| |
Celeb News: Taylor explains Apple Music decision
Member Since: 3/25/2012
Posts: 10,673
|
Quote:
Originally posted by eddytws
You guys probably haven't seen the amount of underground artists thanking her for this lol.
|
Clearly anybody claiming that there are "no indie artists supporting her" haven't taken a look on Twitter and Facebook recently.  Small independent artists have been crying foul over these streaming services' practices for the longest, but their voice is not heard because they are small. That's the whole point of someone like Taylor speaking up about it.
Quote:
Originally posted by Fearless
That's subjective and barely differentiates it from radio. I'm willing to bet that there are thousands of streaming users who have discovered an artist through streaming and then went on to pay to see them live or buy their album.
and apple isn't responsible for paying artists, labels are. apple is running a service sharing music that they paid the rights for and will pay for again, what labels do with that compensation is the real issue.
|
That's entirely dependent on the artist and the type of deal they have. Independent artists don't have a label to go through, so they get paid directly from Apple/Spotify/whatever streaming service, and the pay is still abysmal. There have been leagues of indie artists who have spoken about how low their payouts have been even without the label as a middle-man. We're talking fractions of cents here.
Quote:
Originally posted by rbautz
Let me tell you something and I hope you'll understand it the right way, I don't wanna get a WP
Artists are pretty stupid if we hear them talking about money and the worth of their art. They should shut up, simple as that. And be thankfully for their talent.
For the money, they have a management for their art it is on us to decide.
Last month we talked about Lorde and her earnings on Sportify, it's about 2 million $, most of us won't get that money in a lifetime, I needed about 30 years of hard working before taxes.
Is it much for an successful artist? No but how many subscribers has Sportify, today? Maybe 30 millions, Now I say, if we all use streaming, we will get about 3 billion subscribers in the future, That's a 100 times more than today.
So with 3 billion subscribers of different providers Lorde won't earn a 100 times more but 20 times would be possible, that would be 40 million dollars and that's a lot.
PS
The best and the second best musician of all time had a fortune about 300k $ when they died, After their death, musicians have earned for each of them more than 20 billions of dollars by their name. That's a performance measurement for value of art.
We can talk about this in 200 years and Taylor's earnings after, hopefully, a long life.
|
First off your first statement is trash. I could say the same thing about ANY job and it would still be trash. "Engineers are pretty stupid to talk about money and the worth of their work. They should shut up and be thankful for their coding and engineering talent. Waiters are pretty stupid to talk about money and the worth of their service. They should shut up and be thankful for their serving talent and stop asking for tips. Accountants should work for free, and shut up and be thankful for their counting talents." Idc what industry you're in, having talent shouldn't mean being forced to work for free or close to nothing. 
Second, the fact that people are still ONLY taking into consideration big artists in this debate is just...
Talking about Lorde and Taylor's streaming earnings are irrelevant. They don't care, they are going to make a ton of money regardless of what platform their music is on or how much they pay out, because they already have a built in customer base.
For an independent artist just starting out and getting their first bit of attention, they may not have a management team to handle negotiations. They may not be signed to a major label. They don't have the opportunity to make all their money from touring and merch and tv commercials and sponsorships. And even less so for the songwriters and producers who are actually responsible for MAKING the music itself. Everyone in here seems to be conveniently ignoring this though.
Every person that's part of making a song doesn't have the opportunity to benefit from "brand exposure". Songwriters' and producers' (i.e. the people who actually make our faves what they are) MAIN avenue of paying rent and buying groceries for the month comes from these royalty payments that they're getting screwed out of.
|
|
|
|
ATRL Contributor
Member Since: 8/19/2013
Posts: 43,104
|
She nailed it, I 100% agree with her.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 11/27/2010
Posts: 9,806
|
Quote:
Originally posted by cloudinthesky
Clearly anybody claiming that there are "no indie artists supporting her" haven't taken a look on Twitter and Facebook recently. Small independent artists have been crying foul over these streaming services' practices for the longest, but their voice is not heard because they are small. That's the whole point of someone like Taylor speaking up about it.
That's entirely dependent on the artist and the type of deal they have. Independent artists don't have a label to go through, so they get paid directly from Apple/Spotify/whatever streaming service, and the pay is still abysmal. There have been leagues of indie artists who have spoken about how low their payouts have been even without the label as a middle-man. We're talking fractions of cents here.
First off your first statement is trash. I could say the same thing about ANY job and it would still be trash. "Engineers are pretty stupid to talk about money and the worth of their work. They should shut up and be thankful for their coding and engineering talent. Waiters are pretty stupid to talk about money and the worth of their service. They should shut up and be thankful for their serving talent and stop asking for tips. Accountants should work for free, and shut up and be thankful for their counting talents." Idc what industry you're in, having talent shouldn't mean being forced to work for free or close to nothing.
