blame space
Banned
she's so strong and proud of her premium, worthy product. 💙
-
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
- Thread starter jwk94
- Start date
- Status
NYCmetsfan
Banned
4 grand isn't chump change for singing on one song and one method of access. while he's making much more from other sources.
It's not in any way.
She makes millions because the other means of the industry doesn't pay the shit money that Spotify does. Do you think because she gets that much money from other means she should allow her music to be on Spotify? That's up to her, not you.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
but think of poor taylor and metallica.
you dirty poor should be able to listen to their work (that I assume you're paying for with the subscription)
Ninja Scooter
Member
It seems like acts like Taylor Swift, Beyonce, ect...are becoming more and more outliers. They have the clout (and ability to move albums in the traditional sense) to push their weight around and still fight back against the market trends. I don't know how long that will last though. There is going to come a time where the idea of paying $12 for a single album from a single artist is going to become more and more foreign to people.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
it is already for most and has been for awhile
http://blogs.wsj.com/numbers/albums-suffer-as-cd-sales-decline-1569/
I really don't expect this to hurt Spotify or Taylor Swift.
Maybe Ms. Swift knows she's not going to be in this game forever, sees the apex of her career being right about now before she dips into obscurity in a few years, and is wanting to make as much as she can now before she gives it up or her fans grow old of her? Her last 2 albums they really made a huge marketing push for (she was everywhere it seemed recently), and she seems to come off as fairly savvy.
If I wanted a mansion lifestyle for my whole life, and I knew I only had about 10 years or so to do it- I'd start cutting out things like Spotify too that have potential to cannibalize any sales. Especially if you have a huge marketing push behind you.
Maybe Ms. Swift knows she's not going to be in this game forever, sees the apex of her career being right about now before she dips into obscurity in a few years, and is wanting to make as much as she can now before she gives it up or her fans grow old of her? Her last 2 albums they really made a huge marketing push for (she was everywhere it seemed recently), and she seems to come off as fairly savvy.
If I wanted a mansion lifestyle for my whole life, and I knew I only had about 10 years or so to do it- I'd start cutting out things like Spotify too that have potential to cannibalize any sales. Especially if you have a huge marketing push behind you.
Broder Salsa
Banned
Whatever it's her choice. If she isn't getting much out of it, it's only fair for her to quit it.
Whether or not you like it isn't the point.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
another thing is spotify is in-perpetuity, its a continual revenue stream with no work required on the artists part. I want to know how much MJ's estate is making a year with no work.
How much taylor was making for her albums that released in 2009?
How much taylor was making for her albums that released in 2009?
shacklesmcgee
Member
If the market says albums aren't worth $12, then albums aren't worth $12.
GameGuru59
Banned
I think Spotify is probably too free. I don't think I should get access to the entire discography of the world for just a few ads (even though I will while it lasts- like how I used to use Limewire). I'd be willing to pay a small fee for streaming anywhere with a few ads. Spotify's problem is that its giving away everything for nothing. $20 a month, for unlimited streaming with a few ads. $30 a month for unlimited streaming with no ads. If you don't pay, you only get access to the radio portion of Spotify with ads. That should be the model.
This is bullshit. Not because its wrong from a capitalistic perspective, but because capitalism is an insufficient economic model for addressing the ability to distribute useful goods and services free, or nearly free, as digital distribution allows. A fair price ought to be negotiated between artists as a whole (a union?), streaming services, and the public at large. If we simply left it up to the consumer, the value of an album would be the cost of transmission to them (virtually nothing). This was exactly the case prior to I-tunes (and to some extent, still is this case if you know how to rip music out of Youtube videos).
Adele's manager is right
http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/nov/06/adele-manager-jonathan-dickens-streaming-spotify
singles and maybe past material should be accessed to all users but new releases should at least be available to only paying subscribers
and of course there is also the on-going issue that labels still give a low percentage of their revenue to the songwriters, producers, etc
http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/nov/06/adele-manager-jonathan-dickens-streaming-spotify
singles and maybe past material should be accessed to all users but new releases should at least be available to only paying subscribers
and of course there is also the on-going issue that labels still give a low percentage of their revenue to the songwriters, producers, etc
So you hate the majority of love songs then? Because most of the time, those songs are what its writer/singer were feelings and they just put it into songs instead of diary.
