Front Burner - What the Taylor Swift controversy tells us about who really profits from recording artists' work

Episode Date: July 3, 2019

This weekend, pop superstar Taylor Swift penned a distraught Tumblr post in which she took the news of a business deal very, very personally. Her former record label, Big Machine, was sold to music mogul Scooter Braun's company for a reported $300 million U.S. The acquisition essentially hands Braun control of Swift's masters from her entire back catalogue. She claims this is her "worst case scenario," as she accuses Scooter Braun of "incessant, manipulative bullying." Today on Front Burner, Emily Yahr, pop culture reporter with the Washington Post, breaks down the origin of this feud, and explains why some of the most successful recording artists in the world are powerless when it comes to owning their own music.

In the Dragon's Den, a simple pitch can lead to a life-changing connection. Watch new episodes of Dragon's Den free on CBC Gem. Brought to you in part by National Angel Capital Organization, empowering Canada's entrepreneurs through angel investment and industry connections. This is a CBC Podcast. I'm Rob Norman. I'm Andrew Norton. And the Personal Best Podcast is back for Season 2.

All right. Well, this is exciting. I wasn't ready to do this, but I'm going toorton, and the Personal Best podcast is back for season two. All right. Well, this is exciting. I wasn't ready to do this, but I'm going to give it my all. Wow! Holy freak! Personal Best season two, a self-improvement show for people who don't like self-improvement. Subscribe now wherever you find your favorite podcasts. Hello, I'm Jamie Poisson.

We're going to talk about Taylor Swift today. If you're not a Taylor Swift fan, I get it. But bear with me because this is actually a really interesting story about the economics of the music business. It all started over the weekend. Taylor Swift wrote a Tumblr post calling out top manager Scooter Braun of, quote, incessant and manipulative bullying. She's upset because Scooter Braun has purchased her master's, basically the rights to the recordings of all her songs, up until last year. A whole host of people are also involved. Bieber, Kim, Kanye.

And we'll touch on this feud a bit. But I'm particularly interested in this larger question. Who gets to profit from an artist's work? Today, I'm talking to Emily Yar, pop culture and entertainment reporter for The Washington Post. This is FrontBurner. Emily, thank you so much for coming on the show. Thanks so much for having me. So this all seems very juicy. A lot of people I know are talking about this. So

why is everybody talking about this right now? It does seem very juicy because it is unusual for a fight like this to play out so publicly, especially involving someone as famous as Taylor Swift. And I think when you have her releasing the statement that she did, which was so scathing on so many levels. In a passionate and unfiltered Tumblr post, Swift writing, my musical legacy is about to lie in the hands of someone who tried to dismantle it. And then her famous friends defending her. A hashtag, we stand with Taylor, was trending on Twitter by Sunday evening, with artists like Halsey sharing messages of solidarity. Some other famous people actually criticizing her.

It's just, it's impossible to look away from this all playing out on social media. And I want to unpack all of that in the conversation with you today. But quickly, let's go over some of the basics. I don't think anyone needs to know who Taylor Swift is, but who is Scooter Braun? So Scooter Braun, if you've ever heard his name, it's probably because he's known as the person who discovered Justin Bieber on YouTube many years ago. I saw a 12-year-old kid who had, I think, like eight videos at the time, six or eight videos. And when I saw this little Canadian kid with so much soul, I just knew there was something there.

Very famous Canadian, Justin Bieber. Yeah. So he became his manager and he basically, you know, helped make him the superstar that he is. And unlike a lot of music managers that kind of stay out of the spotlight or behind the scenes, you know, I don't even know how many managers most people can name. You know, I don't even know how many managers most people can name. He's always been kind of in the spotlight along with Bieber and along with a lot of other famous clients like Ariana Grande and Demi Lovato, Carly Rae Jepsen. Oh, Grammy Award winning artist Ariana Grande. Oof. Hi.

So he's a very visible presence. He has millions of Twitter and Instagram followers. So he has also become, you know, kind of a character along with the celebrities he represents. Okay. And so Scooter Braun has now acquired Taylor Swift's former label, Big Machine Label Group, for 300 million US. And the way I understand the story is that with that deal comes the rights to all of her masters. What are masters? So the easiest way to explain what masters are is it's basically, you know, the copyright of the recording of the song. When an artist goes in the studio and records anything, they turn in masters and typically the record label owns those.

