Quote:
Originally posted by Bang Up
I don't buy it, to be honest. I think she's doing this because of all the attention she got from doing it with Spotify. For her and her team, it's all about getting her attention and making her/them money.
I agree that it's strange for Apple to not pay for the three month trial, but you have to understand that allowing your music to be streamed for free to Apple's customers can actually help you in the long run. Apple's userbase is so massive that being able to expose yourself to it through the new music service is in a way payment enough.
And again, just like with what happened with Tidal, this is more about record labels than it is about the streaming services.
|
Why do people always try to use this excuse when it comes to music or entertainment industry? Someone at Taylor's level doesn't need Apple for exposure. How would it sound if you told a waiter that you aren't going to pay them for 3 months of work because the exposure they got from waiting tables in Caesar's Palace should be payment enough?
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but this isn't even a situation of Apple withholding funds until 3 months, and then they pay out. They're just not paying, period. That means a whole 3 months worth of lost revenue for these artists, writers, and producers. Good luck to any artist whose song blows up during that 3 month period.
Also the argument that "there's tons of ways for artists to make money nowadays" is also irrelevant to the people Taylor is defending. Songwriters, producers and composers don't have the opportunity to tour, sell merchandise, and get sponsorships. Their livelihood is writing and producing behind the scenes so that our faves can do that stuff. Either way you try to spin it, they are getting screwed.
Hell, even big artists barely make money from streaming. Streaming isn't the only way artists make money nowadays, and acting like people are losing out with this is, well, strange.
Queen coming for Apple. Who else can do that?