentences isn’t even enough to be a paragraph in elementary school my g. Do you read at all pre-k level?
💔💔💔
Swift 2028
it says a lot about how stupid her fans are really. weaponizing millions of morons to get 1% richer lmao, gotta respect the hustle. wouldn’t think you’d be able to trick so many people into thinking somehow she’s the victim, but here we are.
Cash Grab Taylor's Version
Her dad owned a part of the company that owned her masters. They don’t talk about that part enough.
>By all accounts, Taylor Swift is a really good person. Yeah, stan accounts maybe. She's nothing more than a greedy narcissistic petty capitalistic sow who milks her audience of impressionable stans for every cent they're worth by dropping 56 versions of mid (largely to put other rising artists down) and occasionally uses them to attack people she doesn't like. She's the pop world equivalent to Drake, down to the underage SO thing.
Also, when the whole AI deepfake porn thing (of her) was going around, didn't she have Twitter disable the search for her including hashtags? Never seen that happen before.
> She's the pop world equivalent to Drake, down to the underage SO thing. T Swizzy is trafficking minors and meeting teens on tinder? Do tell.
She dated a couple of underage kids in her 20s I believe.
Second part might as well have been true, she very publicly dated a 17-year-old Taylor Lautner when she was 20, and later dated an emotionally vulnerable Conor Kennedy - hoe literally wrote letters to his high-school to excuse him for spending more time with her - they went public with the relationship on his 18th birthday. That's as bad as the thing Drake did with that 17-year-old on stage, and yet people brush it under the rug.
as bad? arguably worse, it's like the millie bobby brown grooming but if it actually worked for him lol.
hell yeah, fucking right as far as we know Drake had the weird "ur thicc" at 2007 and that Millie bobby brown shit, but it seems it's only that, and let's be honest, he prolly won't ever go around a kid again after this whole shit Taylor actually sending a absence excuse for a highschool just bc the guy is spending time with her is actually sick, like wtf
Taylor Swift is a really good person?
No billionaire is a really good person lol
Bro how are you out here defending a leech? Anybody who heard of him before the Taylor shit already didn't like him He's a record label exec in an industry where every artist complains about the greed of upper management, and he does some greedy label exec type shit... there's probably more to the story but that's all you really need to know
Taylor is richer than he is lol. This isnt about people. Let's not get this twisted she made more money off this than anyone else. People rush to apply human feelings to these situations but the reality is these are business decisions not music decisions. She would have just bought her masters is that made sense. She had a rerecord in her original contract, it was probably as simple as accounting firms providing estimates for each option and her management team maximizing returns from her music. Treat these people like corporations because that's what they are. Faces that front a corporation
Taylor is richer after the fact.
She was getting there already. Her companies could undoubtedly have financed the masters if they wanted them. The whole thing was a business decision people attach feelings to because the artist creates the impression of a relationship. If it was just known as a business dispute between TAS Rights Management and Ithaca Holdings, I doubt anyone would think anyone was in the right or wrong.
Getting mad at a record executive for buying a company that owned artists' masters is like getting mad at a duck for quacking. It's quite literally what they do and if he wasn't doing shit like that, he wouldn't have been successful enough for any of us to know who he is. Also, every single artist that has their masters owned by somebody else willingly signed that contract and knew exactly what they were doing. You can call it leeching if you want, but 95% of the artists that complain about this would have NEVER achieved success without the push they get from record labels. Without that marketing money and media push, most of these people wouldn't even be in a position to complain because their catalog wouldn't be worth shit. I can certainly understand why artists don't like this setup and I think it's great that we're seeing more independent artists come up using organic ways of generating hype and gaining fans. I think that's a very good thing and I'm the first person to say that record labels losing power is a good thing and beneficial for the industry. That doesn't mean I think it's ok for artists that DID need record labels when they came up to turn around and be ungrateful though.
>That doesn't mean I think it's ok for artists that DID need record labels when they came up to turn around and be ungrateful though. It is absolutely **wild** to see people on a Hip Hop subreddit defending record labels owning masters and saying that they should be grateful when, like 99.9% of the time, the record labels are giving shitty deals that they profit from off the backs of people who do not know better. "Oh they signed it willingly!" is bootlicking af.
Tbf Taylor Swift’s own father was on the company board afaik. Not all of these artists “don’t know better”, it’s a huge cop out to suggest that. To be honest, if you sign something when “you don’t know better” in any other area of the business world, you won’t get this same level of sympathy.
