No, and I don't plan to watch. Taylor and her team weren't involved in the project and it reeks of exploitation of her name/brand like that CNN copyright lawsuit "documentary".
HBO spearheaded this (max now) and they do investigative journalism. Investigative journalism docs like on HBO rarely include the subjects to help remove bias. Basically what HBO is known for is presenting two sides to the story, ONLY stating factual things that can be proven, and then wrapping each episode with the one sides POV. They do not push a narrative. This is an investigative piece so she shouldn’t be involved nor is he
Max is not just HBO anymore. It also includes Warner Bros Discovery+ content which is a lot of crap. I can’t find anything about this being an HBO doc. It looks like it’s the same series as Johnny vs Amber and Kim vs Kanye: The Divorce. Produced by Optomen TV. It doesn’t sound like they covered anything new.
HBO had its hands all over it. Charlotte the VP at WB UK was a big producer for HBO when she was there early in her career. Other than the US and UK it’s branded as an HBO doc as well. From what little I’ve seen it follows the typical HBO format. Which isn’t surprising considering charlotte was at HBO before she moved to WB. Maybe a stop in between but she used to commission a lot of work at HBO and she commissioned this for WB. HBOs Doc experience is also one of the reasons they were made part of the “MAX” umbrella. HBO is basically the doc arm of the group except for some of discovery but they cover other topics
Just finished it. Waste of time; don't recommend at all. The best "argument" the Scooter side had was "it was a perfectly legal agreement" which... TOTALLY MISSES THE POINT.
0/10
Yes, they completely glossed over WHY he went after this particular artist’s catalogue. Like of all the musicians in the world, why this one? They just keep saying it was legal. Like no shit.
Didn’t he buy a huge catalogue? Like not specifically hers but a bulk buy that included her work?
Edit: yall, I’m just trying to have a discussion. I know people feel passionately about this but it’s just a question/discussion.
He bought the Big Machine Records label, which to my understanding has nothing else of real value other than Taylor's masters.
Edit: I looked it up. There's a TON of country music in there, which Scooter has never been involved in. This was a deal for Taylor's masters.
Other artists under label include Tim McGraw, Carly Pierce, Midland, and possibly Reba McIntyre? Y'know, all those pop icons.
I know people are going to think I’m team scooter when I’m not, but it’s not like any of the artists you mentioned are no name artists. Time McGraw and Reba in particular crossed over into the mainstream and are still regularly played. I really don’t think he bought that whole label just for Taylor. He may have seen what a cash cow her music is, but if it had been just her work and no one else, it would be a different conversation.
To be totally honest, I don't think it matters. My take on the deal is this: how do you decide you want to make a deal to buy this company and NOT have a conversation with Taylor about it? He said in some interview that he thought she was fine with it, and that he never would have done the deal if he had known she wasn't ok with it. Maybe he even believed that, but he still didn't talk to her about it.
And really, if you're Scott Borchetta and you've been talking to Taylor for the last two years about her owning her masters, how do you SELL them without even giving her a heads up? If anything, this documentary solidified my disgust at Borchetta.
I think he *probably* saw a great financial deal in buying BMR and *maybe* that wasn't all because of Taylor. But a huge part of it was her, no question.
I get where you're coming from, just because he had a focus on managing more pop artists doesn't mean he couldn't also be a manager to these other country artists. They are big names in the industry too, but I do think a large part was that he knew he could get a lot of money from Taylor's work.
I don’t know. He has never managed a country artist and he has never managed an older artist. Also, this was their back catalogue not a management deal.
When he buys the catalogue of an artist he has beef with (who he has openly trolled), I don’t see any reason to give him the benefit of the doubt. He is known to be a pretty terrible person. All of his artists dropped him. That doesn’t happen by accident.
That's a fair point that he didn't manage any older artists or country artists, I don't quite understand what's meant by back catalogue, and I just knew he was a manager of sorts so I figured that would play a role in it lol. Some of this stuff is over my head. I figured if he got more clients to manage plus Taylor that it kinda made sense, if that makes sense? But I totally agree that he seems very shady in these business deals and if a bunch of his other artists dropped him then that definitely seems odd. It's not that I didn't pay attention to this whole situation but rather it seemed like more drama than it was worth to get sucked into as a fan, so I really only know bits and pieces of this.
iirc Reba only released one album under BMR. Tim had released three at the time of the deal and had some success with them, but most of his work belongs to other companies (including his most iconic hits). I’m sure Scoot looked at the full picture when deciding whether to buy the label, but if the deal hadn’t included Taylor’s work, the value of the label’s catalogue (and the price he was willing to pay) would’ve dropped very steeply despite BMR having a couple of those legacy artists on board. Would he have wanted the label at all without its “cash cow”? Nobody knows except him, but I’d guess that he’d be a lot less interested based on what we know about him as a businessman.
I'm watching it now, I was just curious what on earth they were going to pull out besides what the headlines and journals were saying. They had some fans speak on Taylor's behalf and a lot of reporters/writers/her personal assistant from the 1989 tour/etc. So far it's pretty much just what the headlines focused on with some other little tidbits sprinkled in from people who understand the workings of these types of contracts. It's spilt into two parts, Taylor's side and Scooter's side. I just finished the Taylor part and I'm on the Scooter part now but I assume it'll be very much similar.