I can sympathize with someone not agreeing with the royalties Spotify wants to pay, but bringing up the idea of music losing it's value for being free is kind of puzzling considering how most artists get their come up and the way streaming services are essentially countermeasures to piracy of all things.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
there's no market for that. people won't pay.
that's $240 a year, or $360 a year. Plus their cable bills, their internet and cell bills that are required to access the content? which are in the thousands.
that's a much smarter model and perfectly fair.
Ninja Scooter
Member
Their market will tank at those prices. You can't get people used to listening to music for either free (Napster opened up that box and it's only blown up in the last 15 years with various streaming services and Youtube) or relative chump change (Spotify Premium, Amazon, Pandora premium) and then bump that up to $30 a month and expect people not to drop you like a rock. Things like Spotify, Netflix, Hulu, Pandora and even Amazon Prime are at that sweet spot price wise (sub $10 a month) that allows people to just sort of forget they are paying it. $30 blows that open and will give consumers pause before they subscribe. All of a sudden it becomes another "bill", like their cable bill, or the gym membership they never use.
The market says they arent worth anything since you can pirate it.
Tell the market how many copies her latest album sold so far. They will be in for a surprise.
Ahem.
Zeyphersan
Banned
I do think that Spotify needs to create more incentive to become a premium member and actually put some money in their system. But that's a problem for them to solve, not the artists/labels.
Ninja Scooter
Member
I'm not so sure. There are less and less "Taylor Swifts" in the music industry these days in terms of clout and popularity. Yeah it hurts Spotify to not have her newest album available, and it might turn some people off, but I don't think they have worry about some mass exodus of artists doing the same thing. Most of them don't sell albums anyway so they don't have the same incentive.
I think she's getting some bad advice on this. I think she believes she's doing this for all artists, trying to get streaming music sites to pay more for the songs. I think the people behind her pushed for her to pull her catalogue because they wanted to encourage high first week sales.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
I just finished listening to the wallflowers. I think Jakob Dylan is pretty thrilled to be getting a few grand for people listening to his music that's two decades old
shacklesmcgee
Member
Then how did Taylor Swift make $39 million last year? And/or sell 1.2 million copies of 1989?
She had her previous album as purchase only on Xbox Music when it first came out, but it went to streaming a while after. It's still available on that service for streaming, but her new one is purchase only. I'm guessing it too will flip to streamable once her accountants have done the math.
With streaming, new artists get the same chance as those artists who have had a ton of studio backing and promotion behind them, such as Taylor Swift, as a random example.
Streaming is a fair concept, although payments to artists may have to be tweaked. I pay $13 a month for a subscription service. With it I can try new music for a price, and if I like that new music I'll listen to it again. If I don't like it, I've still given some revenue to an artist and they've had a shot at winning me over. If I do like it the artist will still get regular revenue from my listens and they'll have the chance of getting me to a show.
Hell, I've even tried a Taylor Swift album. It wasn't an experience I'm keen to try again.
With streaming, new artists get the same chance as those artists who have had a ton of studio backing and promotion behind them, such as Taylor Swift, as a random example.
Streaming is a fair concept, although payments to artists may have to be tweaked. I pay $13 a month for a subscription service. With it I can try new music for a price, and if I like that new music I'll listen to it again. If I don't like it, I've still given some revenue to an artist and they've had a shot at winning me over. If I do like it the artist will still get regular revenue from my listens and they'll have the chance of getting me to a show.
Hell, I've even tried a Taylor Swift album. It wasn't an experience I'm keen to try again.
Oh I agree albums are definitely worth $12. Just because paying is foreign to alot of people doesnt really say anything about their value.
Zombies buy bad music , its been like that forever , doesn't mean its good.
D.Lo
Member
Hmm, just looked it up, my last album has had 6189 tracks played on Spotify, for which we have made $34.13.