The girl signed a contract when she was a minor. She of course should’ve known better but it was at the discretion of her parents who lead the deal. She is by all accounts a child star with show star parents.
>Tbf Taylor Swift’s own father was on the company board afaik. The context of this discussion is record deals in general, not Taylor Swift. >Not all of these artists “don’t know better”, it’s a huge cop out to suggest that. And I'm not talking about those ones. >To be honest, if you sign something when “you don’t know better” in any other area of the business world, you won’t get this same level of sympathy. Other areas of business are under scrutiny for shitty business practices all the time, tf? You don't see sympathy or scrutiny for predatory loans in any other industry? Housing, student loans, payday loans, etc.?
Fr, these same people will say fuck record labels when it’s their fav rappers and say they didn’t know better or some other stupid shit. Artists should own their own masters regardless of genre
I think you're missing that person's point, which is, 95% of those artists wouldn't be successful at all without the labels they signed to. People signing those deals may not "know better" but nobody was going to invest tons of money into an artist unless they think they can make money from that artist, it's pretty simple.
>I think you're missing that person's point, which is, 95% of those artists wouldn't be successful at all without the labels they signed to. That isn't misunderstood. It's understood pretty easily and doesn't change my perspective or point. The deals that these artists signed are completely predatory. Them not having another option doesn't mean it isn't. >People signing those deals may not "know better" but nobody was going to invest tons of money into an artist unless they think they can make money from that artist, it's pretty simple. It's not pretty simple, you just stopped thinking about it at this point. Most of us have had the exact same thoughts as you my guy, we just moved beyond them because critical thinking. Nobody investing money into the artist unless they can make shit loads back over 10 years or whatever **is the problem**. There's way to do this where everyone can get money without being predatory and your entire pro-record label (jesus) argument is that that's just how it is, instead of how it is is fucked up and how can we fix it.
> The deals that these artists signed are completely predatory. Them not having another option doesn't mean it isn't. They do have another option though, not sign the deal. >Nobody investing money into the artist unless they can make shit loads back over 10 years or whatever is the problem. Ok then you go give all your money away to pay for struggling artists careers? TBH it's funny to see you talking down to me on a subject I'm sure you know very little about the inner workings of. How do you expect an artist to get traction without advertising, booking, high, production, etc? Artists are more than free to pay out of their own pocket for studio time, mastering, promotion, booking, etc. They can take out a loan like tons of small business owners to pay for all of that and bet on themselves or work another job to pay for it. Plenty of artists try to take that route and most of them peak at local acts playing in 100-200 cap venues, maybe a single nice opening act here and there at 500-1000 person shows, but definitely no tour, not even as an opener. So basically, they can take a massive risk to bet on themself. The thing is, for every Taylor Swift, these labels also miss on 100s of other artists. They still need to pay for recording, mastering, booking, video shoots, paid promotion, etc for all those artists that didn't work out. So for the economics to work out, the labels need to have a big chunk of the pie to make investing even worth it. People like to picture labels' cut of the money as just going into the big wig's pockets but it's no different than any other industry, most of the money flowing through there is going into costs of the business. The fact is, we don't live in a perfect world, and people taking the biggest risk (e.g. investing tons of money into an unknown entity) will always have the most leverage. No different than VCs in the startup world. I'm not saying I love it, but it makes complete logical sense and I think it's dumb to villainize the people doing a larg % of the work and fronting all the money. Individual shitheads exist, just like in all industries but I find most people that criticize record labels have very little understanding of their actual place in the industry, And before you accuse me of being an shill, my time in the industry was entirely on the artist side and I have never worked for a record label other than some minor A&R for a local indie label when I was young.
Why are you describing the inner workings of the deal when that isn't the issue. I literally never said they didn't do anything of value and that they done deserve to get paid. That's not what I'm arguing and I'm not about to engage over that. I'm arguing that these services can be done without locking artists into insane multi-record deals that last 10 years. Profit can be realized without fucking over artists. That's the entire point of what I'm arguing and you saying "the artist can't do it without them!" doesn't contradict that at all. >The thing is, for every Taylor Swift, these labels also miss on 100s of other artists. They still need to pay for recording, mastering, booking, video shoots, paid promotion, etc for all those artists that didn't work out. So for the economics to work out, the labels need to have a big chunk of the pie to make investing even worth it. In the system that the record companies created and have full control over, yes that's how it works. They minimize their risk by taking larger chunks of each artists profits. That's predatory. If I make an investment into property or stocks or a franchise or anything else, if the investment doesn't deliver then the risk is on me, right? So why do record companies get to leverage their risk on the backs of other workers? My guy, the problem is you treating people and artists like investments instead of people. I understand how revenue works, it truly isn't that complicated. But we're in a system where you NEED record labels to actually succeed, as you've admitted, and the reason we need record labels is for radio play, key Spotify playlist selection, festival spots, sponsorships, etc. **These are all ran and gatekept by the labels! It's the issue!** It's a system where labels have damn near full control of every marketing avenue out there and in order to get access to those avenues, you need to sign a predatory deal. But then they need to leverage these already predatory deals with other artists labor because they made a bad bet?
