• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Taylor Swift pulls music from Spotify because music shouldn't be free

Status
Not open for further replies.
J

jwk94

Member
This explains why her latest album isn't on Google Music All Acces smh.

On Monday, Taylor Swift removed her back catalog of music from Spotify. On Thursday, Swift explained why in an interview with Yahoo! Music.

"All I can say is that music is changing so quickly, and the landscape of the music industry itself is changing so quickly, that everything new, like Spotify, all feels to me a bit like a grand experiment," Swift said. "And I'm not willing to contribute my life's work to an experiment that I don't feel fairly compensates the writers, producers, artists, and creators of this music. And I just don't agree with perpetuating the perception that music has no value and should be free."
Click to expand...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/...ify_n_6121492.html?ncid=fcbklnkushpmg00000063

I completely disagree with her. I bought the new Flyleaf album for $50 (pledged it and got the deluxe edition) and I'm pledging $22 for the new Fireflight album because I listened to them from Google Music All Access and the same for Paramore's latest album. Without all of that stuff for free, I would have NEVER been exposed to these great artist or anyone else who I now have in my music library.
 
A

A Fish Aficionado

I am going to make it through this year if it kills me
It's helping more independent and breakthrough artists. Streaming revenue is still contentious, so that's more likely the case.

Though, saying that is it free is total nonsense.
 
Monocle

Monocle

Member
I wish I could travel back in time and destroy the very concept of mixtapes because they totally devalued music and stuff.
 
shira

shira

Member
Free%2BDownload%2BLagu%2BTaylor%2BSwift%2B-%2BShake%2BIt%2BOff%2BMp3.PNG
 
A

A Fish Aficionado

I am going to make it through this year if it kills me
sirap said:
I can't blame her. And 1989 is doing reaaally well.
Click to expand...

It is going to do well regardless if it is on Spotify or not, which is why I don't get this form of thinking. Smaller artists do limited edition and other sort of incentives for pre-orders or physical copies.

jb1234 said:
Yeah, she doesn't really have a leg to stand on here. And it just means that instead of going out and buying her albums, those people who used to stream her stuff will just pirate it instead.
Click to expand...

Exactly. A quick torrent and done.
 
S

StuBurns

Banned
I've only heard that song 22, and it might be the worst song I've ever heard.

I can see her point, but radio is free to listeners, so is YT, so are TV promo appearances, etc. If she actually cared to get behind her stance morally, her career would be over really fast.
 
CassidyIzABeast

CassidyIzABeast

Member
Aloe Black spoke on Pandora and Spotify's meager returns

Consider the fact that it takes roughly one million spins on Pandora for a songwriter to earn just $90. Avicii’s release “Wake Me Up!” that I co-wrote and sing, for example, was the most streamed song in Spotify history and the 13th most played song on Pandora since its release in 2013, with more than 168 million streams in the US. And yet, that yielded only $12,359 in Pandora domestic royalties— which were then split among three songwriters and our publishers. In return for co-writing a major hit song, I’ve earned less than $4,000 domestically from the largest digital music service.
Click to expand...


http://www.wired.com/2014/11/aloe-blacc-pay-songwriters/
 
W

Wreav

Banned
The folks hating on Swift are doing so mostly because she's rich? She has a damn good point about the meager payouts from services like Pandora and Spotify. She is making a product and 100% has the right to determine how to sell it. If she feels that the advertising she gets from streamed music sites is damaging her overall profit, she has the right to refuse her music from those services. Also, she's not some indie nobody that needs every bit of exposure she can get, so that's not an apt comparison.

You guys are weird.
 
M

mreddie

Member
So in the world of on demand music, Taylor has decided to pull a Metallica and said "Buy my CD!"

Yeah...no, just no.

I think this quote from Patrick Carney from the Black Keys sums this up.

"It has nothing to do with [us] worrying about people buying our music. It's about the common goodwill toward other bands; that's all it is . . . What people don't understand is that if [file-sharing is] available, then of course people are going to use it and of course they should use it. And why not? The only problem is that the labels haven't figured out how to fucking compensate artists yet. That's the main problem."
Click to expand...
 
