Taylor Swift’s ‘Queen Gambit:’ Playing Pawns to Take the Throne

There is a common narrative in the music industry that unfolds as young artists mature into successful songwriters. At the core of that narrative is the struggle to gain control of their early music, which record labels or other investors often own under the terms of the artists’ early contracts. The Beatles, John Fogerty, and Prince are among the many artists who have faced that struggle.

Recently, however, Taylor Swift added a new element to the narrative. As Swift sought to gain control of her original six albums, which she ultimately achieved in May 2025, the struggle became an all-out war in which Swift saw herself as a victim and some of her fans saw themselves as her avenging army.

According to reports in Variety, for example, the owner of the albums, Scooter Braun, received “numerous death threats” as a result of his refusal to relinquish control. “I assume this was not your intention,” Braun wrote to Swift. “But it is important that you understand that your words carry a tremendous amount of weight and that your message can be interpreted by some in different ways.”

While Swift’s expectations regarding her fans are difficult to nail down, it’s clear that she believes they played a role in her ultimately securing ownership of the albums. In a letter to fans she shared via her website, Swift said, “I can’t thank you enough for helping to reunite me with this art that I have dedicated my life to, but have never owned until now.”

Expert feels Swift’s narrative ignored key factors

Music expert and creative strategist Jared Navarre believes the narrative Swift fueled regarding her early albums was irresponsible, failing to acknowledge other key factors that contribute to any artist’s early success.

“Swift’s rise wasn’t solo; it was backed by multiple companies and hundreds of professionals who invested millions of dollars and years of effort to make her the biggest star on the planet,” Navarre says. “Her success was built on both her talent and the work of countless others. In any other industry, those who take on the financial risk expect, and deserve, a return. The story she posed involves a neglectful level of entitlement that we rarely let billionaires get away with.”

Navarre, founder of Keyni Consulting, is a multidisciplinary founder and creative strategist who has worked with hundreds of businesses launching, scaling, and exiting ventures across the IT, logistics, entertainment, and service industries. He is also the creator of ZILLION, an immersive music project that blends narrative, multimedia, and live performance into a cohesive storytelling experience.

“Swift is not some powerless artist who was swindled by an evil industry,” Navarre argues. “She is a billionaire who rose to global superstardom with the backing of record labels, marketing teams, managers, investors, and thousands of hard-working people in the music business who poured in hundreds of millions of dollars — and years of their lives — helping her become one of the most successful artists in history. The recent headlines about Taylor Swift buying back her masters are being celebrated as a triumphant comeback story. But let’s be honest — this narrative of victimhood is dangerously misleading.”

Every new music artist poses financial risks

Navarre’s comments point to the financial risk that all emerging artists pose to the record labels that sign them. Artist development requires a significant investment that involves providing the finances needed for recording, marketing, touring, and a wide variety of legal protections. The labels make those investments, knowing that the majority of artists who enter the process never see mainstream stardom.

“The idea that Taylor Swift was entitled to walk away owning everything — without honoring the risk others took on her — is a level of delusion and entitlement we don’t tolerate from Wall Street CEOs,” Navarre says. “In every other industry, those who take on the financial risk are compensated for their investment. Why is music different?”

The degree to which labels benefit when an artist makes it big is spelled out in the contracts those artists sign. In Swift’s case, the contract gave the record label ownership of her first six albums. When the label sold them to Scooter Braun, Swift began to share a narrative that ultimately led to the early albums being known as her “stolen” records.

“Swift’s framing a few years ago — that her masters were ‘stolen’ — ignores the basic truth that she signed contracts,” Navarre says. “She got paid. So did the people who believed in her when she was unknown. For the 99 percent of artists who don’t make it, who lose their labels millions, there are no Twitter mobs defending the companies left holding the bag. Yet when the bet pays off, suddenly the artist alone deserves all the spoils?”

Swift ultimately got her shot at buying back her albums when they passed from Braun to the private equity firm Shamrock Capital. She reportedly paid $360 million for them.

“If Swift wanted her masters, she could have negotiated to buy them — as she ultimately did,” Navarre says. “But weaponizing her fanbase to vilify the very industry that built her? That’s not justice. That’s branding.”