Applauding Taylor Swift

[burnspbesq]

If you gave me a choice between being waterboarded and listening to Taylor Swift for 24 hours non-stop, I'd probably choose waterboarding.

 

That said, I do think she deserves a small round of applause for pulling her catalog from Spotify, which appears to vastly under-compensate artists for the use of their recordings.

 

You can agree or disagree, but it's a principled stand, and it's good that someone with some market power is taking it.

[Axiom05]

If you gave me a choice between being waterboarded and listening to Taylor Swift for 24 hours non-stop, I'd probably choose waterboarding.

 

That said, I do think she deserves a small round of applause for pulling her catalog from Spotify, which appears to vastly under-compensate artists for the use of their recordings.

 

You can agree or disagree, but it's a principled stand, and it's good that someone with some market power is taking it.

 

Or maybe she did it to boost album sales since the only way to hear the album was to purchase it?

[realhifi]

Or maybe she did it to boost album sales since the only way to hear the album was to purchase it?

 

Unless you listen to Pandora and hear songs from it. No, you can't hear the album in its entirety on Pandora or the radio but isn't that the point?

[mrvco]

It's certainly a good PR move for Taylor Swift it seems.

 

It will be interesting to see what happens to Spotify after their IPO and all the fat cats at the major record labels cash out.

[new_media]

Taylor Swift is not the first artist to pull her music from streaming services. Coldplay and Thom Yorke have both done the same, and I'm sure there are others. Not sure why it's such a big deal that she did it.

[burnspbesq]

Not sure why it's such a big deal that she did it.

 

Seriously?

 

I'll answer your question with a question of my own: when was the last time a Thom Yorke album sold 1.3 million copies in the first week after release?

[christopher3393]

Has Taylor Swift pulled her catalog from any streaming services other than Spotify? From the information I have, she has not. I have also read that 1989 is available for streaming on Beats. If this is the case, doesn't it change your interpretation of what's happening here?

 

btw, there is already a thread on this: http://www.computeraudiophile.com/f8-general-forum/taylor-swift-pulls-albums-spotify-22248/

[jtwrace]

Has Taylor Swift pulled her catalog from any streaming services other than Spotify? From the information I have, she has not. I have also read that 1989 is available for streaming on Beats. If this is the case, doesn't it change your interpretation of what's happening here?

 

btw, there is already a thread on this: http://www.computeraudiophile.com/f8-general-forum/taylor-swift-pulls-albums-spotify-22248/

Yes. I purchased the album anyway though so it's OK. Other albums are fine on TIDAL.

 

[realhifi]

Has Taylor Swift pulled her catalog from any streaming services other than Spotify? From the information I have, she has not. I have also read that 1989 is available for streaming on Beats. If this is the case, doesn't it change your interpretation of what's happening here?

 

btw, there is already a thread on this: http://www.computeraudiophile.com/f8-general-forum/taylor-swift-pulls-albums-spotify-22248/

 

Red is the latest album of hers available on Beats. Not sure how many she has out, but there four available.

[jtwrace]

Red is the latest album of hers available on Beats. Not sure how many she has out, but there four available.

 

She has five albums out with 1989 being the latest. This is excluding live albums or other special ones.

[Audio_ELF]

That said, I do think she deserves a small round of applause for pulling her catalog from Spotify, which appears to vastly under-compensate artists for the use of their recordings.

 

You can agree or disagree, but it's a principled stand, and it's good that someone with some market power is taking it.

As already commented ... it all depends on her motivation behind this.

[realhifi]

As already commented ... it all depends on her motivation behind this.

 

Does it really matter what her motivation is? The point is that her music is no longer available to listen to on one of the most popular streaming services today. Does it smell a little fishy? Sure, but whatever reasoning there is behind it shows just how fallible these services are and how quickly their catalog of music can change.

 

It's not really about her.

[silverarrows]

Funny, I always thought labels under-compensated artists and for all we know, the label could be behind her move.

 

Whether you like electronic music or not, one of the reasons why it has exploded over the years is the DJs/artists realized online distribution is the way to go. They give their music for free in Podcasts, Soundcloud, Mixcloud and any other means available, then tour hard. Many artists have their own labels or sub-labels and are given much more freedom to manage their music and distribution. Black Hole Recordings, Anjunabeats and Armada are excellent examples.