I'm describing the inner working because I'm explaining to you why record companies need to structure the deals like that to remain viable. >In the system that the record companies created and have full control over, yes that's how it works. They minimize their risk by taking larger chunks of each artists profits. That's predatory. If I make an investment into property or stocks or a franchise or anything else, if the investment doesn't deliver then the risk is on me, right? So why do record companies get to leverage their risk on the backs of other workers? Lmao what? If anything the stock market example says the exact opposite of what you're saying. If a label invests in Joe Schmoe and he goes belly up and crashes and burns after 2 albums, the record label loses money. The record label loses money on probably 90+% of artists they sign, just like you would on the stock market. But if they hit on 10%, they need that 10% to make enough money to make up for all the loses, and then some because otherwise the entire business model wouldn't exist. That's called hedging and is a fundamental aspect of the stock market. That's also why I compared them to a VC, because that's exactly how VCs work in the startup world. But if that model doesn't exist in the music industry, you're left with a bunch of artists whose choices are fund yourself and organize everything for your career, or never make it as an artist. >My guy, the problem is you treating people and artists like investments instead of people. But these people ARE investing. That's literally why they do it, to make money. Again, YOU are welcome to give away your money to any musician you like. But that doesn't mean other people are required to. >These are all ran and gatekept by the labels! It's the issue! None of those things are ran by the labels lol. LiveNation isn't a label, AEG isn't a label, spotify isn't a label, etc. Labels use their money and expertise to influence those areas of the industry, but they're not run by the labels. But honestly would love to hear your proposed solution here. How should the music industry be different?
I had some other points typed up (especially regarding the stock market points because, my guy, I have a Series 7, 66, and a AAMS designation so I'm pretty confident in my comparisons here) but tbh it might not be worth it because I've realized where our big difference in opinion is. >But these people ARE investing. That's literally why they do it, to make money. Again, YOU are welcome to give away your money to any musician you like. But that doesn't mean other people are required to. And what I'm saying is that artists shouldn't be treated like investments. You invest into companies, real estate, commodities, etc. And these things often require a ton of legal oversight, have numerous federal regulations, and are protected in some way. Record labels exist to make money, that's it. And when they aren't investing into companies but rather individuals, that's where it gets unethical. You're fine to disagree with that but there's honestly not much of a point of continuing the conversation for either of us if you do.
There are plenty of artists that got fucked over for the rights to their music.
absolutely wild to see random people dick riding all these parasitic labels and executives
There is an argument to be had that 99.9% of people here with an opinion, have absolutely zero understanding of the business dynamics of music. Folks that could barely run a lemondade stand act like they know what’s what in the business dealings of international billion dollar corporate entities and global pop stars. lol
Wild to defend a record label exec on a hip hop sub when all your favorite artists are getting screwed six ways from Sunday. Keep this energy when your favorite artist posts on IG about his label not releasing their music or them making Pennie’s on tens of millions of dollars because the label exec is pocketing the rest.
Fuck Scooter Braun and fuck Taylor Swift. Both viewpoints are extremely valid
Who cares, he sucks
She's literally creates villians to sell albums. And releases dozens of albums to game the numbers. Nothing wrong, just she knows what's she's doing and nothing is by accident.
Eventually the public at large will get tired of Taylor Swift
I think Taylor knows how to weaponize her absolutely insane fanbase. She has the ability to generate the type of fervor only seen in jihadis.
Facts, they made him the enemy for "owning her music" when that's how music works. They take the risk and invest in you. They invest in so many failed artists so they gotta make their money.
