| |
Celeb News: Taylor removes her music from Spotify
Member Since: 1/1/2014
Posts: 4,579
|
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/1/2014
Posts: 30,225
|
People saying she wants more money, it's wrong of her, etc........take a look at her sales this week and say she's doing it wrong again.
She doesn't need more money. She's an artist and can earn enough from other things. But session musicians, producers, co-writers, etc make a tiny tiny amount from streaming, which isn't fair. I see her doing this as a huge step in helping the industry.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 3/15/2013
Posts: 6,111
|
Not ha messing up my playlists again. She needs to stawp! 
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 9/1/2011
Posts: 4,190
|
She obviously loves more the bling than the music and she's probably not getting a lot of money from the good sis Spotify. How sad 
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 7/23/2012
Posts: 17,269
|
Welp 
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 12/31/2008
Posts: 3,312
|
A lot of artists have done this, but only when Taylor do this, it becomes a big deal and people gonna concern about this, make a debate, raise questions about Spotify and the music industry.
The Lord, her power 
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 5/7/2011
Posts: 7,679
|
Wait, am I missing something? Artists get more money from illegal downloads than they do from streams, or do people here actually think that the first choice for people unable to stream is to buy? 
The industry was pronounced incurable long before streaming was invented.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 2/15/2012
Posts: 15,569
|
Quote:
Originally posted by MissedTheTrain
Good for her to be honest. A ton of writers, producers, session musicians, etc are against streaming because they don't get money from it. Streaming is a huge factor in what's hurting album sales, and I'd like to see a shift towards how it used to be with people buying it, and valuing it more.
|
That is never going to happen. People will just resort to piracy, which was already what was cannibalizing album sales.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/18/2013
Posts: 12,913
|
Quote:
Originally posted by chiliam
A lot of artists have done this, but only when Taylor do this, it becomes a big deal and people gonna concern about this, make a debate, raise questions about Spotify and the music industry.
The Lord, her power
|
yep, Coldplay, Adele, Bey, Rih, some indie artists, like why is a big deal now???
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/3/2014
Posts: 1,858
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Bad Wolf
I'm not even a fan of Taylor, but I wanted to go listen to a couple of songs from her album just to see what it's like. I couldn't.
Does nobody like to test out a product before they buy it anymore? Or are we just blindly purchasing nowadays?
|
You do realize that there was a time where people couldn't stream and/or illegally download, thus having to purchase album blindly, right?
I have purchased all of Taylor's albums, and I'm also a bit bummed about her discography removal just because Spotify is so easy and I love making playlists. But it's entirely her right to do this. I think the idea of streaming is great, and it's certainly the future of the business, but there needs to be a change in how the artists profit from streaming, especially with Spotify.
I think some of us are being presumptuous thinking that Taylor is making some kind of bold statement on behalf of indie artists. She very well could be, or it could just be because the label is up for sale like Billboard said.
Regardless, I am bummed about it (from a selfish perspective), but I don't think any less of her for doing this. Some of us are acting very entitled, basically demanding music be available to us for free.
|
|
|
|
ATRL Contributor
Member Since: 1/4/2014
Posts: 2,479
|
Quote:
Originally posted by MissedTheTrain
Good for her to be honest. A ton of writers, producers, session musicians, etc are against streaming because they don't get money from it. Streaming is a huge factor in what's hurting album sales, and I'd like to see a shift towards how it used to be with people buying it, and valuing it more.
|
She is still on steaming - take a look at youtube.
From my understanding, not all artists get the same payout per play on Spotify. I guess Big Machine wanted a bigger percentage for Taylor and Spotify wouldn't agree.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 9/4/2012
Posts: 4,435
|
Why are artists fighting streaming services? The real villain is the record label. Spotify gives 70% of profit to the industry right? The record labels take most of that profit and give extremely little to the artists, writers, producers, etc. Huge pop stars need to fight the labels if they want to see more money.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 11/29/2010
Posts: 19,664
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Benjamin
Wait, am I missing something? Artists get more money from illegal downloads than they do from streams, or do people here actually think that the first choice for people unable to stream is to buy?
The industry was pronounced incurable long before streaming was invented. |
You think its OK for Spotify to rip off the artists because they have the illegal downloads excuse?
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/1/2014
Posts: 30,225
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Letemtalk
She is still on steaming - take a look at youtube.
From my understanding, not all artists get the same payout per play on Spotify. I guess Big Machine wanted a bigger percentage for Taylor and Spotify wouldn't agree.
|
Spotify is another whole thing though. People replace buying music with Spotify, since its similar to having an iTunes library. Not so much with YouTube.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/3/2014
Posts: 1,858
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Great Username
Actually hilarious that the Lord is selling 1.3M+ of Her album in 1 week and y'all want to educate Her on how the music industry works. Like, stay in your lanes.
|
LOL, so true. I am a Spotify champion and have been paying $10/month for it for years, but.. really. Taylor has every right here. She's doing quite well for herself too.
|
|
|
|
ATRL Contributor
Member Since: 1/4/2014
Posts: 2,479
|
Quote:
Originally posted by MissedTheTrain
Spotify is another whole thing though. People replace buying music with Spotify, since its similar to having an iTunes library. Not so much with YouTube.
|
Some people also purchase after listening on Spotify. I know I do.