[Audio_ELF]

Does it really matter what her motivation is? The point is that her music is no longer available to listen to on one of the most popular streaming services today. Does it smell a little fishy? Sure, but whatever reasoning there is behind it shows just how fallible these services are and how quickly their catalog of music can change.

I agree with the second part of your comment.

 

Now the first part: yes her motivation matters if you are saying she is making a principled stance.

[new_media]

It's not really about her.

 

I'm sure you wouldn't be able to convince Taylor Swift of that.

 

I'm going to operate under the assumption that her motivation was positioning herself to sell a million copies the first week and not some broader message about state of the music industry, even if she claims otherwise.

[mav52]

I'm sure you wouldn't be able to convince Taylor Swift of that.

 

I'm going to operate under the assumption that her motivation was positioning herself to sell a million copies the first week and not some broader message about state of the music industry, even if she claims otherwise.

 

I just read "Taylor Swift Would Have Made $6M This Year On Spotify. 1989 Pulled In $12M (1.287 million albums) In 1st Week without Spotify so it appears the woman knew what she was doing.

[speavler]

not a fan of her music, but she seems like a good kid.

[unsleepable]

I just read "Taylor Swift Would Have Made $6M This Year On Spotify. 1989 Pulled In $12M (1.287 million albums) In 1st Week without Spotify so it appears the woman knew what she was doing.

 

Many people who would want to have her album would have bought it regardless of Spotify, so I don't think those figures by themselves tell the whole story.

[jtwrace]

https://news.spotify.com/se/2014/11/11/2-billion-and-counting/

[mav52]

Many people who would want to have her album would have bought it regardless of Spotify, so I don't think those figures by themselves tell the whole story.

 

We will never know the whole story, we can speculate like we're marketing professionals, record label owners or even a recording artist, all I know and from what I read the kid (young woman) is making money the way she wants to make money not the way we want her to make money.

[realhifi]

We will never know the whole story, we can speculate like we're marketing professionals, record label owners or even a recording artist, all I know and from what I read the kid (young woman) is making money the way she wants to make money not the way we want her to make money.

 

You got it.

[gjfmvallan]

she seems like a good kid.

[kirkmc]

I just read "Taylor Swift Would Have Made $6M This Year On Spotify. 1989 Pulled In $12M (1.287 million albums) In 1st Week without Spotify so it appears the woman knew what she was doing.

 

Well, that's definitely voodoo math. Neither of those numbers are what "Taylor Swift" is making or would have made. First, the Spotify number is what would go to her label; you don't know what she gets in the end. And the second number is gross, and doesn't take into account profits by resellers, the cost of the album, etc. If you take the standard 30% for digital resellers, and probably more for retailers of the CD, it probably comes out around the same amount if you factor in such things as manufacturing and shipping.

 

And she or her label has already contested the Spotify figures.

 

Kirk

[Audio_ELF]

Well, that's definitely voodoo math. Neither of those numbers are what "Taylor Swift" is making or would have made. First, the Spotify number is what would go to her label; you don't know what she gets in the end. And the second number is gross, and doesn't take into account profits by resellers, the cost of the album, etc. If you take the standard 30% for digital resellers, and probably more for retailers of the CD, it probably comes out around the same amount if you factor in such things as manufacturing and shipping.

 

And she or her label has already contested the Spotify figures.

The truth is somewhere in the middle ... and the headlines Taylor Swift have generated more than make up for any loss of revenue from her not being on Spotify!

[Moosbrugger]

Maybe I'm not paying enough attention to what's going on.

But I don't understand why people are suggesting that Swift has an ulterior motive. I think it's very clear that her motive is to make money. She is saying that the artist doesn't get paid enough by Spotify and so she wont have her music distributed through Spotify. I think there have been many articles that say the same thing -- artists make almost nothing from Spotify. (Regardless of whether Spotify has paid $2 billion to anyone.)

 

Maybe if more of the top artists pull their music from Spotify, Spotify will have to pay all artists a bigger cut.