Second, the fact that people are still ONLY taking into consideration big artists in this debate is just...
Talking about Lorde and Taylor's streaming earnings are irrelevant. They don't care, they are going to make a ton of money regardless of what platform their music is on or how much they pay out, because they already have a built in customer base.
For an independent artist just starting out and getting their first bit of attention, they may not have a management team to handle negotiations. They may not be signed to a major label. They don't have the opportunity to make all their money from touring and merch and tv commercials and sponsorships. And even less so for the songwriters and producers who are actually responsible for MAKING the music itself. Everyone in here seems to be conveniently ignoring this though.
Every person that's part of making a song doesn't have the opportunity to benefit from "brand exposure". Songwriters' and producers' (i.e. the people who actually make our faves what they are) MAIN avenue of paying rent and buying groceries for the month comes from these royalty payments that they're getting screwed out of. |
Engineers regularly work for nothing now in the hopes of a future payout doing conferences creating new technologies etc... Artists do also. The problem is that indy artists werent in on the negotiations and they got no say on the terms. Naturally They would be upset at Apple telling them to give awwy their music way after the fact. Plus releases are front-loaded. Why put your album up on AM during the first several months if you womt get paid during the peakeriod. I also fail to see how this is a win for AM seeing Spotify and others will get everything first while AM users will have to wait several months.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 9/12/2011
Posts: 2,093
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Adonis
I also fail to see how this is a win for AM seeing Spotify and others will get everything first while AM users will have to wait several months.
|
What do you mean? Artists who agree to Apple's terms are not going to withhold their releases.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 11/27/2010
Posts: 9,806
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Lovato
What do you mean? Artists who agree to Apple's terms are not going to withhold their releases.
|
and that's it. those who don't agree to their terms wont be on AM. They will use the other services they've already been using feeding the impression that AM doesn't have as much music as Spotify, Google Play, Tidal and others. AM only pays 1.5% more than everyone else once it does start to pay out. I think maybe that's not enough or maybe there is something that can be done.... however, this will likely not be a big bone of contention in 6 months after most of the initial users are paying for their music through streaming services.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 9/12/2011
Posts: 2,093
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Adonis
and that's it. those who don't agree to their terms wont be on AM. They will use the other services they've already been using feeding the impression that AM doesn't have as much music as Spotify, Google Play, Tidal and others. AM only pays 1.5% more than everyone else once it does start to pay out. I think maybe that's not enough or maybe there is something that can be done.... however, this will likely not be a big bone of contention in 6 months after most of the initial users are paying for their music through streaming services.
|
Do you really think artists would dare to go against Apple in favor of other streaming services? Keep in mind that this is Apple, undoubtedly the biggest player in music in the last decade.
Taylor does this because she has power. She doesn't care, her music will keep selling. For intermediate artists (not totally underground but not top 100), they will stay on AM and other services because either their label already struck a deal with Apple or they don't want to lose revenue in the long run.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 4/23/2012
Posts: 16,691
|
No lies spotted. Taylor taking on the industry giants for the sake of all musicians.
However since she is the biggest pop star on Earth of course ATRL haters will find a way to call her 'greedy' when she clearly explained her reasoning and how she's lucky she's on her 5th album and can support her team and herself through live shows.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 4/23/2012
Posts: 16,691
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Artemisia
Ugh she will generate so much press for this  Mass media icon |
ugh she already is. The biggest seller in music going up against Apple like this. woo this is already so iconic. This is like her vs Spotify but even bigger.
And the media is mostly agreeing with her and dragging Apple
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 9/12/2011
Posts: 2,093
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Toxicity.
ugh she already is. The biggest seller in music going up against Apple like this. woo this is already so iconic. This is like her vs Spotify but even bigger.
And the media is mostly agreeing with her and dragging Apple
|
This is way bigger compared to Spotify, definitely.
The media don't know what they want, really. In 10 days time they'll be praising AM like it's Gods gift to the world. You'll see. Whatever gets them those clickbait coins.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 3/25/2012
Posts: 10,673
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Adonis
Engineers regularly work for nothing now in the hopes of a future payout doing conferences creating new technologies etc... Artists do also. The problem is that indy artists werent in on the negotiations and they got no say on the terms. Naturally They would be upset at Apple telling them to give awwy their music way after the fact. Plus releases are front-loaded. Why put your album up on AM during the first several months if you womt get paid during the peakeriod. I also fail to see how this is a win for AM seeing Spotify and others will get everything first while AM users will have to wait several months.