Okay. So it's like the physical recording of the song. Yes, exactly. And why is it so lucrative to own the masters of a recording artist like Taylor Swift? Because the label will get money anytime those songs are, you know, bought, streamed, they can license them, you know, to TV shows or movies or commercials. So basically, whenever the song is played, the label gets money from that. Okay. And does the label get all the money from it or part of the money? Does the artist get some of the money?

Yeah, I mean, it depends. Also, the artist will get some of the money and they can get more if they own the publishing to the song, which is a whole separate issue. Very interesting how these like very convoluted topics now. It's so fascinating that they're in the news so much because even, you know, some music artists don't really understand all of the details involved in these kind of deals. But, yeah, the label and artists both get money when the songs are played anywhere. How has the fact that Big Machine Records own these masters from the beginning played into that? Like how much money have they taken? They've taken quite a bit of money.

I've seen it reported that her music made up 80% of their revenue at one point. You know, she really put Big Machine on the map. She was the first artist that Scott Borchetta, who owns the label, ever signed. I said, here's the deal. I'm leaving in September to start my own label. And the only promise I can make you tonight is that if you wait, you have a record deal with me. And as her career really skyrocketed, you know, Big Machine blew up as well. And now they're a very successful country label in Nashville.

You know, they have Florida Georgia Line and Lady Antebellum and Rascal Flatts. But all along, you know, a huge, you know, the majority of money they've made has been from Taylor. For some examples, like if Taylor Swift's old songs are streamed on Spotify or used in movies or TV shows, or if the label decides to create a greatest hits album, are these old things that Scooter Braun can now do with the rights to her masters? Well, it's a little bit tricky since she does, it seems like she still owns the publishing rights to the songs. So I think they would, in some cases, have to work together, which now is going to be very awkward considering all that has happened. So there's not a ton of clarity there,

but it seems like while he would have the right to pretty much do whatever he wants, like she would still, for some things, at least like have to be involved in some way. So I want to talk about just how awkward it's going to be for them to work together in a moment. But first, I just want to make sure I understand the economics of this a little bit better. We've talked about how Big Machine, the record label, has the rights to all of Taylor Swift's masters. But, you know, she's also worth an estimated $320 million. And so she's obviously making money from somewhere. Can you help me understand, like, how Taylor Swift is making money? You know, automatically, you know, make money as the artist, obviously, when your music is sold, streamed, anything. But if you are also the songwriter of the song and you own the

publishing rights, that makes you more money because you're both the singer and the songwriter. So Taylor Swift has either co-written or solo written every song she's ever released. So she already gets a ton of money from that. Her album sold millions and millions of copies over the years. So that was a huge stream of revenue for her. But even more, I mean, most artists make a lot of their money from touring. And Taylor Swift has been selling out arenas and now stadiums for a lot of years. That has made up a lot of it.

She has an unbelievably loyal fan base who will buy all of her merchandise. She has a lot of sponsorship deals with very, very lucrative companies. Got Taylor Swift now, only from AT&T. Activity playlist, running. So she has a lot of money kind of coming in from all directions, which I think makes up the hundreds of millions of dollars figure. Okay, okay. So is it fair for me to say that she doesn't get a ton of money from the masters because those are owned by the record label, but she would get a substantial amount of money from publishing rights? I'd say the likelihood is that she makes more by virtue of being the songwriter and owning her publishing. Got it, got it. And if she's making money through

the publishing rights and she's making some money through the masters and she's making a ton of money through touring and merchandise, why are the masters so meaningful to Taylor Swift? I think this was one part of the Tumblr post that was overlooked a little bit when she was talking about how, you know, these were the songs that she dreamed up while sitting in her bedroom. They're the first songs that launched her career. And so I think even though she wants them just naturally as an artist to have control over her own work, I think that Taylor Swift is someone who, you know, her origin story is very important to her. She, you know, kind of a nostalgic thing.

This is what launched her to becoming the superstar that she is. So, again, in addition to just having control, I think the fact that it is her first music is really, really meaningful to her. And that's partly why she's fighting so hard for it. So you mentioned Taylor's Tumblr post, which I also read. I did not realize that people were still using Tumblr as sort of a sidebar here. But, you know, she's certainly positioning herself as a victim here. She says she's been bullied by Scooter Braun for years. And what's the argument that she's making there? And it kind of goes back to last year when her contract was up with Big Machine and she was figuring out what she wanted to do next.