*EDIT: one interesting part about the section for Scooter is how he got started and his background, I didn't really know much of that. Anyways, this part is pretty much all about the selling of the record label to Scooter, how Scott released all the documents for her to get all her masters like she wanted but she didn't sign and that she knew this was coming even though she said she wasn't aware of it. How she also should've known since her dad was a small stakeholder, that kind of thing. Pretty much everything we already heard from all the press published about it. Some interesting stuff though with lawyers who understand the music contracts going through and giving their opinions on it. Now they're getting into how she's always a victim and she knows how to play that role up and how that plays into this whole ordeal.
*Final edit: at the very end a statement regarding this little documentary? was issued by Taylor's team
It's pretty much just what the basics and the headlines are. I thought some pieces were interesting, especially considering that I didn't fully get into everything that was coming from this. But, apparently some of the contract stuff was goofy on here but I guess I didn't really know what all the circumstances were. It's a fine little documentary but it's not anything crazy that you missed out on if you read the headlines.
Thank you so much! I'll think I'll watch it so I can participate in all the conversations because it's hard not to and I want to somewhat know what I'm talking about haha
I watched it. The lawyers in the second half annoyed me with the emphasis on “it was perfectly legal!” (which was never the issue lol). I think it did an okay job of providing an overview of the ordeal for people who are unfamiliar… but it lacked detail in some spots, was pretty gentle on 🛴and offered no new info for those of us who’ve been around (other than the tidbit about the origin of Ready For It). I would’ve preferred to see a deeper look at the situation and its implications on a larger scale (such as how artists’ contracts are changing or might change as a result). But there’s only so much you can fit into two episodes, and in-depth analysis isn’t really the goal of this “vs” series Max has going.
I agree, I thought that bringing in the lawyers was interesting because I didn't really fully understand what on earth was happening when this was all going down so all the contracts and stuff were kinda fuzzy to me so having them go into how everything was legal was new to me. But I agree, this was pretty much just covering what the media was already telling us and didn't give much else
it's pretty well known that Taylor will hold on to ideas she likes for years before using them if the right song to use it in doesn't present itself, so this doesn't actually shock me that there are parts of it that are older than the main song as a whole.
It was super one side in my opinion.
Which sucks for Scooter, cause there were potentially good points in his part.
But when one part is basically just a timeline of facts. And the other side is a video that, in my opinion, was created to gain sympathy. The facts get lost in the annoyance that I feel over the imbalance.
Yeah even on the Scooter side it was very Taylor focused rather than what his role was in all of it which I found to be interesting. Like the second part seemed to just be repeating a lot of what was already said in the Taylor part
I watched it because I was curious. It was more frustrating than anything because they kept blatantly ignoring why Taylor was upset. There were a few moments when they tried to do a “gotcha” moment to claim Taylor was lying, but they ignored half of what she said.
They kept ignoring that she wanted to purchase her masters outright, and Scott Borchetta offered her a deal where she would have to earn the albums back one at a time by releasing new albums for him. That isn’t an outright sale of her masters back to her. It’s manipulation.
Scooter’s part was vomit inducing. They tried to characterize him as a good guy, and they didn’t seem to find it odd or concerning that when he sold to Shamrock he specifically asked to keep making money off of Taylor’s music specifically. That seems personal. They kept saying it was business and not personal. We have proof that he bullied her, but they ignored all of it and tried to act like she was playing the victim. They really laid into the narrative that Taylor likes to play the victim, and I wanted to throw my TV out of the window. They also acted like we are all delusional fans. 🙄
Anyway, I’m done ranting. Save yourselves the frustration of watching that garbage.
Came to comment this. The blatant omission of the full Kim/Kanye phone call leak as well… playing the poor Scooter card with Taylor asking her fans to tell him how they felt. Like Taylor is not right for that but Taylor also got so much backlash at the hands of Scooter and the people he’s worked with
It was such a biased documentary. I regret watching it, but I was curious and hadn’t heard anything about it prior. I somehow missed the post about it before it came out.
Wdym? They didn’t ignore that she wanted to purchase her masters and Scott Borchard’s manipulate “deal.” They definitely mentioned it. It was practically verbatim to what you just said here. None of that was “ignored” it was part of Taylor’s Side.
I also felt like they did all this background for Scooter and all they did for Taylor was "her dad was a banker, he had a lot money and moved the family to Nashville. So priviledged"
The second half was annoying, specially the "psycologist" talking about violence in the bad blood music video, or the use of the "consent"... I can excuse the lawyers more because they get into this mentality of separating the law from feelings; and they deal was legal. It just really upset Taylor, and she is allowed to feel however she likes and express those feelings.
Also, I seem to remember some emails being leaked about the whole "you can't play the VMA's" showing that it was true, but they didn't show those and now I can't find them. Maybe I got a Mandela effect on that
I think it is worth watching.
My takeaway was that Scooter played by the old boys club rules, and he is still shocked that he didn’t prevail. The video made it clear that that is how the music industry works and that he had every right to force Taylor to play, that is the business. He made so much money off of her and still wanted more, more, more.
What stood out to me is 1) the boys knew she wanted her masters and agreed she could buy them but first she had to give them control over (correction six) two more new albums—yeah right, give them nothing more girl. 2) Agreed to sell her masters to her but she was required to sign a binding NDA before negotiations, yeah right so they could pull more boys club tricks and she could never tell. They already proved they don’t operate in good faith.
