Taylor Swift vs. Apple

[Mike Sorr]

Self-serving or not, Lars was right about Napster. It isn't just about lost sales - it's about cultivating a generation of people who believe that music should be free. That mentality hurts artists no matter what tier they belong to.

We had Napster when I was a kid in the late 70s and 80s, it was called tape an album from your friend. I borrowed most of my collection from friends early on and made mix tapes. Sure, I eventually went on to buy a lot of this stuff, but I always figured that if the record industry didn't expect people to share music, they would never have allowed cassette recorders. I'm not sure what the difference is.

 

[two fingers]

I would appreciate my music given away for free if I was a middle-tier or lower musician and it were to help me grow my fan base. A few months of no royalties for a smaller band is a small loss leader if it leads to future sales, both records and merch.

There were numerous stories about this in the Napster days in which non-Metallica-sized artists were seeing increased sales due to piracy. I'll try and find some but am only coming up with more recent stories. What's good for the musical elite should be the least of anyone's concerns.

Fine. Than you should be able to VOLUNTEER to give YOUR music away. But to give away something that doesn't belong to you is THEFT pure and simple.

Apple can't give away what it doesn't own.

 

[Tom Gallo]

Glad to hear that one single very successful musician is dictating the future of music distribution. Taylor Swift, the Lars Ulrich of the 2010s.

People are free to do whatever they want with their music. If someone feels that giving it away for free with the idea that it may generate income later, that's what they should do. But Swift is exactly right. If a giant company like Apple wants artists to sign up to stream their music, the should be getting paid for it. If Apple wants to do 3 months free, then they need to absorb all of the costs of doing so instead of pushing it back on the artists or their label.

 

[bass12]

We had Napster when I was a kid in the late 70s and 80s, it was called tape an album from your friend. I borrowed most of my collection from friends early on and made mix tapes. Sure, I eventually went on to buy a lot of this stuff, but I always figured that if the record industry didn't expect people to share music, they would never have allowed cassette recorders. I'm not sure what the difference is.

You're equating making a tape with Napster?

 

[KevInDaBassment]

I think 3 whole months is a bit much. Spotify has my paid business for a few reasons:

- Great selection of music in high quality sound
- Reasonable monthly fee (about $10)
- Able to have music available "offline" when you pay, thus cutting down on data transfer usage.
- Can use it in a program or in the web browser
- I had a 30 day trial of the music without ads, after that I dealt with ads for a couple of months before I decided to pay. I wanted it on my phone without data charges.


Some music isn't available on there, and the reason artists are pulling from those is that they aren't making enough money off of plays. A past bandmate of mine was a student of Chris Letchford, lead guitarist for Scale the Summit. They were signed to Prosthetic Records and have been pretty successful. Chris said that while they do get some money from CD/MP3 sales, it's not as much revenue as they get from show tickets and merch. Merch, he said, was the biggest cash cow for bands. Right now they are having great success with instructional and tab books that they sell. Chris has even been able to quit teaching lessons due to how much he makes off the books.

I wish the business was the same as it was a couple decades ago, but it isn't and people can either capitalize on the advantages of it, or pitch a fit and try to corral a herd of cats. It's frustrating because I'm struggling to do this stuff with more financial gain as well, but the people who change with the times are going to be the ones coming out on top.

 

[two fingers]

She's a bit hypocritical though....

An Open Response to Taylor Swift's Rant Against Apple

Here is the HUGE difference. The contract with the photographer is a CHOICE. No photographer is forced to enter into such a contract. Any photographer who is incredible at his craft and good at negotiating could force her into better terms. Never mind that the photographer DOES get paid for his work.

Awful comparison. Virtually nothing I'm common with the Apple deal.

 

[Thor]

Down in Westerly, RI, where she bought a summer house, she has been restricting access to the beach (below the high tide mark, which is public property) and the locals see her for what she is. A total twit.

I don't really care enough about TS vs Apple to get too excited. It's kind of like the stuff that's gone on in the NFL,
to quote some article from last year from SI, "it's millionaires arguing with billionaires". Got no skin in that game.
Publicity stunt? I agree.

 

[gln1955]

First, I'm not privy to the contracts Apple has with the record companies, but I am certain they are not doing anything that isn't allowed by those contracts. They are not blatantly infringing on anyones intellectual property rights. Somebody, many somebodies apparently, did not read the fine print or understand the implications of what they signed with Apple or what the artists signed with their label.

 

[Dojix]

My opinion can be summed up by these two videos from A Dose Of Buckley.

 

[WarriorJoe7]

Nothing to see here folks. Just big business demanding thEir fair share from other big business and using the court of public opinion to push it through.

 

[PortlandBass77]

The whole thing is stupid, millionaires arguing with billionaires over their equivalent of pocket change.....

 

[Kmonk]

I have no problem with what Taylor Swift did. I'm actually surprised that BMI didn't get involved.

 

[kikstand454]

Down in Westerly, RI, where she bought a summer house, she has been restricting access to the beach (below the high tide mark, which is public property) and the locals see her for what she is. A total twit.

Oh i see..... So wanting to keep 200 mercenary photographers off her property where they are trying to catch a photo of her picking her nose is being a twit.

Gotcha.

 

[Smooth_bass88]

Man, it just seems like artists should get compensated fairly for the work they (we) do. I applaud Taylor Swift for taking a stand. And it worked.

 

[LT131]

We really should not pass judgement upon T Swift, either pro or con, until Swift discloses her stance on P-Basses.

 

[john_g]

Im going to go and download all of her songs on Frostwire right now!

 

[spanndrew]

Go her.

 

[Joshua Pickenpaugh]

Who's Taylor Swifts?

 

[SirMjac28]

I love Taylor and I love Apple I wish my parents would stop fighting.

 

[Rocktometrist]

Surprising that on a musician's website, most people believe music is literally worthless. As in it should be available to the public for free, in vague hopes that giving it away will somehow make musicians rich. Oh, and of course lots of musicians play for free (or, gawd forbid, pay to play), in hopes THAT will somehow make them rich. After a generation of that attitude--surprise!--revenue from album sales have plummeted, and continue to decline year-after-year. Gigs are drying up, and the ones that exist don't pay like they used to. Why? Because the general public has been conditioned to believe that artists owe them their music for free, and are hypocritical douchebags if they expect to be paid for their work.

Good for Taylor Swift. She may be a millionaire, a twit, a hypocrite, and everything else people say...but at least, unlike Apple, she actually had something to do with creating the music she is trying to sell (and/or hand out for nothing)...