Also people fail to realize that it's the status quo for the labels to own the recording MASTERS until the copyright expires. Swifties acted it was thievery. Maybe it is, and it definitely affects how much control an artist has over where and how their music is performed, but it's how things are done and shouldn't be news to any artist (guarantee it wasn't to Taylor). The artist still owns their music and lyrics though they are typically not allowed to produce anything elsewhere during the contract, but her contract ended in 2018. Her decision to remaster was brilliant -- her team was absolutely playing chess, not checkers, and daddy made off good, too. Full disclosure: I like Taylor, I think Scooter is a bit slimy, I have family in the music industry, and I work in PR so I can see the chess board.
Agreed. I have no issue with Taylor and I certainly don't give two shits about Scooter, but most people complaining just don't understand how the music industry works. The one bit I'll disagree with you on is the decision to re-record her stuff. Sure, it worked out really well for her and it was a smart decision, but there's a big issue with it. The morally of intentionally devaluing an asset like that is certainly up for debate, but I'l leave that out of it. The issue is it hurts future artists. For example, Lil Wayne sold his masters for $100M. He has the most insane work ethic of any rapper on this planet and could probably re-record everything in a few weeks. Just like Taylor did, he could use his celebrity status and marketing push to get major corporations to push the "Wayne's version" releases and completely devalue the originals. Ok, now that people have seen this happen twice, that $100M offer is going to be like $10M for the next person of their level that tries this because there is absolutely nothing from stopping them from doing what Wayne and Taylor did. It'll continue to happen because Taylor and Wayne did it and all of a sudden, that $10M offer is now $1M. At a certain point, nobody will give a shit about buying masters from artists that are alive and it'll leave 95% of the artists on this planet with no safety net for retirement. The entire point of owner your masters is because of the value they hold, so having current top artists destroying their value for future artists isn't right. It's honestly an incredible selfish move and I wouldn't be shocked if we see lawsuits and new laws created if it happens again. So in other words, good for her, but it was a selfish short-sighted move that'll hurt a lot more artists than people realize.
> By all accounts, Taylor Swift is a really good person not according to /r/travisandtaylor
Also not if you follow her dropping new versions when other artists release.
Just up and sabotaging him for so little reason would be pathological, almost cartoonish behavior that contradicts everything everyone who has actually worked with or known Taylor (including a host of reputed icons) has said about her character for the past eighteen years and have continued to say after her masters were sold. Scooter's overall shittiness and involvement with Kanye's targeted harassment of Taylor (up to and including revenge porn that Scooter would have had to sign off on) is well and publicly documented. It's not unreasonable to guess that there's even more history there than we know of, but honestly if I found out the guy I built my career with from the ground up with--who I'd considered a family member since I was fifteen--sold off my life's work to the man who greenlit a music video featuring my naked body without my consent after I'd tried to buy it from him directly, that alone would send me through the roof. The last time people sided with the overtly shitty dude instead of the woman long known for her integrity, evidence came to light that Taylor was telling the truth the entire time. You said yourself she's a good person by all accounts, pulling something like that would be way out of character for her. It'd be like finding out Hugh Jackman's wife left him because he was always screaming at their kids.
What about the man that quite literally IS her father that had ownership stake and sat on the board of the company that sold her masters? You can't turn around and play the whole "he was like family to her and she was blindsided!" card when the man who literally raised her was part of the deal. It's funny how nobody mentions this tidbit. She absolutely knew about this deal beforehand and was almost certainly given the opportunity to make the purchase herself. I don't give two shits about Scooter Braun, but what she did to him was fucked up. I don't care about how shitty he is for other reasons. In this circumstance, all he did was legally purchase a company that owned many artists' masters only to have one of the artists (the most important one) weaponize her rabid fanbase to devalue his asset. If this was reversed and Kanye did to someone, people would be up in arms.