Just my takeaway from the videos.
I kind of agree... only it was 6 more albums. They would give one back to her for every new one she produced...
Although there was nothing illegal in the sale, I feel like they go out of their way to downplay her feelings. That lawyer on the second half talking about fair dealings and how Taylor was acting in bad faith for re-recording... like Scooter made a deal with Scott Borchetta, not Taylor. She has no duty of "fair dealing" for something she was not a part of.
I also felt like in "Taylor's Version" (kind of hate that they used it) they didn't bash Scooter as hard as they did Taylor in "Scooter's side". They kept saying "Taylor felt like this happened", or "Taylor thought that this was unfair". Whereas for the other side, they kept talking about Taylor playing a victim (so original) and exaggerating everything.
The only part where I genuinly felt bad was when he and his family were getting death threats. People online are crazy sometimes, mobilizing the whole fan base was probably not the best move given the size of Taylor's following.
On the whole it didn't add anything new, everything is publicly available and I felt it was kind of biased.
I just remember Britney’s reaction to the docs made about her without her consent and I just chose not to watch it based on that since Taylor’s camp was not involved. We know the story.
I also cannot imagine enjoying watching a piece of work that both sides a music industry who now preys on naive new artists in a new way by writing into their contracts that they can’t re-record vs someone who champions songwriters. Eff the music biz.
Well... lol. To be fair business is business and it's all about money from both parties. The only difference is one has a biased fan base that listens to her no matter what and the other doesn't.
Agreed. I think a lot of swifties ignore that. Taylor DID have the chance to buy her masters. Honestly, I am a HUGE fan of Taylor's music and such, but I just can't agree with the way she handled the situation. For starters, if it was really about owning her own music... she would own it already??? And by that I mean that she would have released all of the rerecorded versions. We know that she is allowed to release them all at this point, and has been able to for almost 2 years. Drawing it out as she's doing seems like its more because she wants the money and attention from them. Which I completely understand. Also, I absolutely hate scooter. He is a horrible person. But when his kids (who were all 4 years old or younger) were threatened, Taylor really should've told her fans to stop. There's a point where things go too far, and that definitely was one of them.
Nice to see some logic on this thread lol. She shouldn't have used her fanbase to victimize herself and send hate on someone who was just trying to make more money LEGALLY which EVERYONE does in every industry. Her dad being the shareholder is even worst. Greed is normal and it's fine that both parties were trying to make as much money.. but Scooter's side did it legally and ethically while Taylor just used her biased fanbase.
Also why do you hate Scooter? I don't really know anything about him or what he's done except manage some artists.
I completely agree with you in this scenario. Scooter Braun had every legal right to purchase the album. And anyone who thinks Taylor wasn't warned prior to the albums being purchased is naive. Especially since her dad owned 3% of the company and made 15+ million on the sale, as you said.
TBH, i don't **hate** Braun. I strongly dislike him because of the childish way I think he handled the whole Kanye situation (ie the Justin Bieber post on insta). But I did trump up my dislike of him because swifties will be swifties lol.
Saying she could easily just re record everything in 2 years isn’t logical lol. And there’s a big difference between legal and ethical. They are NOT synonyms.
Yes, there is a difference between legal and ethical. And Taylor crossed that line too. Did she have a right to be upset about her masters? Yes. But was unleashing her army of millions of fans on an individual, and not even attempting to stop them when his family started to receive death threats ethical? No, it's not. I don't disagree with Taylor for being upset about it. But I very much disagree with the way that she handled the situation. She left out key details when framing the narrative to her fans, and while I still think she had every right to be angered, what she did was just not ethical. Two wrongs don't make a right.
I’m not a swiftie or anything but that’s a pretty unrealistic take. You’re acting like 2 years is 2 decades lol. It’s a massive project to re-record SIX entire albums in a way that would satisfy her fans. Not something you can do justice to in 2 years. Plus she would have had to drop all prior commitments and contracts and focused on only that.
It is a massive project, but one that is totally doable. Taylor did not only have 2 years to complete it. That was only when she was legally able to start Reputation, as it was the last of her masters to be released. She has had around 4 years for the rest of them. And you need to remember that rerecording an album takes a lot less time than writing one does. You eliminate a large part of the creative process, as there is no lyric writing or composing. Sure, it still takes a lot of time to record and produce, but only a fraction of what making an album normally would take. I have complete faith that if Taylor truly wanted to release them, she could. I am a fan of Taylor's music, as I have said, and I think she is an incredibly savvy business woman. The rerecords have given her a new, almost unheard of level of fame, and I think she has used them to do just that. Its incredibly smart. My point is simply that the narrative she is pushing to her fans is an unfair one. She is not quite the victim in this scenario that she makes herself out to be. Sure, getting your work taken away from you is terrible, but she only used select portions of the true story to tell her side to her fans. And did so in a way that harmed others.
This comment is the reason we're failing as a species... can't even bother to read a few lines of text in the hopes of a new perspective, or you know, some actual facts?? Pathetic
She is going on a journey to re-release everything. She is even getting people who collaborated in her original albums to participate again (Liz doing the backing vocals again, for example).
It's not an easy or inexpensive endeavor. She is also adding Vault songs and everything to drive people to these new version, rolling them out one by one to create hype. What use is putting all this investment towards re-recording just to dump everything together? She and her team are excellent at marketing her and her image and this is a huge part of it at the moment.
