Taylor Swift vs. Apple

[WBasstrolo]

Yes please everyone hate on the one artist that has enough clout to swing back at corporations and decided to use it to make all artists money.

She's a brilliant business woman you can't deny that.
But artists that you respect, respect her.
Check out the Snarky Puppy facebook page, they have a long status about their opinion and approval
"I might not buy her album, but I'll definitely buy her a beer if I see her at the bar."

Just because you don't like her music, doesn't mean she isn't talented.
She's calling a corporation out on their BS. Isn't that sticking it to the man? Isn't that what rebel artists are supposed to be all about?
There are plenty of artists who were speaking out against it, but they weren't heard BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT TSWIFT.
Why does it matter what she personally got out of it when the entire artist base involved is also getting something out of it instead of nothing?

What more can she do to gain your approval?

But come to think of it, she doesn't need your approval.
Maybe that's why she lives in a mansion and is powerful enough for Apple to change their policy.
it baffles me that musicians on here are turning on another musician.

Even if it turns out it was a pr stunt. It's not helpful to be bitter about it. Stand united with other artists on this one issue. If you want to give your music away for free, fine. But don't let someone else give it away for you. Don't put someone down who is actually doing something about today's industry.

 

[I Need a six...]

Yes please everyone hate on the one artist that has enough clout to swing back at corporations and decided to use it to make all artists money.

She's a brilliant business woman you can't deny that.
But artists that you respect, respect her.
Check out the Snarky Puppy facebook page, they have a long status about their opinion and approval
"I might not buy her album, but I'll definitely buy her a beer if I see her at the bar."

Just because you don't like her music, doesn't mean she isn't talented.
She's calling a corporation out on their BS. Isn't that sticking it to the man? Isn't that what rebel artists are supposed to be all about?
There are plenty of artists who were speaking out against it, but they weren't heard BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT TSWIFT.
Why does it matter what she personally got out of it when the entire artist base involved is also getting something out of it instead of nothing?

What more can she do to gain your approval?

But come to think of it, she doesn't need your approval.
Maybe that's why she lives in a mansion and is powerful enough for Apple to change their policy.
it baffles me that musicians on here are turning on another musician.

Even if it turns out it was a pr stunt. It's not helpful to be bitter about it. Stand united with other artists on this one issue. If you want to give your music away for free, fine. But don't let someone else give it away for you. Don't put someone down who is actually doing something about today's industry.

Holy crap. We may have a tween alert guys. We know that she's only in it for herself , we are not fooled.

 

[Rocktometrist]

Holy crap. We may have a tween alert guys. We know that she's only in it for herself , we are not fooled.

Jealousy is ugly. There is a lot of chatter on here about how evil Swift is for daring to be a financially successful musician, but surprisingly little recognition of the fact that Apple is a huge multinational corporation that exploits artists (and while we're at it, third world labor) for financial gain. If the problem here is that Taylor Swift is too successful, which makes her the bad guy, news flash: Apple, Inc. is a WHOLE LOT richer. Maybe instead of vilifying Swift for making choices about how she wants to distribute her own creations, you could tip your hat to the fact that a faceless multi-billion dollar international behemoth was trying to make those decisions for her (and everybody else). Pathetic that so many people here support corporations over artists.

...but I think I see the real source of the hate. People feel entitled to free stuff, and that terrible meanie Taylor Swift actually thinks she has something people should and will pay for. Given her net worth, she's apparently correct. Maybe all the haters should open their eyes, and try to figure out why Taylor Swift is so successful (hint: it isn't because she gives everything away for free).

 

[-Asdfgh-]

Never mind that she was right to begin with. What if a third party decided to give away your goods or services?

I read that at least as significant was the fact that apparently in Europe record companies did not have the right to arrange for their artists to not be paid for performance of their work, so European artists would be able to launch legal action compelling their record companies to pay even if Apple had not paid the record companies, so the record companies may have put pressure on Apple. But then what a record company can do is going to depend on contractual details.