So she said she always knew that Scott Borchetta would eventually, you know, sell the label and sell her masters. But the fact that it was sold to Scooter Braun is really what she's upset by. And she says that she has been the target of bullying from him for years. And the two examples she used was that two of his clients, Justin Bieber and Kanye West, have both, you know, come after her. She pointed to a photo that Justin Bieber posted that showed him and Kanye West and Scooter Braun all smiling. And it included kind of a taunting caption.

That the Sorry singer posted with the caption, Taylor Swift, what up? And he posted that right when Taylor was in the middle of this huge career backlash. And then she also pointed to Kanye West's video for his song Famous, which calls her out by name. I feel like me and Taylor might still have sex. Why, I made that bitch famous. And in the music video, there are a lot of naked replicas of celebrities, including her. So Taylor called that his revenge porn music video. And, you know, she seemed to imply that somehow Scooter Braun was behind this because he represented both of those people. OK, the idea being that perhaps Scooter Braun was like pulling the strings. Yeah, that's what she seemed to say.

And that seems very hard to think anyone can pull the strings around Kanye West in particular. But yeah, that was my sort of first thought too. I was like, can anyone really tell Kanye West what to do? Like, would he listen? And when Justin Bieber responded and he wrote this long Instagram caption, first apologizing for the picture that he did post, you know, that was pretty hurtful in 2016. But then he kind of backtracked and said, you know, Scooter had absolutely nothing to do with that photo. If anything, he told me that was a bad idea to post it. You know, he's a really good guy. Adding in part, Scooter has had your back since the days

you graciously let me open up for you. For you to take it to social media and get people to hate on Scooter isn't fair. Okay, I can't help but think Taylor Swift is kind of a genius at media, or someone around her is kind of a genius, that this is like a good strategy for her, right? Like she's positioned herself as the victim here, Scooter Braun is the villain, and now there's going to be all the scrutiny over what he chooses to do with her music. Yeah, I would say there might not be an artist who is quite as brilliant at her own PR and image management as Taylor. I mean, there have been a few missteps, but for the most part, she is always just so many steps ahead of anyone else, it seems. And yeah, I think that it was intentional to, you know, in painting Scooter as the villain and knowing the diehard loyal fan base she has,

knowing that now whatever Scooter does with her music is going to be under a lot of scrutiny. And so I think, yeah, it was definitely a strategic move to do this, particularly, as you might remember, she actually has a new album coming out in August, which she plugged at the end of her Tumblr post. So the timing is pretty interesting. I can certainly see the allure of this feud that is playing out and the growing cast of characters that is sort of weighing

in. But I also want to talk to you about this larger issue and how this story plays out across the music industry to emerging artists and established ones. And I'm hoping that that's what we can get into now. So how common is it for a musician to not own their masters? How common is it for a musician to not own their masters? It's extremely common. And that, yeah, it was also very fascinating to me about seeing this play out is like you don't often hear kind of about these behind the scenes negotiations. But it's something that a ton of artists deal with. And, yeah, it's pretty standard when a new unknown artist signs a record deal is that the record labels will retain the rights to the masters. And to them, that is sort of the payoff. You know, they're taking a big financial

risk. It's really, really hard to break a musician. And that's kind of ensuring that they'll get some money out of it, basically, no matter how the record does. It turns complicated when the artist becomes a huge superstar and wants control of the music, but the label is often very unwilling to let the masters go in that case. Have we seen similar fights like this over, you know, copyrights around publishing or masters play out before? Yeah, I think some of the most famous cases, I mean, this has been going on for decades, like the Beatles is the case that most people are bringing up now because Michael Jackson bought the rights to their catalog and they were not happy about that. Paul McCartney, especially. And he'd say, I'm going

to get your records, you know, I'm going to get, I'm going to get your songs. I'm going to buy your songs. And I'd say, love it. You know, I thought it was a joke. In our case, the trouble is, like the Nike thing that came up, I don't know if you heard about that, but the trouble is that we never did do commercials, which I don't, I'm not too wild on, because it kind of spoils them a little bit for me. And so that became a very public fight. And Prince, he was also pretty well known

for speaking out against labels owning masters. He had a famous quote that now is coming up a lot this week where he said, if you don't own your masters, your master owns you. During a battle with his label in 1993, Prince wrote slave on the side of his face while changing his name to an unpronounceable symbol. And Jay-Z, I remember this was also also a big sticking point when he, you know, became the superstar. He ended up getting the rights to his master's back. And that was a really big deal. Right. And speaking of being able to get your masters back, I know there have also been stories of artists who have been so angry with who owns their masters.

