5 ms·

First sentence of her letter was "I write this to explain why I’ll be holding back my album, 1989, from the new streaming service, Apple Music." So now, she ne

First sentence of her letter was "I write this to explain why I’ll be holding back my album, 1989, from the new streaming service, Apple Music." So now, she needs to allow it on Apple Music or she'll look like a jerk. Apple will have this album that no other streaming service has, and they got a ton of press for it. Probably worked out pretty well for them.

capkutay 11y ago
even that first sentence executes perfect product placement. 'blah blah my album, 1989, blah blah new streaming service, Apple Music'
- sarreph 11y ago
  Reminded me of this cartoon: http://mngboxers.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/gary-larson-far-side-cartoon-what-we-say-to-dogs-blah-blah-ginger.jpeg http://mngboxers.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/gary-larson-...
JohnTHaller 11y ago
If she's smart, she'll still hold out. 1/2 a cent per play won't add up to anywhere near as much as her sales are. Correction: That estimate was based on the average Spotify rate over the last few years. Apple has now said that the rate will be different during the trial and isn't being made public.
- M4v3R 11y ago
  It might add to an even bigger number, now, that she had so much publicity from her open letter and tweets. People will listen to her album just out of curiosity now.
- bedhead 11y ago
  Except in her own words: "This is not about me." She is of course, lying. So if she plays hardball with her own album's access, she will be exposed as the liar she is. Streaming revenues matter to only but the top .1% of musicians, so Taylor Swift leading the charge on this was a joke to begin with. It was always about her, and Kanye West, and Drake, and the rest of music's elite. It's like Bill Gates being the public face of abolishing the estate tax. Do you think it's a coincidence that TIDAL, the streaming service that was supposed to revolutionize the business, only had the world's wealthiest artists on stage during its unveiling? This is about a handful of artists grabbing a little more money, period.
  - robgibbons 11y ago
    And yet it's not OK to question Apple for doing the same? Every decision they make is about gaining more power and money. More influence. More market. All they care about is money, and they don't give two shits about the little guys. Personally, I don't care about T. Swift, but I'm glad she used her fame to combat Apple's power grab.
    - bedhead 11y ago
      Well, what I've learned by looking at comments and all my downvotes (despite making perfect sense) is that people want Apple to pay musicians more, just 'cuz. Apple makes a lot of money and many artists don't, so, uhhh, like, pay them more please. Oh well.
  - JohnTHaller 11y ago
    Funny, all my indie artist friends hated Apple's new policy. And Apple still won't say what the payment will be during the free trial period. It'll be less than the typical ~1/2 cent per play that's the current industry norm. Likely a lot less.
    - bedhead 11y ago
      Musicians will hate ANY streaming deal. In fact, nearly everyone (it seems) is on record hating all these services. Yet the overwhelming majority of them don't opt out. Why is that?? Hmmmm...maybe streaming isn't such a bad deal somehow. Possible? I keep waiting for the mass defections as proof. People vote with their feet, artists included, and all I see is a lot of talk and zero action. It's basically just people whining for more money.
      - JohnTHaller 11y ago
        Well, Apple was threatening indie artists with expulsion from iTunes if they didn't agree to Apple Music's terms. So, there's that. As for Spotify et al, label artists can't opt out. Their contracts won't let them. The reason Taylor Swift's current album isn't on any streaming services is because she makes a ton more selling it and streaming would cannibalize sales. And her current album (and only her current album) she did without a major label... so she's one of the few that gets to make that call. Streaming services want current music to get and keep subscribers. Musicians want their latest music to be sales and their back catalog streaming (ala Netflix, etc) to maximize income.
ruipgil 11y ago
Pretty much every other streaming service, except spotify, has the album available. No exclusive here.
- smackfu 11y ago
  Like which? Rdio doesn't have 1989, for instance. http://www.rdio.com/artist/Taylor_Swift/albums/ http://www.rdio.com/artist/Taylor_Swift/albums/
  - ruipgil 11y ago
    Yes, that is true. Only the singles are available to stream. However, there's no guarantee that she's gonna release it in AppleMusic, she may only release older albums, like she does in Rdio and like other bands did in Spotify (specially Coldplay).