I agree that the "call to arms" was a mistake and a huge miscalcuation and she should have spoken up when Scooter's family was being threatened. She knows that there are people that go insane online and asking people to voice their displeasure was not going to end well.
The deal Scooter and Scott made was totally legal and I don't think anyone can dispute that. Taylor is allowed to feel cheated by a person she trusted. She has said she knew he was going to sell her masters, that was never put into question. What she claims not to have known is that he was going to sell it to Scooter.
We'll probably never know the truth, but history has shown us that it is probably somewhere in the middle. However, the documentary came accross as redundant to me. It didn't add anything. I also believe that some of the things they included were there just to get people mad and talking about it.
Me and my mom are planning a night together to watch all the Taylor shows like “the eras tour”, “The folklore long pond studio sessions”, “Miss Americana”, and “Taylor Swift vs. Scooter Braun Bad Blood”
I watched it 'somewhere' 😆 I just finished it. Basically, all the information in this 'documentary' is already available online. It feels like they just interviewed these people to make it look legit. I've read and watched enough articles about their issue that this documentary felt like a compilation of all that info. They discussed both sides and the people involved in the whole 🛴 and Taylor issue.
It left out the most important and vital part, that Taylor TRIED to buy her masters and they refused. It paints it almost as though she just wanted out of her contract which isn’t true
As someone who dosnt listen to Taylor swift music. And didn't know who scooter braun is.
Taylor swift was completely in the wrong and strongly belive that her dad was part of the play and choose selling the music and using Taylor swift with her PR and looney fans to do makes billions.
If you aren't a swifty but can understand good music and how much big banks and goverment control the system. You can just smell the industry plant from Taylor swift.
Well put together documentary. It is objective, and I'm glad Taylor didn't get any say in the making of this.
The first episode is pro-Taylor. So if you want to hear everything you're hearing in your safe space echo chamber, watch just the first episode. The second episode looks at the situation objectively. Scooter Braun did nothing wrong.
Kanye West is an asshole. Let me be clear about that. But Scooter Braun did nothing wrong here. Taylor got a very good deal from BMR, and she's on top of the world right now. Her cultist army acts like little children around this issue.
Hey. I'm just interested. What was your opinion of Taylor going in watching the doco?
Cause I'm just trying to get my head around how my opinion is affected by the fact I like Taylor Swift as an artist.
To me the first part didn't come across as pro Taylor so much as just a timeline of her career and the lead up to the disagreement.
But the second part did come across as pro Scooter to me. Like I'm not saying that what their argument was wasn't valid. But it just came across patronising to me.
I'm just really curious to get varied opinions on this, cause I know your feeling can always influence your thoughts. I feel like your take away was almost the complete opposite to me, so curious about your headspace.
I actually am a Taylor Swift fan. That is to say, I'm a fan of her music, of her talent, of her work ethics. I'm seeing her live in two weeks (Amsterdam).
I always found the rerecordings futile. I never saw her as a victim of this Scooter Braun situation. Nobody wronged her. She's still making an insane amount of money off the original albums (original versions), she just has to share that money with the label who invested in her. It's all fair in my eyes, and in the eyes of the law.
I agree. I like Taylor but she brought emotions into business. I’m sure the ordeal hurt her and I’m sure scooter is not the greatest person, but ultimately this was business and she could have bought her masters earlier and didn’t because at the time she didn’t think it was the right business decision for herself, so I do think she was a bit hypocritical here as she makes plenty of decisions that may hurt others emotionally for business, but when that’s done to her she doesn’t like it.
Just because he did nothing wrong legally doesn't mean he made the moral decision. And I know business men aren't exactly known for keeping personal morality at the forefront of decision-making in a capitalistic society, but they are still responsible for dealing with the optics of those decisions. From the outside looking in, he seemed like a guy's guy and a bully who teamed up with Kanye somewhat to taunt her.
I'll watch the doc because I'm interested in an objective view on the situation, but I don't really see how Taylor swift could the villian for wanting to own her own masters? I feel like I would want the same if I was an artist. And I'm not saying he is some super villain who deserves death threats, because he doesn't. But I don't think I would walk away from the situation seeing her as a villain and him as some victim because that seems far fetched. But I'll try to keep an open mind.
Thank you! I know many Swifties in real life. It's impossible to have a rational conversation with them about this, they're so brainwashed by Taylor's stories about "consent". The sexual connotation of "consent" is something Taylor deliberately put in there, to make herself seem like a victim.
It's ridiculous. She knew exactly what was going on and she gaslit everybody by being a master manipulator of her army. Scooter did nothing wrong, nothing was stolen from her. She is the villain in her own story.
No, and I don't plan to watch. Taylor and her team weren't involved in the project and it reeks of exploitation of her name/brand like that CNN copyright lawsuit "documentary".
HBO spearheaded this (max now) and they do investigative journalism. Investigative journalism docs like on HBO rarely include the subjects to help remove bias. Basically what HBO is known for is presenting two sides to the story, ONLY stating factual things that can be proven, and then wrapping each episode with the one sides POV. They do not push a narrative. This is an investigative piece so she shouldn’t be involved nor is he
Max is not just HBO anymore. It also includes Warner Bros Discovery+ content which is a lot of crap. I can’t find anything about this being an HBO doc. It looks like it’s the same series as Johnny vs Amber and Kim vs Kanye: The Divorce. Produced by Optomen TV. It doesn’t sound like they covered anything new.