They kind of try and find creative ways around it. Yeah. Janet Jackson was another person who had a huge deal in the 90s, and, like, eventually she got hers back. Eventually she got hers back. And what I also think is interesting now is a lot of newer artists who are, you know, either coming up through like SoundCloud and streaming or YouTube and all these different ways. And they're becoming very famous before they get a record deal. They're trying to find ways around that now, too, since they have a little bit of leverage. And they, you know, sometimes won't sign a record deal unless the label can guarantee they keep their masters as well. Do we know anybody who's done that or been able to do that?

Yeah, there have been stories about like 21 Savage and SZA who have been able to negotiate these deals where they get to keep their own masters. You know, obviously Taylor, when she went to Universal last year, that was a huge part of her deal. Writing on Instagram, it's also incredibly exciting to know that I'll own all of my master recordings that I make from now on. So again, as long as you can have that leverage, whether you're a superstar or if you're just a newer artist who has blown up online on social media, sometimes you can negotiate for that. And I think it's something a lot of artists are, you know, in the past,

maybe that seemed incomprehensible, but now it's something a lot of them are starting to think about i'm also interested there also seems to be artists who saw all of this and said screw it right like i'm not going to bother and and i'm thinking of like chance the rapper here if i play your song on piano that you wrote i I have to pay you publishing money because it comes from that idea. Or if I sing a line from that song, it's from the publishing portion. If I sample the actual record, if I take a piece of that actual recorded music, that's from the master. None of that makes any sense, right? That didn't make any sense to you? Because that is goofy as hell. Have they been able to move the needle at all? I mean, Chance, I think, is the best kind of example for this

just because he had so much success as an independent artist. Now he has like, you know, like kind of a deal with Apple Music as well. But I think, yeah, he was really inspiring for a lot of other singer-songwriters who saw what he did and realized that these days when, you know, it's so hard anyway to make money as a musician, maybe it's actually smarter to be independent. And I've also talked to artists who they found that after either they left a label or a label deal didn't work out, they made more money as an independent artist

than they would have had even with the deep pockets of a label funding them. It's just easier when you can control all of your own art. Do you think that this very public feud that Taylor Swift is now in is going to change anything? I think it could. I mean, I can't remember. Well, it's interesting that also the big New York Times story about the Universal fire with all of their masters kind of came out recently, too.

June 2008, a massive fire swept across the back lot of Universal Studios Hollywood. A New York Times investigation claimed it also burned a vault containing original master recordings of hundreds of thousands of songs. Etta James to Ray Charles, B.B. King, the four tops. Because I've never heard this subject talked about so much in the public eye. So I think like a lot of artists, even after they sign record deals, like some don't really understand all the nuances. It's extremely complicated to figure any of this out. So I think just bringing more awareness, like probably will get a lot more

musicians thinking about either like, what exactly did they sign or what should they sign? And yeah, I wouldn't be surprised if this affects things going forward. Okay, Emily, thank you so much. Great. Thank you. You may be asking yourself, Taylor Swift, worth an estimated $320 million U.S. dollars. Why wouldn't she just buy her own masters? In a response posted to the Big Machine website, Scott Burchetta, company founder and the man who signed Taylor Swift, he claims that offer was very much made to her and that she had every chance not just to own her masters,

but videos, photographs and everything associated with her career. And she chose instead to leave his label. Swift came back at that with a different story. label. Swift came back at that with a different story, and she describes that offer as one in which she could earn one album of her master's back for each new one that she made with Big Machine. So essentially, she had to stick with that record label. She says she felt she had no choice but to leave the label without her masters in hand. So that's it for today. Thanks so much for listening to Frontburner. For more CBC Podcasts, go to cbc.ca slash podcasts.

It's 2011 and the Arab Spring is raging. A lesbian activist in Syria starts a blog. She names it Gay Girl in Damascus. Am I crazy? Maybe. As her profile grows, so does the danger. The object of the email was, please read this while sitting down. It's like a genie came out of the bottle and you can't put it back. Gay Girl Gone. Available now.