J

jwk94

Member
jb1234 said:
Yeah, she doesn't really have a leg to stand on here. And it just means that instead of going out and buying her albums, those people who used to stream her stuff will just pirate it instead.
Click to expand...
Eh, I wouldn't go that far.

shidoshi said:
Because a song being played on a radio station and it being available on Spotify are even close to the same thing.

I don't know that I can blame her, really.
Click to expand...

Isn't she getting paid in both instances?
 
W

Wreav

Banned
mreddie said:
So in the world of on demand music, Taylor has decided to pull a Metallica and said "Buy my CD!"

Yeah...no, just no.

I think this quote from Patrick Carney from the Black Keys sums this up.
Click to expand...

You realize the Black Keys pulled their music from Spotify because of the shitty compensation, right? You're just proving Taylor's point.
 
S

Syntsui

Member
That's a really fair statement. Her album is solding really well by itself, it's the CoD of the music industry.
 
Z

Zombine

Banned
She still sold over 600,000 albums on day one. The people who listen on Spotify may not have purchased the album or single to begin with. If anything she may be alienating the crowd that could potentially be ticket sales for her, which are always more important than album sales anyways.

All she's doing right now is trying to generate some PR for her new album.
 
B

Buddha Beam

Banned
I agree with her. Artists don't make shit from Spotify and the exposure argument doesn't seem to hold any significant weight in most artists' cases. Certainly it doesn't justify putting your entire catalog on there for free.
 
K

KissVibes

Banned
rhfb said:
Spotify created a playlist of other, similar sounding artists for people to play until Taylor is back on Spotify. Other, smaller acts are getting exposure because she can't play ball.
Click to expand...

Can I get a link to this playlist? Sounds great.
 
A

A Fish Aficionado

I am going to make it through this year if it kills me
PS3GamerKyle said:
hmmm... it's an interesting perspective. I wonder if that in mind, some of these posters in this thread would be more sympathetic.
Click to expand...

That's why I said streaming revenue is contentious. But for a huge artist like Swift, it's not as damaging. For smaller artists it's a balance between exposure and revenue.
 
S

SteveWinwood

Member
its the easiest way for me to listen to her music though :(

i dont have a cd player on my computer and have spotify on all the time

taylor plz
 
N

NYCmetsfan

Banned
Buddha Beam said:
I agree with her. Artists don't make shit from Spotify and the exposure argument doesn't seem to hold any significant weight in most artists' cases. Certainly it doesn't justify putting your entire catalog on there for free.
Click to expand...

she's not putting her entire catalog for free. she gets money from it. I would guess in the hundreds of thousands considering her popularity and number of songs.
 
S

StuBurns

Banned
mreddie said:
So in the world of on demand music, Taylor has decided to pull a Metallica and said "Buy my CD!"

Yeah...no, just no.

I think this quote from Patrick Carney from the Black Keys sums this up.
Click to expand...
I don't really agree with that at all.

I think the Steve Jobs stance was apt. When Napster and file-sharing emerged, it offered the user a superior service. You also don't pay, which has its benefits, but not having to go and get a CD, being able to take it without you on MP3 players. Sound quality took a hit, but there were significant practical benefits for people. But now we have iTunes and rival services, and I don't think it holds water.

Sure, it would be nice if somehow labels managed to make the industry healthy while everyone just grabs what they want from torrent sites, but I don't think it's on the industry to do that. It's kind of victim blaming really, "People are robbing you? Find a way to make them pay while they do it."
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

I've been checking out 80s-90s rock music I missed from my younger years lately(because I was shallow). A lot of stuff I really love, like Nirvana
2 3
114
7K
V1LÆM replied
“It‘s kind of depressing”: WB Discovery pulls indie game for “business changes” | Dev makes Small Radios Big Televisions free to download in response
News
15
2K
mckmas8808 replied
Apple Music announces Spatial Audio with Dolby Atmos; Lossless Audio to entire catalog
2
56
8K
Pagusas replied
Visions of Mana Releases on Summer 2024, New Footage Revealed Xbox Direct 2024
News Hype 2
52
5K
IFireflyl replied
Coming to Xbox Game Pass: LEGO 2K Drive, EA Sports PGA Tour, Harold Halibut, and More
News
23
2K
cash_longfellow replied
Top Bottom