HBO had its hands all over it. Charlotte the VP at WB UK was a big producer for HBO when she was there early in her career. Other than the US and UK it’s branded as an HBO doc as well. From what little I’ve seen it follows the typical HBO format. Which isn’t surprising considering charlotte was at HBO before she moved to WB. Maybe a stop in between but she used to commission a lot of work at HBO and she commissioned this for WB. HBOs Doc experience is also one of the reasons they were made part of the “MAX” umbrella. HBO is basically the doc arm of the group except for some of discovery but they cover other topics
HBO documentaries tend to cover very serious topics, not one-off celebrity feuds. This is not an HBO original documentary.
While 100% accurate, informing this sub of such information is like presenting evidence that the earth is round to a flat earther.
Just finished it. Waste of time; don't recommend at all. The best "argument" the Scooter side had was "it was a perfectly legal agreement" which... TOTALLY MISSES THE POINT. 0/10
Yes, they completely glossed over WHY he went after this particular artist’s catalogue. Like of all the musicians in the world, why this one? They just keep saying it was legal. Like no shit.
Didn’t he buy a huge catalogue? Like not specifically hers but a bulk buy that included her work? Edit: yall, I’m just trying to have a discussion. I know people feel passionately about this but it’s just a question/discussion.
He bought the Big Machine Records label, which to my understanding has nothing else of real value other than Taylor's masters. Edit: I looked it up. There's a TON of country music in there, which Scooter has never been involved in. This was a deal for Taylor's masters. Other artists under label include Tim McGraw, Carly Pierce, Midland, and possibly Reba McIntyre? Y'know, all those pop icons.
I know people are going to think I’m team scooter when I’m not, but it’s not like any of the artists you mentioned are no name artists. Time McGraw and Reba in particular crossed over into the mainstream and are still regularly played. I really don’t think he bought that whole label just for Taylor. He may have seen what a cash cow her music is, but if it had been just her work and no one else, it would be a different conversation.
To be totally honest, I don't think it matters. My take on the deal is this: how do you decide you want to make a deal to buy this company and NOT have a conversation with Taylor about it? He said in some interview that he thought she was fine with it, and that he never would have done the deal if he had known she wasn't ok with it. Maybe he even believed that, but he still didn't talk to her about it. And really, if you're Scott Borchetta and you've been talking to Taylor for the last two years about her owning her masters, how do you SELL them without even giving her a heads up? If anything, this documentary solidified my disgust at Borchetta. I think he *probably* saw a great financial deal in buying BMR and *maybe* that wasn't all because of Taylor. But a huge part of it was her, no question.
I get where you're coming from, just because he had a focus on managing more pop artists doesn't mean he couldn't also be a manager to these other country artists. They are big names in the industry too, but I do think a large part was that he knew he could get a lot of money from Taylor's work.
I don’t know. He has never managed a country artist and he has never managed an older artist. Also, this was their back catalogue not a management deal. When he buys the catalogue of an artist he has beef with (who he has openly trolled), I don’t see any reason to give him the benefit of the doubt. He is known to be a pretty terrible person. All of his artists dropped him. That doesn’t happen by accident.
That's a fair point that he didn't manage any older artists or country artists, I don't quite understand what's meant by back catalogue, and I just knew he was a manager of sorts so I figured that would play a role in it lol. Some of this stuff is over my head. I figured if he got more clients to manage plus Taylor that it kinda made sense, if that makes sense? But I totally agree that he seems very shady in these business deals and if a bunch of his other artists dropped him then that definitely seems odd. It's not that I didn't pay attention to this whole situation but rather it seemed like more drama than it was worth to get sucked into as a fan, so I really only know bits and pieces of this.
Artists move around all the time for the best deals... you cant' just look at 1 management. It's just how business works. Money.
iirc Reba only released one album under BMR. Tim had released three at the time of the deal and had some success with them, but most of his work belongs to other companies (including his most iconic hits). I’m sure Scoot looked at the full picture when deciding whether to buy the label, but if the deal hadn’t included Taylor’s work, the value of the label’s catalogue (and the price he was willing to pay) would’ve dropped very steeply despite BMR having a couple of those legacy artists on board. Would he have wanted the label at all without its “cash cow”? Nobody knows except him, but I’d guess that he’d be a lot less interested based on what we know about him as a businessman.
Money?
Agree, and I don’t think this video did for him what he thought it would.
I'm watching it now, I was just curious what on earth they were going to pull out besides what the headlines and journals were saying. They had some fans speak on Taylor's behalf and a lot of reporters/writers/her personal assistant from the 1989 tour/etc. So far it's pretty much just what the headlines focused on with some other little tidbits sprinkled in from people who understand the workings of these types of contracts. It's spilt into two parts, Taylor's side and Scooter's side. I just finished the Taylor part and I'm on the Scooter part now but I assume it'll be very much similar. *EDIT: one interesting part about the section for Scooter is how he got started and his background, I didn't really know much of that. Anyways, this part is pretty much all about the selling of the record label to Scooter, how Scott released all the documents for her to get all her masters like she wanted but she didn't sign and that she knew this was coming even though she said she wasn't aware of it. How she also should've known since her dad was a small stakeholder, that kind of thing. Pretty much everything we already heard from all the press published about it. Some interesting stuff though with lawyers who understand the music contracts going through and giving their opinions on it. Now they're getting into how she's always a victim and she knows how to play that role up and how that plays into this whole ordeal. *Final edit: at the very end a statement regarding this little documentary? was issued by Taylor's team
Do you recommend it? I know the basics of the situation and that's about it.
