3 ms·

What Apple should do is pay only the bottom 90% of artists and when someone downloads free music from one of the top grossing 10% of artists, the would-be reven

by zxcvcxz 11y ago

What Apple should do is pay only the bottom 90% of artists and when someone downloads free music from one of the top grossing 10% of artists, the would-be revenue should be re-distributed to the bottom 90% during the users free trial. Taylor said herself that it wasn't about her, but about small artists trying to break through. I'd like to see her put her money where her mouth is, but hey, if it's all about money that's okay too, but she should own up to it instead of pretending like shes looking out for smaller artists.

philjackson 11y ago
She implied it wasn't just about her. She deserves to be paid for her work too, and has done the other artists a big favour. edit: Why is so much focus on the celeb. anyway? Shouldn't we be focused on the fact Apple was willing to completely screw artists for 3 months?
- zxcvcxz 11y ago
  I wouldn't be surprised if 90% of downloads are only from the top 10% of artists. I believe swift was sincere when she said that this isn't about multi-millionaires, but about unknown artists trying to make a living. By redistributing her income (only for the users first three months of course) she and other artists could really help the ones who are struggling, but hey, if it's all about money that's okay too, but she should own up to it instead of pretending like shes looking out for smaller artists.
mfoy_ 11y ago
Or they could just promote the up-and-comers more aggressively. Instead of a redistribution of wealth (which would be talent agnostic) go for a redistribution of coverage. Also, if revenue was diverted completely from top artists to everyone else, what reason would there be for any of those top artists to be there? (Other than as a loss-leader for live shows and a "giving back to the community" sort of charitable thing) Either way I doubt Apple Music would take off if they told the top artists that they were going to full Robin Hood on them.
- zxcvcxz 11y ago
  >what reason would there be for any of those top artists to be there? That's why they should do it. To get rid of the facade that this is about helping smaller artists and show people what artists really care about art and which ones care about money. I'm personally offended by Swifts letter. I don't think she really cares about smaller artists, she was just using them to manipulate Apple. We all know that Taylor will now get millions of free downloads and be compensated, meanwhile struggling artists will probably get pennies. Shes not helping anyone but her self.
  - mfoy_ 11y ago
    So what? It's not about subsidizing smaller artists; it's about not forcing artists to unilaterally eat Apple Music's loss-leading costs.
    - Joky 11y ago
      It's a narrow view: it's about the major label making maths and thinking that it was in their benefit to get as many paying users as possible on the service as quickly as possible, and three months free is a great way to do it.

by zxcvcxz 11y ago

philjackson 11y ago

She implied it wasn't just about her. She deserves to be paid for her work too, and has done the other artists a big favour. edit: Why is so much focus on the celeb. anyway? Shouldn't we be focused on the fact Apple was willing to completely screw artists for 3 months?

zxcvcxz 11y ago
I wouldn't be surprised if 90% of downloads are only from the top 10% of artists. I believe swift was sincere when she said that this isn't about multi-millionaires, but about unknown artists trying to make a living. By redistributing her income (only for the users first three months of course) she and other artists could really help the ones who are struggling, but hey, if it's all about money that's okay too, but she should own up to it instead of pretending like shes looking out for smaller artists.

mfoy_ 11y ago

Or they could just promote the up-and-comers more aggressively. Instead of a redistribution of wealth (which would be talent agnostic) go for a redistribution of coverage. Also, if revenue was diverted completely from top artists to everyone else, what reason would there be for any of those top artists to be there? (Other than as a loss-leader for live shows and a "giving back to the community" sort of charitable thing) Either way I doubt Apple Music would take off if they told the top artists that they were going to full Robin Hood on them.

zxcvcxz 11y ago
>what reason would there be for any of those top artists to be there? That's why they should do it. To get rid of the facade that this is about helping smaller artists and show people what artists really care about art and which ones care about money. I'm personally offended by Swifts letter. I don't think she really cares about smaller artists, she was just using them to manipulate Apple. We all know that Taylor will now get millions of free downloads and be compensated, meanwhile struggling artists will probably get pennies. Shes not helping anyone but her self.
- mfoy_ 11y ago
  So what? It's not about subsidizing smaller artists; it's about not forcing artists to unilaterally eat Apple Music's loss-leading costs.
  - Joky 11y ago
    It's a narrow view: it's about the major label making maths and thinking that it was in their benefit to get as many paying users as possible on the service as quickly as possible, and three months free is a great way to do it.