3 ms·
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 o
by 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 agoSo 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 agoIt'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.