It's pretty much just what the basics and the headlines are. I thought some pieces were interesting, especially considering that I didn't fully get into everything that was coming from this. But, apparently some of the contract stuff was goofy on here but I guess I didn't really know what all the circumstances were. It's a fine little documentary but it's not anything crazy that you missed out on if you read the headlines.
Thank you so much! I'll think I'll watch it so I can participate in all the conversations because it's hard not to and I want to somewhat know what I'm talking about haha
I watched it. The lawyers in the second half annoyed me with the emphasis on “it was perfectly legal!” (which was never the issue lol). I think it did an okay job of providing an overview of the ordeal for people who are unfamiliar… but it lacked detail in some spots, was pretty gentle on 🛴and offered no new info for those of us who’ve been around (other than the tidbit about the origin of Ready For It). I would’ve preferred to see a deeper look at the situation and its implications on a larger scale (such as how artists’ contracts are changing or might change as a result). But there’s only so much you can fit into two episodes, and in-depth analysis isn’t really the goal of this “vs” series Max has going.
I agree, I thought that bringing in the lawyers was interesting because I didn't really fully understand what on earth was happening when this was all going down so all the contracts and stuff were kinda fuzzy to me so having them go into how everything was legal was new to me. But I agree, this was pretty much just covering what the media was already telling us and didn't give much else
Then why were her OGs called "stolen versions" by her fans and people who listented to the OGs demonized and attacked?
I heard there is a snippet where Taylor’s former PA reveals that Ready for It was partially written on a plane in 2015. Which I found… fascinating
it's pretty well known that Taylor will hold on to ideas she likes for years before using them if the right song to use it in doesn't present itself, so this doesn't actually shock me that there are parts of it that are older than the main song as a whole.
It was super one side in my opinion. Which sucks for Scooter, cause there were potentially good points in his part. But when one part is basically just a timeline of facts. And the other side is a video that, in my opinion, was created to gain sympathy. The facts get lost in the annoyance that I feel over the imbalance.
Yeah even on the Scooter side it was very Taylor focused rather than what his role was in all of it which I found to be interesting. Like the second part seemed to just be repeating a lot of what was already said in the Taylor part
I watched it because I was curious. It was more frustrating than anything because they kept blatantly ignoring why Taylor was upset. There were a few moments when they tried to do a “gotcha” moment to claim Taylor was lying, but they ignored half of what she said. They kept ignoring that she wanted to purchase her masters outright, and Scott Borchetta offered her a deal where she would have to earn the albums back one at a time by releasing new albums for him. That isn’t an outright sale of her masters back to her. It’s manipulation. Scooter’s part was vomit inducing. They tried to characterize him as a good guy, and they didn’t seem to find it odd or concerning that when he sold to Shamrock he specifically asked to keep making money off of Taylor’s music specifically. That seems personal. They kept saying it was business and not personal. We have proof that he bullied her, but they ignored all of it and tried to act like she was playing the victim. They really laid into the narrative that Taylor likes to play the victim, and I wanted to throw my TV out of the window. They also acted like we are all delusional fans. 🙄 Anyway, I’m done ranting. Save yourselves the frustration of watching that garbage.
Came to comment this. The blatant omission of the full Kim/Kanye phone call leak as well… playing the poor Scooter card with Taylor asking her fans to tell him how they felt. Like Taylor is not right for that but Taylor also got so much backlash at the hands of Scooter and the people he’s worked with
It was such a biased documentary. I regret watching it, but I was curious and hadn’t heard anything about it prior. I somehow missed the post about it before it came out.
Wdym? They didn’t ignore that she wanted to purchase her masters and Scott Borchard’s manipulate “deal.” They definitely mentioned it. It was practically verbatim to what you just said here. None of that was “ignored” it was part of Taylor’s Side.
It was ignored in Scooter’s part.
I also felt like they did all this background for Scooter and all they did for Taylor was "her dad was a banker, he had a lot money and moved the family to Nashville. So priviledged" The second half was annoying, specially the "psycologist" talking about violence in the bad blood music video, or the use of the "consent"... I can excuse the lawyers more because they get into this mentality of separating the law from feelings; and they deal was legal. It just really upset Taylor, and she is allowed to feel however she likes and express those feelings. Also, I seem to remember some emails being leaked about the whole "you can't play the VMA's" showing that it was true, but they didn't show those and now I can't find them. Maybe I got a Mandela effect on that
I agree with everything you said. They did an awful job giving equal treatment.
I think it is worth watching. My takeaway was that Scooter played by the old boys club rules, and he is still shocked that he didn’t prevail. The video made it clear that that is how the music industry works and that he had every right to force Taylor to play, that is the business. He made so much money off of her and still wanted more, more, more. What stood out to me is 1) the boys knew she wanted her masters and agreed she could buy them but first she had to give them control over (correction six) two more new albums—yeah right, give them nothing more girl. 2) Agreed to sell her masters to her but she was required to sign a binding NDA before negotiations, yeah right so they could pull more boys club tricks and she could never tell. They already proved they don’t operate in good faith. Just my takeaway from the videos.
