• TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
    Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
    Join free Log in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

Taylor Swift vs. Apple

#81
oboylebass said:
Part of the reason why concert ticket prices are so damn high these days is because artists don't generate enough revenue through album sales. Part of the reason why people don't buy albums is because they think it's ok to get it for free which is complete horsesh*t. Imagine spending endless hours writing, recording, mixing, packaging and manufacturing a product but then people expect it to be free. Not how it's supposed to work.
Click to expand...
Concert prices aren't driven up by the lack of royalties from album or single sales/plays. They're set the same way hockey tickets are. They will charge what the market will bear. It's the same reason scalpers are able to get so much. Greed and impulse.
 
#82
Zodion said:
Yeah she's a hypocrite and she even took her songs off Spotify complaining they didn't pay her enough even though she gets tons of money from it.

Lars did what she's saying now and he was vilified but she's a hero? No thanks. I never liked her because I see through the bull crap that she does.
Click to expand...
Lars stopped an illegal distribution of media. Apple's is supposed to be legit & isn't even out of trial, yet.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Zodion
#83
KevInDaBassment said:
Emphasis on public property...as in it's not hers to own or forbid others to use in the first place. If she's worried about that, then she needs to go indoors to pick her nose. Attention comes with the territory, if she can't handle that then she's in the wrong business.
Click to expand...

Haters gonna hate, and TMZ is gonna write a lot of BS. But by all means, get really worked up about it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: kikstand454
#85
awilkie84 said:
For someone already making multi-millions per year to say this doesn't take guts. Her livelihood isn't on the line, and she's doing just fine without the royalties. Not saying she's not right. I just disagree that she's brave for doing this. She's motivated by money she doesn't need, just like every multi-million dollar establishment in the world today.
Click to expand...

That's a pretty bold assumption on your part. I have no idea what her motivation is, but neither do you.

That being said, you yourself said she motivated by money she doesn't need. If she so clearly doesn't need the money how can you be so positive it is her motivation?

By the way, she gives away money all the time. There are stories all over about her simply hearing about someone down on their luck and she buys them a car or sends them a house. But as for this crowd here at TB I'm sure you all have her figured out. They're all just publicity stunts for sure. ;)
 
  • Like
Reactions: tfer, TMARK, kikstand454 and 1 other person
#86
I 100% support Taylor and I also believe Lars was very smart and was right. Because of illegal downloading there is less and less job in the industry and fewer opportunity to actually make it. It used to be about soundscan and how many records sold but if you don't sell records you can't track the success and bands stay local forever. Napster killed music
 
  • Like
Reactions: TMARK
#91
Mike Sorr said:
Not exactly, my point is that music has been shared for free for as long as there has been technology to transfer it from one medium to another. I realize that file sharing websites allow for vast numbers of people to share music, so no, it's not exactly the same. But how many millions of copies of popular recordings were shared among friends back in the day? If free music is the issue, it's not a new one.
Click to expand...
I don't think free music is the only issue (although taping friends' albums back in the day didn't do nearly as much damage to the recording industry as file sharing sites have done). When I was a kid I too copied the odd album or song from friends. The thing is, there was still an underlying notion that music was something to be paid for and that these actions (copying) were the exception rather than the norm. While I made a few copies over the years, those numbers paled in comparison to the number of tapes, records and CDs that I bought.
 
#93
Lars stops an illegal distribution of media, lol...there is a reason why pirate bay still exist, Napsters is way ahead of its time, lets face it if Napster were to survive they might have been bigger then pandora, spotify, or any other streaming device all combine.

IMO, it is just a change in the industry that no one knows what is the best model yet that makes all party happy.
 
#95
two fingers said:
That's a pretty bold assumption on your part. I have no idea what her motivation is, but neither do you.

That being said, you yourself said she motivated by money she doesn't need. If she so clearly doesn't need the money how can you be so positive it is her motivation?

By the way, she gives away money all the time. There are stories all over about her simply hearing about someone down on their luck and she buys them a car or sends them a house. But as for this crowd here at TB I'm sure you all have her figured out. They're all just publicity stunts for sure. ;)
Click to expand...
You're right, it's my assumption. One thing I've learned about society, though. There are few rich people with good intentions.
 
  • Like
Reactions: I Need a six...
#97
Whatever happened to when you played music because you loved playing music? These artists make millions a year anyway. It's all about money now, there's no genuine love for the creative output of making music. It's all capitalized on how they can make the most money, and it's sad. If it was some unheard of guitar strummer it would be a big deal, and I'm sure that this positively impacted some of those guys. But come one Taylor, your a friggin' billionaire, get over it. You clearly Are just In it for the money at this point, three mounted is like a dime to theses huge artists, they clearly just wanna make money, music be damned. It's working for them too.
 
#98
Mike Sorr said:
Not exactly, my point is that music has been shared for free for as long as there has been technology to transfer it from one medium to another. I realize that file sharing websites allow for vast numbers of people to share music, so no, it's not exactly the same. But how many millions of copies of popular recordings were shared among friends back in the day? If free music is the issue, it's not a new one.
Click to expand...

That sharing was peer to peer. This was a corporation trying to use stuff they don't own to turn a profit. If a corporation decides it can use an artist's music for free, what does that tell the public?
 
#100
13lues said:
I personally think her whole argument is stupid ( not to mention the hypocrisy of her photo policy ).
Apple is offering 3 months of free service to get people to try it out and hopefully become paying subscribers. That's smart.
Without those paying subscribers, there is no cash revenue for Apple or for the artists who are being streamed through the service.

If i came up to you and said "Let me freely distribute your music for three months and then you get to keep the extra profit from increased popularity after that" most people would be on board right? Not for her.
Yet she has a policy that basically says " If you take a photo of me and I use it, I'll pay you ONCE. You can never use the photo again for profit. You also can't sell the ones I don't use."
Click to expand...
I agree and disagree with you here. It's bad for artists with a dedicated, smaller following. Once there fans have the record they are not going to buy it again. So they get burned here. But Taylor swift doesn't give a shite about them, and nobody should believe for a second that she does.
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back