Two vinyl sales at a show make more money lol.
Heaps of people say to me 'I just listened to you on Spotify', for each listen we get $0.00551442.
So they'd have to listen to 2720 tracks for us to make as much as we do on a $20 CD ($5 manufacturing cost, yes it's a very nice CD).
I think I'd prefer outright piracy, at least nobody else is getting rich from that.
Two vinyl sales at a show make more money lol.
Heaps of people say to me 'I just listened to you on Spotify', for each listen we get $0.00551442.
So they'd have to listen to 2720 tracks for us to make as much as we do on a $20 CD ($5 manufacturing cost, yes it's a very nice CD).
I think I'd prefer outright piracy, at least nobody else is getting rich from that.
And how much did the label make? I'll bet it was a lot more than $4,000.
SteveWinwood
Member
Then take it off spotify.
GameGuru59
Banned
Well, whatever the price is, be it 5, 10 or 20, it should be enough to sustain Spotify as a profitable enterprise, and allow songwriters to make decent money off of their streams. Also, the $20 model works for the day and age when ALL content is streamed, rather than provided "live" via the cable companies as it is now. Hopefully the cable companies will be nationalized in 20 years, so we can begin to pay content providers directly for their work, rather than muddling through the old broadcast model (a man can dream, can't he?).
If you take the average song as being 4 minutes long, they'd have to be listening for a week solid for someone to get that from one album. I can't imagine there's too many people out there that have ever spent that long listening to 1 album. The model is broken.
Enter The 36 Chambers
Member
Wow this girl needs to get with the times.
I'm glad Spotify is rid of her shitty music.
Im not even the type to hate pop music, she is pure trash though.
My old job had some music playlist provided by a third party company piped through the store and hearing her wack ass singles over and over was soul destroying.
And that new shake it song is just as bad. I tolerate it for my gf now and then but fuck that song and fuck Taylor Swift.
I'm glad Spotify is rid of her shitty music.
Im not even the type to hate pop music, she is pure trash though.
My old job had some music playlist provided by a third party company piped through the store and hearing her wack ass singles over and over was soul destroying.
And that new shake it song is just as bad. I tolerate it for my gf now and then but fuck that song and fuck Taylor Swift.
<+)O Robido O(+>
Member
I'd love a movie streaming service that streamed movies as soon as they were released to theaters. I don't think $12 per movie ticket is worth it. I'd even put up with a few ads for it.
ConstructMe
Banned
It sold well at target....aka soccer mum hq...i dont think thats the audience she wants respect from.
I used to like her coz she was different, now she makes poppy garbage anyway so ah well.
I used to like her coz she was different, now she makes poppy garbage anyway so ah well.
CassidyIzABeast
Member
So because Aloe Blacc theoretically makes a bunch of money he should just suck it up and take whatever royalty Pandora wants to pay him. Okay.
Northeastmonk
Gold Member
She'll never know what it feels like to be broke or go without. She was in my state back in 2012 visiting children at the hospital.
I don't know. Music isn't free and we've made a Napster out of streaming services. I realize some artists need to eat.
I'm not big into modern or underground music, so it's kind of a mystery to me. I don't shop on iTunes a lot. I'm very selected.
DizzyCaffeine
Member
Agreed. Just because you pay for your monthly Spotify subscription, don't act like you're entitled to all artist's music.
People became way too ''spoiled'' by how easy the internet makes to listen to their favorite artists, be it with youtube videos or simply piracy. Spotify is an amazing solution to to make the music acessible and still be a good business for the artists/people involved in the production.
The problem is its not worth at all to the artists by now. I'm sure the industry is working their asses to solve this problem because, as it was already said, people want easy way to access their music for as cheap as possible at the same time that it needs to be worth for the artists. The streaming model is not perfect by now, but it will get there.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
never said that. I think they should both come to an agreement but the artists seem to not realize the streaming services have constraints (also is that 4 grand coming from pandora or after his label takes a cut?).
and kinda I think a dude making well into the six figures should suck up a lot.
- Status