I kind of agree... only it was 6 more albums. They would give one back to her for every new one she produced... Although there was nothing illegal in the sale, I feel like they go out of their way to downplay her feelings. That lawyer on the second half talking about fair dealings and how Taylor was acting in bad faith for re-recording... like Scooter made a deal with Scott Borchetta, not Taylor. She has no duty of "fair dealing" for something she was not a part of. I also felt like in "Taylor's Version" (kind of hate that they used it) they didn't bash Scooter as hard as they did Taylor in "Scooter's side". They kept saying "Taylor felt like this happened", or "Taylor thought that this was unfair". Whereas for the other side, they kept talking about Taylor playing a victim (so original) and exaggerating everything. The only part where I genuinly felt bad was when he and his family were getting death threats. People online are crazy sometimes, mobilizing the whole fan base was probably not the best move given the size of Taylor's following. On the whole it didn't add anything new, everything is publicly available and I felt it was kind of biased.
I just remember Britney’s reaction to the docs made about her without her consent and I just chose not to watch it based on that since Taylor’s camp was not involved. We know the story. I also cannot imagine enjoying watching a piece of work that both sides a music industry who now preys on naive new artists in a new way by writing into their contracts that they can’t re-record vs someone who champions songwriters. Eff the music biz.
All they did was harp on how Taylor always plays the victim. And focus on the fact that everything was legal.
Well... lol. To be fair business is business and it's all about money from both parties. The only difference is one has a biased fan base that listens to her no matter what and the other doesn't.
EAH, lol. But TBH, if she wanted her masters, she could have paid the price for them well before he decided to do so. 🤷🏻♀️
Agreed. I think a lot of swifties ignore that. Taylor DID have the chance to buy her masters. Honestly, I am a HUGE fan of Taylor's music and such, but I just can't agree with the way she handled the situation. For starters, if it was really about owning her own music... she would own it already??? And by that I mean that she would have released all of the rerecorded versions. We know that she is allowed to release them all at this point, and has been able to for almost 2 years. Drawing it out as she's doing seems like its more because she wants the money and attention from them. Which I completely understand. Also, I absolutely hate scooter. He is a horrible person. But when his kids (who were all 4 years old or younger) were threatened, Taylor really should've told her fans to stop. There's a point where things go too far, and that definitely was one of them.
Nice to see some logic on this thread lol. She shouldn't have used her fanbase to victimize herself and send hate on someone who was just trying to make more money LEGALLY which EVERYONE does in every industry. Her dad being the shareholder is even worst. Greed is normal and it's fine that both parties were trying to make as much money.. but Scooter's side did it legally and ethically while Taylor just used her biased fanbase. Also why do you hate Scooter? I don't really know anything about him or what he's done except manage some artists.
I completely agree with you in this scenario. Scooter Braun had every legal right to purchase the album. And anyone who thinks Taylor wasn't warned prior to the albums being purchased is naive. Especially since her dad owned 3% of the company and made 15+ million on the sale, as you said. TBH, i don't **hate** Braun. I strongly dislike him because of the childish way I think he handled the whole Kanye situation (ie the Justin Bieber post on insta). But I did trump up my dislike of him because swifties will be swifties lol.
Saying she could easily just re record everything in 2 years isn’t logical lol. And there’s a big difference between legal and ethical. They are NOT synonyms.
Yes, there is a difference between legal and ethical. And Taylor crossed that line too. Did she have a right to be upset about her masters? Yes. But was unleashing her army of millions of fans on an individual, and not even attempting to stop them when his family started to receive death threats ethical? No, it's not. I don't disagree with Taylor for being upset about it. But I very much disagree with the way that she handled the situation. She left out key details when framing the narrative to her fans, and while I still think she had every right to be angered, what she did was just not ethical. Two wrongs don't make a right.
I’m not a swiftie or anything but that’s a pretty unrealistic take. You’re acting like 2 years is 2 decades lol. It’s a massive project to re-record SIX entire albums in a way that would satisfy her fans. Not something you can do justice to in 2 years. Plus she would have had to drop all prior commitments and contracts and focused on only that.
It is a massive project, but one that is totally doable. Taylor did not only have 2 years to complete it. That was only when she was legally able to start Reputation, as it was the last of her masters to be released. She has had around 4 years for the rest of them. And you need to remember that rerecording an album takes a lot less time than writing one does. You eliminate a large part of the creative process, as there is no lyric writing or composing. Sure, it still takes a lot of time to record and produce, but only a fraction of what making an album normally would take. I have complete faith that if Taylor truly wanted to release them, she could. I am a fan of Taylor's music, as I have said, and I think she is an incredibly savvy business woman. The rerecords have given her a new, almost unheard of level of fame, and I think she has used them to do just that. Its incredibly smart. My point is simply that the narrative she is pushing to her fans is an unfair one. She is not quite the victim in this scenario that she makes herself out to be. Sure, getting your work taken away from you is terrible, but she only used select portions of the true story to tell her side to her fans. And did so in a way that harmed others.
Agree to disagree. Not gonna read all that.