capkutay 11y ago

even that first sentence executes perfect product placement. 'blah blah my album, 1989, blah blah new streaming service, Apple Music'

sarreph 11y ago
Reminded me of this cartoon: http://mngboxers.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/gary-larson-far-side-cartoon-what-we-say-to-dogs-blah-blah-ginger.jpeg http://mngboxers.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/gary-larson-...

JohnTHaller 11y ago

If she's smart, she'll still hold out. 1/2 a cent per play won't add up to anywhere near as much as her sales are. Correction: That estimate was based on the average Spotify rate over the last few years. Apple has now said that the rate will be different during the trial and isn't being made public.

M4v3R 11y ago
It might add to an even bigger number, now, that she had so much publicity from her open letter and tweets. People will listen to her album just out of curiosity now.
bedhead 11y ago
Except in her own words: "This is not about me." She is of course, lying. So if she plays hardball with her own album's access, she will be exposed as the liar she is. Streaming revenues matter to only but the top .1% of musicians, so Taylor Swift leading the charge on this was a joke to begin with. It was always about her, and Kanye West, and Drake, and the rest of music's elite. It's like Bill Gates being the public face of abolishing the estate tax. Do you think it's a coincidence that TIDAL, the streaming service that was supposed to revolutionize the business, only had the world's wealthiest artists on stage during its unveiling? This is about a handful of artists grabbing a little more money, period.
- robgibbons 11y ago
  And yet it's not OK to question Apple for doing the same? Every decision they make is about gaining more power and money. More influence. More market. All they care about is money, and they don't give two shits about the little guys. Personally, I don't care about T. Swift, but I'm glad she used her fame to combat Apple's power grab.
  - bedhead 11y ago
    Well, what I've learned by looking at comments and all my downvotes (despite making perfect sense) is that people want Apple to pay musicians more, just 'cuz. Apple makes a lot of money and many artists don't, so, uhhh, like, pay them more please. Oh well.
- JohnTHaller 11y ago
  Funny, all my indie artist friends hated Apple's new policy. And Apple still won't say what the payment will be during the free trial period. It'll be less than the typical ~1/2 cent per play that's the current industry norm. Likely a lot less.
  - bedhead 11y ago
    Musicians will hate ANY streaming deal. In fact, nearly everyone (it seems) is on record hating all these services. Yet the overwhelming majority of them don't opt out. Why is that?? Hmmmm...maybe streaming isn't such a bad deal somehow. Possible? I keep waiting for the mass defections as proof. People vote with their feet, artists included, and all I see is a lot of talk and zero action. It's basically just people whining for more money.
    - JohnTHaller 11y ago
      Well, Apple was threatening indie artists with expulsion from iTunes if they didn't agree to Apple Music's terms. So, there's that. As for Spotify et al, label artists can't opt out. Their contracts won't let them. The reason Taylor Swift's current album isn't on any streaming services is because she makes a ton more selling it and streaming would cannibalize sales. And her current album (and only her current album) she did without a major label... so she's one of the few that gets to make that call. Streaming services want current music to get and keep subscribers. Musicians want their latest music to be sales and their back catalog streaming (ala Netflix, etc) to maximize income.

ruipgil 11y ago

Pretty much every other streaming service, except spotify, has the album available. No exclusive here.

smackfu 11y ago
Like which? Rdio doesn't have 1989, for instance. http://www.rdio.com/artist/Taylor_Swift/albums/ http://www.rdio.com/artist/Taylor_Swift/albums/
- ruipgil 11y ago
  Yes, that is true. Only the singles are available to stream. However, there's no guarantee that she's gonna release it in AppleMusic, she may only release older albums, like she does in Rdio and like other bands did in Spotify (specially Coldplay).