| |
Celeb News: Apple replies to Taylor, will pay Artists during trial
Member Since: 1/1/2014
Posts: 15,836
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Fearless
Apple isn't paying them with revenue, they're not making any money from the free trial. As Taylor explains in her letter, she already has enough money to take care of everything she could need while small artists are scraping by. Taylor herself has put the emphasis on small artists here.
|
By "revenue" i meant all the money that the streams would "generate" for calling it in some way because as you said, the streams are truly not generating any income, but they will be paid as if they did. But it is pretty clear to me that you knew this and decided to escape the point without really coming with an answer to my question 
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/1/2014
Posts: 30,225
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Fearless
"This is not about me". She said that she was removing 1989 for the small artists, and yet the small artists are going to get paid now and there hasn't been a peep from her about the album. Their profits likely won't be anything to write home about while Taylor's will be greater than anyone's. You'd think that she would advocate for a more equal pay system than per stream, but she won't because she's benefiting.
|
Taylor's profits will be greater because she's getting streamed more, that's common logic. There's no more fair or logical way to pay artists than by doing it per stream.
Artists weren't going to get paid at all for users listening under their 3 month trial. That's taking away more of their possible revenue and making their hard work go unrewarded. Now, they'll be getting paid and will much more quickly get to a point where they're making enough to support themselves. As Savan Kotecha posted today, new artists/producers sometimes work 14 hours a day, 7 days a week....they need that money to live on, and there comes a time when they can't afford to split their time with another part time job.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 5/9/2009
Posts: 6,397
|
Damn! Taylor her power is real. She just called out Apple out on their s**t and actually complied with her. I guess Apple couldn’t have any bad PR about their greedy ass. I admit that I never look at the thread about the information on Apple Music. But I did look at that other thread about what Taylor said about Apple Music and I agree most of what she said. So good for her on this. Now, the fans can stream on that free trial without feeling guilty and the indie artists can get some money out of this. However, I still think Taylor might not put 1989 to stream due to artist integrity and wants people to actually buy her music. But I could be wrong and hey, Apple could change their mind, maybe Taylor might too. Either way, this is the business. I guess everyone wins regardless of being a publicity stunt or not. I haven’t read through this entire thread so forgive me if I spew some ignorance here. We’re not going to hear the endless worshiping by the Swifties anytime soon. And Taylor and her image will be more overexposed than ever.
Still won’t sign up for Apple Music even with the free trial because I’m an ungrateful bastard that listens to music only on You-Tube. But, that’s my problem. Otherwise, I would’ve sign up with Spotify already since it benefits me since I’m a college student if I wasn’t lazy and had a credit card instead of a debit. Tidal and their marketing plan still piss me off and their exclusives are not baiting me in. Still the labels are the real devils in the music industry and it’s a shame that it becomes a fan vs artist thing and sometimes a streaming service thing. I don’t blame Taylor for wanting to maximize her sales despite being rich because of her not wanting anyone to take advantage of her music and Taylor Nation is evident of that at least in my mind.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 6/30/2012
Posts: 22,003
|
how is this even possible
literally the next queen of pop tbh
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/12/2012
Posts: 13,665
|
Just checked Google, now 900 of english writing outlets have articles with Taylor in it about her and Apple. 
Almost the same amount mentioned Adele, she did nothing 
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/18/2013
Posts: 2,533
|
Quote:
Originally posted by SupahBass05
Taylor not letting them stream her album would be hypocritical as well.  I mean, her whole letter is about why she can't possibly agree to put up 1989 on there. How will her newer "stans" defend her if she chooses not to? Looking at the whole thing, it's kinda sad how people accused the Tidal crowd of being greedy but are failing to see the same situation here.  |
Honestly that would be a biT indefensible, but people here continue to type as if Taylor is against any type of streaming in any type of scenario ever which isn't true. Her issue with Spotify is that she felt that didn't compensate artists and their team adequately, once that issue becomes resolved she would have no issue going back. Her original letter even talked about how she was excited to hopefully work with Apple on their streaming service and be a part of it as she feels they would be the first to get it right.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 6/18/2012
Posts: 18,768
|
when will mariah?