I think people are missing the real story which is a likely sale of Big Machine Records. An improved cut from Spotify would certainly help the sale price.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 10/10/2011
Posts: 14,321
|
She's saving the music industry and you guys are complaining smh
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/8/2012
Posts: 26,732
|
Both sides have valid points. I don't agree with it but I can understand opposing opinions as well. The truth of the matter is that this is an album that a lot of people will listen to, and also one that a lot of people won't bother to. Let her do what she wants no matter what the incentive, I guess. It's her music.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 12/2/2011
Posts: 52,765
|
Not before I could get into her other albums, guess I'll check out her Myspace page 
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/1/2014
Posts: 30,225
|
http://mashable.com/2014/11/03/taylo...lvMngwczJkdiJ9
Quote:
|
"Music is art, and art is important and rare. Important, rare things are valuable. Valuable things should be paid for," Swift said earlier this year to The Wall Street Journal. "It's my opinion that music should not be free, and my prediction is that individual artists and their labels will someday decide what an album's price point is. I hope they don't underestimate themselves or undervalue their art."
|
Here's the full article:
Quote:
Spotify had told Mashable on Wednesday that 1989 wasn't available on Spotify because of "a decision by the artist." A spokesman added that "Taylor Swift has nearly 2 million active followers on [Spotify] who will be disappointed by this decision."
It appears Swift's camp, including Big Machine Records, didn't like the public finger-pointing and reacted on Monday by removing her four previous studio albums.
"We love Taylor Swift, and our more than 40 million users love her even more — nearly 16 million of them have played her songs in the last 30 days, and she’s on over 19 million playlists," Spotify said in a statement Monday. "We hope she’ll change her mind and join us in building a new music economy that works for everyone. We believe fans should be able to listen to music wherever and whenever they want, and that artists have an absolute right to be paid for their work and protected from piracy. That’s why we pay nearly 70% of our revenue back to the music community."
After 1989 was released on Oct. 27, many began searching phrases like "Why isn't 1989 on Spotify?" Fans wanted a free taste of Swift's newest project.
But Swift isn't one to give freebies. She's been vocal about that, joining the heated debate about music royalties in the age of streaming, digital downloads and YouTube. As it stands, Spotify pays artists and rightsholders of each song "between $0.006 and $0.0084" per stream, depending on how many paid users the service has, in which country the user is streaming the song and currency values in each country.
"Music is art, and art is important and rare. Important, rare things are valuable. Valuable things should be paid for," Swift said earlier this year to The Wall Street Journal. "It's my opinion that music should not be free, and my prediction is that individual artists and their labels will someday decide what an album's price point is. I hope they don't underestimate themselves or undervalue their art."
Swift's previous album, Red, in 2012 didn't appear on Spotify until months after its release date. It went on to sell 1.21 million in its first week.
While most artists want their new music to be available to stream immediately in order to spur album sales, big guns like Coldplay, Adele, Beyoncé and Swift often wait before unleashing their albums on platforms without buy buttons.
Swift's camp is following the same let's-sell-albums-first strategy for 1989, which would become the first 2014 album to achieve the milestone if it goes platinum on Nov. 5 (the Recording Industry Association of America's million-copies-sold certification).
Swift's 1989 is available to download in digital stores like iTunes and Amazon for less than $13, and Microsoft via an app is offering it at a special rate of $0.99 for a limited time.
The discussion about how much artists should get paid by Spotif, Pandora, Rdio and more has been going on for years, yet no clear industry model has been set because services are still trying to secure more paid users' subscription fees to help pay royalties.
Nowadays, artists make the majority of their revenue from touring, sponsored performances and endorsement deals. Singer-songwriter Rosanne Cash earlier this year told Mashable about her "devastating" experience offering music on Spotify.
"I asked my song publisher to send me my Spotify earnings from the past few years. I knew it was going to bad, but it was devastating," Cash said. "It was hundreds of thousands of streams, and I received a little more than $200. It was not only bad because it’s harder to make a living; I have to go on the road more often, and I have a teenager at home. That's really hard. I hate leaving him."
Last year, Radiohead frontman Thom Yorke and producer Nigel Godrich took several albums off Spotify, a move they described as a "rebellion" against the streaming-music service's payment methods. Godrich said, "The reason is that new artists get paid **** all with this model.. It's an equation that just doesn't work."
Spotify responded at the time to an email request from Mashable with:
Spotify's goal is to grow a service which people love, ultimately want to pay for, and which will provide the financial support to the music industry necessary to invest in new talent and music. We want to help artists connect with their fans, find new audiences, grow their fan base and make a living from the music we all love. Right now we're still in the early stages of a long-term project that's already having a hugely positive effect on artists and new music. We've already paid US$500M to rightsholders so far and by the end of 2013 this number will reach US$1bn. Much of this money is being invested in nurturing new talent and producing great new music. We're 100% committed to making Spotify the most artist-friendly music service possible and are constantly talking to artists and managers about how Spotify can help build their careers.
Yorke tried a new music-distribution strategy this year by selling his new album as a $6 Bit******* Bundle: "If it works well, it could be an effective way of handing some control of Internet commerce back to people who are creating the work," he said. "Enabling those people who make either music, video or any other kind of digital content to sell it themselves. Bypassing the self-elected gate-keepers."
Spotify, amid these setbacks, has converted some musicians — the digital holdouts who have previously refused to allow their music to be streamed or downloaded in full. Notable converts over the past two years have been Metallica and Pink Floyd. Most recently, Garth Brooks, the third top-selling artist of all time (behind the Beatles and Elvis), began selling his entire catalog online for the first time, but Brooks is still a Spotify holdout.
Spotify is taking Swift's music removal in stride, playfully twisting her lyrics to inform users: "Taylor, we were both young when we first saw you, but now there’s more than 40 million of us who want you to stay, stay, stay. It’s a love story, baby, just say, Yes."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