|
This does nothing to discredit my point though. They're still sacrificing their time and energy and skills. Engineers work for free to create new technology and apps, which they then sell for a profit to a bigger company and then they recoup costs every time someone purchases that product. That all happens before the product goes public. Likewise, an independent musician, or a songwriter or producer in the early stages of their career will create music for free or close to nothing (if they can do most of it themselves) and they expect to recoup when the music is bought by a big name artist. And when fans BUY and STREAM the music, they should be receiving an adequate amount of royalties for their hard work, just like an engineer or coder receives their fair cut when their app is bought out and sells billions.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/12/2012
Posts: 13,665
|
Quote:
Originally posted by cloudinthesky
Clearly anybody claiming that there are "no indie artists supporting her" haven't taken a look on Twitter and Facebook recently. Small independent artists have been crying foul over these streaming services' practices for the longest, but their voice is not heard because they are small. That's the whole point of someone like Taylor speaking up about it.
That's entirely dependent on the artist and the type of deal they have. Independent artists don't have a label to go through, so they get paid directly from Apple/Spotify/whatever streaming service, and the pay is still abysmal. There have been leagues of indie artists who have spoken about how low their payouts have been even without the label as a middle-man. We're talking fractions of cents here.
First off your first statement is trash. I could say the same thing about ANY job and it would still be trash. "Engineers are pretty stupid to talk about money and the worth of their work. They should shut up and be thankful for their coding and engineering talent. Waiters are pretty stupid to talk about money and the worth of their service. They should shut up and be thankful for their serving talent and stop asking for tips. Accountants should work for free, and shut up and be thankful for their counting talents." Idc what industry you're in, having talent shouldn't mean being forced to work for free or close to nothing.
Second, the fact that people are still ONLY taking into consideration big artists in this debate is just...
Talking about Lorde and Taylor's streaming earnings are irrelevant. They don't care, they are going to make a ton of money regardless of what platform their music is on or how much they pay out, because they already have a built in customer base.
For an independent artist just starting out and getting their first bit of attention, they may not have a management team to handle negotiations. They may not be signed to a major label. They don't have the opportunity to make all their money from touring and merch and tv commercials and sponsorships. And even less so for the songwriters and producers who are actually responsible for MAKING the music itself. Everyone in here seems to be conveniently ignoring this though.
Every person that's part of making a song doesn't have the opportunity to benefit from "brand exposure". Songwriters' and producers' (i.e. the people who actually make our faves what they are) MAIN avenue of paying rent and buying groceries for the month comes from these royalty payments that they're getting screwed out of. |
The independent artists will benefit from the masses, To get people into streaming, the companies must offer something today. So it's more important for independent labels to get a certain kind of exposure for their artist via the streaming provider but not important are the 3 months for free.
We're talking about a market who will be to 2,5-3 billion people strong.
When Thriller came out, the market for a western musician was about 600 million people strong.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/1/2014
Posts: 7,793
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Lovato
Taylor does this because she has power. She doesn't care, her music will keep selling. For intermediate artists (not totally underground but not top 100), they will stay on AM and other services because either their label already struck a deal with Apple or they don't want to lose revenue in the long run.
|
Why do you keep spinning this line that Taylor does not care? She acts as if she cares. She just wrote a letter publicly criticising Apple over this issue. If she didn't care she wouldn't have bothered.
Taylor has power, yes. And she is using it here to highlight an issue that affects the artists/songwriters and producers of music. That is why there are tons of them thanking her publicly on twitter over this issue.
I understand you may disagree with her stance on this issue, but please don't pretend that Taylor does not care about other artists when this letter suggests the complete opposite.
Why are you even attempting to pretend that it is morally justifiable for the most profitable company in corporate history to strong-arm music creators and performers out of getting paid any royalties at all. Apple should bite the cost it takes to operate their new AM service. It is up to them whether they want to incentivise new customer adoption by offering free trials, but they should swallow the cost of doing so and not expect the artists to not get paid. AM is already expected to cannibalise revenues for artists that they currently get from downloads, and you think it is right that they replace these revenues with nothing for the next 3 months.
At least Spotify has an excuse of not offering more royalties to artists than currently because they are not a profitable company. Apple cannot make that claim, when they are making more than $8 million profit every hr, 24//7.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 6/24/2012
Posts: 24,708
|
I think I should think about being a Taylor follower again. That iPhone drag was the best.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 9/12/2011
Posts: 2,093
|
Quote:
Originally posted by revel8
Why do you keep spinning this line that Taylor does not care? She acts as if she cares. She just wrote a letter publicly criticising Apple over this issue. If she didn't care she wouldn't have bothered.
Taylor has power, yes. And she is using it here to highlight an issue that affects the artists/songwriters and producers of music. That is why there are tons of them thanking her publicly on twitter over this issue.