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 12/13/2011
Posts: 26,638
|
I don't understand, why are people dragging Her for this?
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/11/2012
Posts: 4,202
|
Smart move. Guys, everyone knows why '1989' is not available on streaming services. Digital album sales + TEA gives more $$ than streaming of current album. That's the reason why Taylor's catalog albums and deep catalog alums are available.
Oh, and why Taylor doesn't remove her music from YouTube? YouTube pays around 3k $ per 1m views - is less than Spotify! Everyone knows...
I don't drag her, I know she just want to get her money but why she try to manipulate us?
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/19/2013
Posts: 10,844
|
 yas kween
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/19/2013
Posts: 8,746
|
There is no denying the Lord, her power
|
|
|
|
ATRL Contributor
Member Since: 1/1/2014
Posts: 40,803
|
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 5/6/2010
Posts: 35,158
|
Can she make Rihanna release R8 pls
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 5/30/2012
Posts: 4,748
|
Taylor's power just won't let up.
This is what i call impact, wow 
Bring it on ! 
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/1/2014
Posts: 24,895
|
Taylor doesn't need the extra coins but upcoming artists/artists that don't make money from merch or touring will definitely need every bit of money they can get. Well done to Taylor
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 4/6/2014
Posts: 10,308
|
Well played Taylor, she should stick her money where her mouth is tho and join them if they do that.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 4/21/2011
Posts: 1,785
|
Quote:
Originally posted by MissedTheTrain
Taylor's profits will be greater because she's getting streamed more, that's common logic. There's no more fair or logical way to pay artists than by doing it per stream.
Artists weren't going to get paid at all for users listening under their 3 month trial. That's taking away more of their possible revenue and making their hard work go unrewarded. Now, they'll be getting paid and will much more quickly get to a point where they're making enough to support themselves. As Savan Kotecha posted today, new artists/producers sometimes work 14 hours a day, 7 days a week....they need that money to live on, and there comes a time when they can't afford to split their time with another part time job.
|
But how is it fair when Taylor admittedly has everything and the small artists are scraping by? She just seems a bit hypocritical and self-serving when the system benefits her most and when she a. hasn't made 1989 available for fans and b. has made her other albums available, as if that juxtaposition could be for any reason other than putting money ahead of fans. She can get upset and classist all she wants when people listen to her music for free but I can't @ her acting like her motives are pure and only about helping others.
Quote:
Originally posted by alestevens
By "revenue" i meant all the money that the streams would "generate" for calling it in some way because as you said, the streams are truly not generating any income, but they will be paid as if they did. But it is pretty clear to me that you knew this and decided to escape the point without really coming with an answer to my question |
Well that doesn't fit the meaning of revenue so I just needed clarification. Anyway, I don't know what alternative system would be right because I don't have that kind of business mind but Taylor as a savvy businesswoman should be able to see the hole in logic that many of those small artists will likely remain in the same relative situation while her pockets get bigger.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/17/2013
Posts: 1,494
|
I'm trying to look at this where she doesn't come across greedy but I can't :/ . I mean first she doesn't even remove the rest of her catalog from the service which alone is a HUGE red flag! If she truly cares about rights and not sales... she would've stuck with digital/physical sales and remove her entire catalog from all services.
Also nice move Apple! You guys look at it as "Taylor ha power" and all that ****... I look at it this way : Apple is like okay you got what you wanted, your move Taylor! If she truly cares about rights and not the way 1989 sales will be affected, the album will be available on Apple music starting June 30th even in the free trial period, if not well then she will come across very bad in this situation. It was smart on their part to get her to sign up for this and not have a choice.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/1/2012
Posts: 25,037
|
If she doesn't put it on apple music now apple kind of exposed her ass. I'm perched to see what she does now
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 9/26/2008
Posts: 429
|
taylor and ha power
oh, and since we're asking her for things, now, can taylor tell rih to release r8 please, thank you very much, k bye.
|
|
|
|
|
|