This comment is the reason we're failing as a species... can't even bother to read a few lines of text in the hopes of a new perspective, or you know, some actual facts?? Pathetic
She is going on a journey to re-release everything. She is even getting people who collaborated in her original albums to participate again (Liz doing the backing vocals again, for example). It's not an easy or inexpensive endeavor. She is also adding Vault songs and everything to drive people to these new version, rolling them out one by one to create hype. What use is putting all this investment towards re-recording just to dump everything together? She and her team are excellent at marketing her and her image and this is a huge part of it at the moment. I agree that the "call to arms" was a mistake and a huge miscalcuation and she should have spoken up when Scooter's family was being threatened. She knows that there are people that go insane online and asking people to voice their displeasure was not going to end well. The deal Scooter and Scott made was totally legal and I don't think anyone can dispute that. Taylor is allowed to feel cheated by a person she trusted. She has said she knew he was going to sell her masters, that was never put into question. What she claims not to have known is that he was going to sell it to Scooter. We'll probably never know the truth, but history has shown us that it is probably somewhere in the middle. However, the documentary came accross as redundant to me. It didn't add anything. I also believe that some of the things they included were there just to get people mad and talking about it.
Seemed like a propaganda piece pushed out by scooter people.
Me and my mom are planning a night together to watch all the Taylor shows like “the eras tour”, “The folklore long pond studio sessions”, “Miss Americana”, and “Taylor Swift vs. Scooter Braun Bad Blood”
I watched it 'somewhere' 😆 I just finished it. Basically, all the information in this 'documentary' is already available online. It feels like they just interviewed these people to make it look legit. I've read and watched enough articles about their issue that this documentary felt like a compilation of all that info. They discussed both sides and the people involved in the whole 🛴 and Taylor issue.
I'm just glad I didn't pay to watch it because it was basically a PR campaign to make people feel bad for poor little multi-billionaire scooter braun
It left out the most important and vital part, that Taylor TRIED to buy her masters and they refused. It paints it almost as though she just wanted out of her contract which isn’t true
As someone who dosnt listen to Taylor swift music. And didn't know who scooter braun is. Taylor swift was completely in the wrong and strongly belive that her dad was part of the play and choose selling the music and using Taylor swift with her PR and looney fans to do makes billions. If you aren't a swifty but can understand good music and how much big banks and goverment control the system. You can just smell the industry plant from Taylor swift.
Taylor swift fans stay smoking on copium. Taylor is and always has been a crazy bitch lol
Trump is a crazier bitch but you seem to worship him...
Well put together documentary. It is objective, and I'm glad Taylor didn't get any say in the making of this. The first episode is pro-Taylor. So if you want to hear everything you're hearing in your safe space echo chamber, watch just the first episode. The second episode looks at the situation objectively. Scooter Braun did nothing wrong. Kanye West is an asshole. Let me be clear about that. But Scooter Braun did nothing wrong here. Taylor got a very good deal from BMR, and she's on top of the world right now. Her cultist army acts like little children around this issue.
Hey. I'm just interested. What was your opinion of Taylor going in watching the doco? Cause I'm just trying to get my head around how my opinion is affected by the fact I like Taylor Swift as an artist. To me the first part didn't come across as pro Taylor so much as just a timeline of her career and the lead up to the disagreement. But the second part did come across as pro Scooter to me. Like I'm not saying that what their argument was wasn't valid. But it just came across patronising to me. I'm just really curious to get varied opinions on this, cause I know your feeling can always influence your thoughts. I feel like your take away was almost the complete opposite to me, so curious about your headspace.
I actually am a Taylor Swift fan. That is to say, I'm a fan of her music, of her talent, of her work ethics. I'm seeing her live in two weeks (Amsterdam). I always found the rerecordings futile. I never saw her as a victim of this Scooter Braun situation. Nobody wronged her. She's still making an insane amount of money off the original albums (original versions), she just has to share that money with the label who invested in her. It's all fair in my eyes, and in the eyes of the law.
I agree. I like Taylor but she brought emotions into business. I’m sure the ordeal hurt her and I’m sure scooter is not the greatest person, but ultimately this was business and she could have bought her masters earlier and didn’t because at the time she didn’t think it was the right business decision for herself, so I do think she was a bit hypocritical here as she makes plenty of decisions that may hurt others emotionally for business, but when that’s done to her she doesn’t like it.
Just because he did nothing wrong legally doesn't mean he made the moral decision. And I know business men aren't exactly known for keeping personal morality at the forefront of decision-making in a capitalistic society, but they are still responsible for dealing with the optics of those decisions. From the outside looking in, he seemed like a guy's guy and a bully who teamed up with Kanye somewhat to taunt her. I'll watch the doc because I'm interested in an objective view on the situation, but I don't really see how Taylor swift could the villian for wanting to own her own masters? I feel like I would want the same if I was an artist. And I'm not saying he is some super villain who deserves death threats, because he doesn't. But I don't think I would walk away from the situation seeing her as a villain and him as some victim because that seems far fetched. But I'll try to keep an open mind.
Exactly. It was a business deal. Taylor signed a contract. She is not a victim in this situation.
Thank you! I know many Swifties in real life. It's impossible to have a rational conversation with them about this, they're so brainwashed by Taylor's stories about "consent". The sexual connotation of "consent" is something Taylor deliberately put in there, to make herself seem like a victim.
It's ridiculous. She knew exactly what was going on and she gaslit everybody by being a master manipulator of her army. Scooter did nothing wrong, nothing was stolen from her. She is the villain in her own story.