Taylor Swift’s song dispute: ‘Shaking Off’ rule of law
If you sell a fully-furnished house, are you entitled to go back, after the fact, and take the patio furniture - since you owned it previously?
If you’re a software engineer who creates a sensational video game, or a scientist who discovers a cure, are you entitled to the profits those inventions generate?
If a businesswoman sold her family company, and the new entity retained the name, should she still be allowed to call the shots?
To anyone with half brain, the answer is “no.”
But if you’re an entitled, coddled, arrogant rich brat who thinks the rule of law shouldn’t apply to you because fame and privilege set you apart - in other words, if you’re Taylor Swift - then the answer is a resounding “yes.”
Swift has been waging a vitriolic public battle with her former music label because it - not she - owns the master recordings for her first six albums. So because Taylor doesn’t like her current situation — despite legally agreeing to it - she thinks the rule of law should go out the window, and that it’s fair game to slander anyone who gets in her way.
For a singer who’s supposedly intelligent, Taylor doesn’t appear too…swift.
The issue that has Swift deluging fans with tales of woe is the same one that plagues today’s America: entitlement.
Swift’s “logic” is typical of the coddled generations: Thinking she is entitled to something which, unequivocally, she is not. And because she isn’t winning her battle, a
Swift has upped the ante by calling Scooter Braun, the new owner of her music catalog, and his supporters, “the definition of toxic male privilege.” Not surprising, since we are increasingly told that males are responsible for all the world’s ills. Sure glad Taylor doesn’t have any male fans, employees, or performers from whom she has sought mentoring and inspiration.
Even by Tinseltown’s standards, Swift’s hypocrisy is astounding. How ironic that she blasts others for “privilege,” when that’s exactly what she’s using to help achieve her objectives. Because she’s “music star Taylor Swift,” and because she sang and produced songs in her catalog, she thinks she has “merited” enough “privilege” to have a different set of rules apply to her. Contracts? Fuhgeddaboudit! Agreements? Not for me! Rule of law? Nah. That’s for other people, AKA those without privilege.
Swift is both legally and morally incorrect. By her actions, she is telling millions of young people - especially girls - that when something doesn’t go your way, it’s okay to advocate breaking the rules. And if that doesn’t work, it’s fine to invoke political correctness and gender politics to slander someone - even if those words generate death threats for him and his family. The difference, of course, is that no matter what happens, Taylor Swift will land on her feet, given her massive wealth. Her biggest “problem” is gaining control of songs so she can make more millions, yet her followers, should they conduct themselves the same way, may find themselves on the receiving end of a pink slip, or in jail. Maybe those folks can sing Taylor’s song, “Look What You
Made Me Do” when they’re down and out, while their icon aloofly lives the life of luxury.
Speaking of Taylor’s music, here’s the situation explained by her own song titles:
“Everything Has Changed:” When Taylor Swift was a no-name aspiring singer, she signed with Scott Borchetta’s Big Machine Label Group - a smart move, since Big Machine was a major industry player. But things changed this year when music mogul Scooter Braun bought Big Machine and the rights to Swift’s first six albums. Swift reacted swiftly, condemning the move as her “worst-case scenario” and accusing Braun of - what else? - “manipulative bullying.” In a whiny social media post, Swift added, “You deserve to own the art you make.”
Not true, Taylor, not true at all. You don’t “deserve” anything other than what you agree to in your contract. If you wanted to own your “art,” then you should have had the courage to negotiate that before signing with Big Machine.
But you didn’t.
“Bad Blood:” Instead of acting like a grown-up by privately airing complaints and negotiating possible buyback options, Swift chose social media and award ceremonies to excoriate those with whom she disagrees.
Let’s be very honest. If Swift had made owning her music an unnegotiable point when starting her career, the number of people who would know her would be countable on your fingers.
There’s a reason most musicians don’t own their songs: it’s extremely hard to break into the business, so signing with a big-name record company provides opportunities that most independent artists don’t have. Yes, the label owns the songs, but it incurs sizable risk in signing an unknown. To the musician’s benefit, the label leverages its widespread industry connections, foots a significant bill to create and produce songs, and expends huge sums for promotions, branding and travel. It also fronts monetary advances to the artist, and stands to lose millions if that artist fails to catch on with fans.
Boiling it down, we have a classic case of someone who got too big for her britches. Swift gladly welcomed Big Machine’s efforts because they made her an international megastar. But now that she “made it,” Swift seems to have forgotten who brought her to the Promised Land, as well as the terms to which she voluntarily agreed. So Taylor, here a suggestion: “You Need To Calm Down,” stop acting “Fifteen,” and “Shake It Off.”
“Red:” This is just too good to ignore. Swift, an avowed Hollywood liberal, was already seeing red over Braun’s Ithaca Holdings buying her song catalog. But undoubtedly making her even more red-faced is that one of the financiers was Democratic mega-donor George Soros - a conundrum if ever there was one! Taylor further caused a rift by criticizing “the unregulated world of private equity coming in and buying up our music as if it’s real estate,” whatever the hell that means. Definitely seems like the Swift/Soros political “Love Story” has devolved into “Teardrops on My Guitar.”
“We Are Never Ever Getting Back Together:” Swift may have done irreparable harm to her cause by publicly slamming Braun and Borchetta, as any incentive to be amicable toward her has waned. But more than anything, it was her characterization of “toxic male privilege” that needs to be called out. How dare Swift inject gender politics when this situation has absolutely, positively nothing to do with gender! Swift’s agreement is a garden-variety, industry-standard arrangement, nothing more. Braun and Borchetta are men, but so what? If a woman happened to be the chief executive at either label, you can bet your derriere that she would have done the same thing. This is business acumen at its finest, but because Swift doesn’t like her situation, she’s making it personal by playing the female victim card and needlessly adding fuel to the fire of divisive politics. Just goes to show that being a celebrity doesn’t make you a leader, and wealth can’t buy class.
“Blank Space:” Some Swift sycophants will undoubtedly criticize this author with whines of “don’t you have anything more important to discuss?”
Admittedly, yes. Like impeachment. Oh wait. No one actually cares about that circus. So … no.
Truth be told, this is an extremely important issue for three reasons: First, virtually no one else in the media is calling out Swift for her inexcusable behavior. Second, integrity of the rule of law is at stake - and when that goes, so does everything else. Lastly, the entitlement mentality that people can do whatever they want, whenever they want - especially when they’re “offended” or don’t like something, repercussions be damned - must be challenged at every step.
Right or wrong, when Taylor Swift speaks, people listen. What she says matters, especially to impressionable young people.
In that vein, here’s hoping Swift will go “Back To December” when she made her outlandish comments, apologize, and “Begin Again” as the role model she is eminently capable of being.
Otherwise, “Ready for It?” - may the “Sparks Fly.”