I understand you may disagree with her stance on this issue, but please don't pretend that Taylor does not care about other artists when this letter suggests the complete opposite.
Why are you even attempting to pretend that it is morally justifiable for the most profitable company in corporate history to strong-arm music creators and performers out of getting paid any royalties at all. Apple should bite the cost it takes to operate their new AM service. It is up to them whether they want to incentivise new customer adoption by offering free trials, but they should swallow the cost of doing so and not expect the artists to not get paid. AM is already expected to cannibalise revenues for artists that they currently get from downloads, and you think it is right that they replace these revenues with nothing for the next 3 months.
At least Spotify has an excuse of not offering more royalties to artists than currently because they are not a profitable company. Apple cannot make that claim, when they are making more than $8 million profit every hr, 24//7.
|
Acting like you care and really caring are two very different things.
I meant that Taylor doesn't care for herself, not for others. At least according to what she said.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 6/25/2012
Posts: 41,860
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Kayhan
You would drag him/her if this was written by another artist.
All I'm reading is that think she's afraid of getting no more money. LOL.
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Nialler
She needs to stop hiding behind small artists, it's been proved many times that labels keep majority of the money anyway and Spotify barely makes any profit.
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Sam
Bitch, your album costs $12.99 USD. DEATH @ you comparing your music to an iPhone.  I'm done. |
 on so many levels. $600 Iphone > 12.99 USD x 1million > users????
Quote:
Originally posted by Raava
Only the best songwriter of our generation would know how to write such a inspiring open letter 
Others would struggle to write a tweet  |
AMEN
Quote:
Originally posted by RomanNavy
Ok u still money hungry like I said months ago bye
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Nialler
Great letter though giving Stalin a run for his money |
Quote:
Originally posted by zach
Y'all don't understand. Her previous albums will be on there because the money was already made for them. 1989 is still selling heaps of albums each week. She mentioned herself making more than enough money through touring, but let's not forget the writers, producers, engineers, mixers, etc that work on the album? As I said, they already made the most money they are gonna get from her previous albums, but 1989 is still new and has more to make. It isn't about her. She doesn't need the money from album sales, but the other people involved in the making of the record do.
|
glad to see you back the swifties 
Quote:
Originally posted by Fearless
What's interesting to me is that a majority of artists don't seem to have a problem with the popular streaming services, and those that do(Taylor and the Tidal crew) happen to be millionaires.
 |
"Taylor's so greedy she just wants even more money she doesn't even care, she's speaking about this yet she's a multi millionaire? lmao so transparent"
she's speaking about this and and taking her music off because her statement actually means something to people, no ones gonna care or even know if the actual artists most affected by this do or say anything she is representing those people who don't have the power to speak for themselves and be heard. Also,REGARDLESS if she actually cares or not this is helping out those people this is getting people talking and at the very least validating these artists frustrations.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 3/25/2012
Posts: 10,673
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Dollas n Diamonds
|
Thank you for this. All the people in here claiming that she's the only one that cares about this and small artists don't mind being screwed out of next month's rent are just being willfully delusional and out of touch.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 6/3/2006
Posts: 51,724
|
People praising her? Seriously? She is so desperate. She is such an hypocrate. She is selfish, she only cares about gaining her coins. Aren't you rich enough? Stop making it look like it is only for smaller artists.
I used to like Taylor a lot but she is becoming so fool of herself.
And, by the way, she does have some intelligent points on her essay, if you wanna call it like that, but I don't know she just too desperate.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/1/2014
Posts: 7,793
|
Good post, Dollas.
And that is just a fraction of the less well known artists and producers who are thanking her on twitter for her open letter.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/1/2014
Posts: 7,793
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Pedro
People praising her? Seriously? She is so desperate. She is such an hypocrate. She is selfish, she only cares about gaining her coins. Aren't you rich enough? Stop making it look like it is only for smaller artists.
I used to like Taylor a lot but she is becoming so fool of herself.
And, by the way, she does have some intelligent points on her essay, if you wanna call it like that, but I don't know she just too desperate.
|
Meanwhile, in the real world, one of your fave's songwriters publicly thanks Taylor for her open letter.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/12/2012
Posts: 13,665
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Dollas n Diamonds
|
That doesn't mean that Taylor is right.
How often do you see vids on YT of your favourite artist where he doesn't get paid?
On the other side, do we hear an artist be tankfull for getting 8 million $ for a VEVO vid?
In the 80's and 90's they almost earned nothing for vids because it was a marketing tool, like bootlegs vids on YT are, like 3 months for free a marketing tool is.
Did MTV pay the artists?
Get an artist paid well, if he appears at David Letterman for $ 500?
|
|
|
|
|
|
