Taylor Swift vs. Apple + Spotify

Until Apple starts making it hard for their competitors

 

I know some of the "little guys" and while they aren't making a living on those royalties, it certainly helps them make ends meet.

 

I don't know the exact structure of the music industry, this was the letter:

I’m not sure you know that Apple Music will not be paying writers, producers, or artists for those three months. I find it to be shocking, disappointing, and completely unlike this historically progressive and generous company.

This is not about me. Thankfully I am on my fifth album and can support myself, my band, crew, and entire management team by playing live shows. This is about the new artist or band that has just released their first single and will not be paid for its success. This is about the young songwriter who just got his or her first cut and thought that the royalties from that would get them out of debt. This is about the producer who works tirelessly to innovate and create, just like the innovators and creators at Apple are pioneering in their field…but will not get paid for a quarter of a year’s worth of plays on his or her songs.

At least a few indie bands have argued something similar, so they seem to think they get paid per stream. I do know that the people I know that have put albums on iTunes are the super-small types and they just play local shows for free. I'm pretty sure they make all their money from selling their music on iTunes as that is what they push the most. Perhaps it's different for true indie bands and those signed by major record labels?

 

There's some specific actual data here that one artist released about what she makes per stream (and sales) on different services:

http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/aug/19/zoe-keating-spotify-streaming-royalties

It's less than a penny per play, but it does appear to be money that goes to her.

 

i'm starting to think Swift is on the Palpatine path and we will all call her master at some point.

 

You may indeed, if you get lucky.

 

She must have influence. She got the self-proclaimed "King of New York" Kendrick Lamar to do a song with her...his street credibility and legitimacy be damned.

 

http://pitchfork.com/features/articles/8993-the-cloud/

 

Took apple long enough to get on the streaming thing.

My guess is they get a huge chunk of the iPhone and mac userbase.

Is use Google Play. I don't think there is a huge difference between the services. They're all pretty much the same thing.

 

That's great, and I do believe that this was part of her motivation. But she also very publicly pulled her music off of Spotify as well because she thought she wasn't being compensated enough. The most popular artists with the most popular songs have made nearly $500k a month at peak from Spotify streaming alone. No doubt her music has and can flirt with that record. And far all we know, she may be the person who set it. So its not just about "the little guys" to her.

It's her music and she has the right to do whatever she wants with it. And she can place whatever value she wants on it. But fighting royalties battles out loud for the world to see is just arrogant and tasteless, IMO. Reminds me of Latrell Sprewell.

By all means, get your money. But it's probably a good idea to state your case behind closed doors. This won't effect her image to most, but these are my thoughts on it all.

 

From what the news reported today and from interviews with various artists, they have been making their case to Apple for weeks or months now. It was only a big name doing it in public that forced Apple to change their stance.

And the Spotify thing is a big of a different issue. This was just about the 3 month free trial, which really doesn't affect her that much because her music will keep getting played over and over well beyond that. It's pennies in the bucket for her, but much more significant for indie artists.

 

I dont know about others but I've discovered artist through Spotify and would go pay to see them live when they came to town. I have done this a few times. But whats the solution here? Stop music streaming? Should the companies pay the artist more or should the consumers start paying more than $10/month or whatever you pay.

 

How many people don't have any streaming?

 

From the artist's perspective, yes and yes. One CD used to cost $10 about 20 years ago. You're now paying $10/month for endless music. From an artist's perspective, it's not like the work has gotten easier. They are doing the same amount of work for a fraction of the pay (and that's despite about 100% general CPI inflation over 20 years).

 

At the same time, back in the day we would all listen to the same crap (whatever the big labels and radio stations put out).

Now I can listen to anything I want, giving smaller bands at least a chance.

 

The time factor is still there, but the cost of making studio quality radio ready music has fallen dramatically. There are hit songs that have been recorded on tour busses and in hotel rooms. Granted they were definitely mastered in high dollar studios, but Lower costs due to technology have benefited both the artist and the consumer.

But again to be fair, the consumer has definitely benefited more.

 

The labels have been ****ing the artists for years, and now its come back to bite them in the ass. They have been paying royalties of 8-12 % for decades and were raking in the cash and now that people just steal music they are making nothing and most of them are going belly up.

The streaming services are no better I have seen some checks artists got from Spotify on other sites for $5-10 for 10,000 plays.

The artists are the ones who are getting ****ed because now they have to sign 360 deals if they sign with a major label and you know if the label doesn't make money after the first album they are getting dropped. You will never see anything like it took Kiss 3 studio albums and a live album for the band to break.

 

They will have to make money touring. No one is going to pay $15 for 10 songs anymore.