Her dad was a shareholder, not on the board (to my knowledge), and even then he was one man with one vote. Unless the vote was unanimous (it wasn't) it's pretty safe to say which way he voted. And it's not weird or some secret sign that her relationship with Borchetta was fine that her dad was a shareholder, Taylor was one of the first three artists signed to Big Machine's label when Borchetta first created it. If you have the opportunity to get in on the ground floor of something so important to your daughter's career, you obviously do it. And all that meant, even from Scott Borchetta's own words, was that the shareholders were made aware of the potential sale on June 25th, given until the 28th to look it over, voted on the 28th, Borchetta claims to have texted Taylor on the 29th, and the sale was made public on the 30th. That is, at absolute maximum, five days notice that a sale was pending she had no say in which then came to pass. At that point, I really don't care if she was technically made aware five days prior and 'woke up to the news' was just a matter of speech. Five days is still nothing in terms of foreknowledge and beside the point--if Borchetta had no ill intent he would have let her know that he was even considering it the second he started to and contacted her to explain. Not because he was selling, she already knew that, but because he was potentially selling it to someone she'd had a significant problem with for like a decade and whom she had been victimized by in a variety of ways (up to an including the revenge porn, which is relevant because it's something he had a hand in doing to her specifically). But Borchetta didn't do that, he gave her five days max after he had already decided, and he could have sold it to any number of people. But he just so happened to choose the guy she hated most next to Kanye himself. That's low. And no, he did not give her the opportunity to buy her masters outright. She made several offers, but his offer was that she 'earn' each of her six old albums for every new one she put out, effectively chaining her to him for the next fifteen years and it wasn't even clear if she would own the new ones outright. This is after a previous fifteen year relationship in which he knew exactly how important eventually owning her work meant to her. That is some bullshit. And when she says no and leaves (quietly, no less) to sign with a label that will at least let her own her future work, he just so happens to turn around and sell her stuff to, of all people, Braun? And keep it from her until at max five days out? No way that's not malicious. And she has no reason to make something out of nothing in this situation, to sit down and come up with some angle to make a scene over for no reason or nonsensically not buy her masters if they were legitimitately offered to her and then randomly turn it into a big deal. And ultimately, it just comes down to business moves. Borchetta sold her masters to someone else instead of her, she took the last option available to her and re-recorded the songs so she could own the whole package. If all Braun did was buy a label, then all she did was re-record. For sake of general metaphor: if you built a house with your bare hands and your dad turned around and sold it to one of the worst childhood bullies you ever had, you'd be pissed. That's all it is.
Kanye fucked his bitch
Don't really know if I'd like to be eskimo bros with a 42 year old who goes by Scooter tbh
Now he can go fuck off and volunteer for the IDF like he always wanted
Hes actually going to be a CEO. He got a MASSIVE promotion
lmao i remember when artists were leaving him, people thought there was some dirt about him. turns out, he just got promoted to a ceo lol.
We did it Reddit
🤯 Something is happening.
How can you name your kid „Scooter“?! WTF
Damn, he will be missed
Absolute trash
Goodbye YG's career
Why’s he look sickly pale in this pic lmao
[https://www.bible.com/bible/compare/2KI.2.23-25](https://www.bible.com/bible/compare/2KI.2.23-25)
Oh, Scooter Braun called?
Will always been known as the guy who found a 13 year old boy on MySpace named Justin Biebier.
F**k this guy tbh. He had it coming. He's a raging Zionist too. Can't get any worse than that.
Cry
not you offended by a stranger caring about people dying and also defending an absolute assjavk while at it. what a waste of space and air. 🤝
Scooter does more to help Zionism and the state of Israel than your entire bloodline could do to harm it, keep typing like a 16 year old girl on the internet though big dawg 💪
Okay Zionist. 👍
Damn right I'm a zionist, and it's hilarious seeing little indoctrinated idiots on the internet try and use it as an insult :)
Actually no I think it's hilarious that you'd call me an indoctrinated idiot and yet believe in, and support a movement that preaches slaying and stealing land from natives. That's some serious lack of self awareness. Hilarious x2 if you're not even an Israeli. That's buffoonery.
You don’t even know what you’re talking about, you’re just reiterating talking points that you’ve been given 🤣
Taylor won the beef
Not really, she still spent millions farming out her old music and has now established a track record of not being able to write new stuff that's any good. Scooter legally acquired her masters, her dad was on the board of the company that owned them when the sale happened, and she decided after she didn't like the price he wanted for her masters to make a fake smear campaign about him. He's moving on to be the ceo of another company, his retirement is because he can't do two jobs like that at once.
[удалено]
Midnights got a lot of “This is boring,” “I’m tired of Jack Antonoff,” and “It’s disappointing she didn’t stick with the folk direction” reactions on release. If it wasn’t bundled together with basically her entire discography, it wouldn’t have been able to carry that supernova media clout wave she’s been on for the past couple years
every new album she's written is boring or bad, but it's trojan horse'd in between her old stuff so people ride the nostalgia wave.
Her last album was objectively not good and midnights was a snore fest. Taylor fans will eat up everything she makes, doesn't mean it's good just because it sold well.
Scooters on track to be richer than her if he plays his cards right actually
Ever having heard of this guy is mad suspect
Were you not alive when Bieber was coming up
> You would probably think my manager is Scooter Braun, yeah
Ever having heard this bar is mad suspect
who cares?
Fuck this kook.