However, if an artist had a chance of increased later profits for a 3 month trial period being offered that could be an advantage, as long as record companies make that clear. That might happen in the future. It might be that record companies assumed that artists would be happy with it and hadn't obtained sufficient consent. Fully informed takes a while to obtain so the pendulum might swing back.

As to whether the word needs another streaming service (Spotify doesn't make money) is another matter, but they can be good for finding new bands (as long as you remember what those new bands were when a song you like was played in a pseudo radio stream). It seems a logical step from iTunes, and iTunes might offer a successful route to promoting use, but a wise method to avoid accusations of anti-competitive bundling would be for Apple to offer the chance to subscribe to Spotify, et al. on sign up.

 

[JakobT]

This is fairly straightforward to me. Apple made a bad call. Taylor Swift pointed it out (in the nicest possible way), Apple realized they'd made a bad call and did the right thing. Good (in the final analysis) for Apple, good for artists, and good for fans.

 

[ChefKen]

Take it easy on TS.....Kids need music too! I wish my 11 year old daughter would just listen to Rush but its not gonna happen. When i was 11-14 there was plenty of music out there that made my skin crawl but I was a rocker when I was young. Funny thing is that 70s dance and disco is cool now. How the Monkees could be cool I have no idea but you get the idea.....Pop will be pop......From one hit wonders to artists like TSwift. Musicians will never dig pop.

 

[Double E]

To me this is much ado about nothing, if Apple Music is going to take (more or less) the Spotify model, not just for playing and searching for music but paying the artists.

In 2014 the most streamed tune on Spotify for the year (can't remember exactly what it was - Pharrell's "Happy", probably) made the songwriters a grand total of $21,500. Imagine what an indie artist, or regional artists, is making from Spotify. It's not just pennies, it's micro-cents.

This is BS. Cite your source, heck, get your story straight before spewing psuedo-facts!

Even if your story is true, it doesn't account for all the plays of the artists other tunes that wouldn't have been listened to if the streaming source didn't attract all the listeners seeking the hit tune, or those that went on to buy their own copy, other merch or concert tix. To state that the artist gets a pittance per play is "small picture". How much do you suppose an artist makes per play for over-the-air plays? It's about exposure!

Here is an artist who gets it:

Highly Suspect - shag these supremely wealthy artists that... | Facebook

 

[JollySpudd]

A lot of good points and interesting opinions on both sides of the equation.

it unfortunately stirs one (ME) toward a rant of sorts....

As an indie, but as full time musician as I can muster, I agree on principle that any/every artist is worth being paid for their work, and that mega-corporations, Apple or whoever they are, shouldn't just make such a sweeping decision to not pay because of their marketing a "free" trial. It's their move, it's on them, no one else should have to pay for it.

When I first heard of it - Taylor Swift not being in the news yet about it - my first thought was - that stinks. The music biz is so historically rife with all sorts of people who have been ripping off artists since the beginning, yet the wee voices of lower tier artists and lower tier business people who do love the arts and value them properly, have long been no match for those with the $iphoned off cash via every underhanded legalese trick in the book. Mo' money most always wins. So if a person with industry clout like $wift gets corporate attention that, in even the smallest way, benefits lower level people, or puts a tiny bug in the ear of any consumer or industry person to see a glint of justice about the arts - I'm for that, though it may never positively effect me at all.

I personally regret developing a "feeling" - after so many years of working with, and being in an environment of non-music-income dependent musicians who have no concerns of playing for or giving music away - for nothing. My feeling is that one of the biggest problems with the arts, and music especially, is that too often we devalue it ourselves - not caring if we get a fair wage or not - just as long as "PLEASE! PLEASE!!!! SOMEBODY LISTEN TO MY MUSIC!!! It's FREEE!!! Take it! Love it! Please pay attention to my art and validate my years of sacrifice". BTDT

I honestly have no fundamental problem with any artist choosing to give away their work. However, when it becomes a lifestyle for so many that it's seems the norm - so much so that a club balks at the idea of hiring solid artists, preferring never ending open mic entertainment or anyone groveling to put in an 8 hour day of humping gear, traveling, gigging the sets, and hauling it all back home - for $20 per player - or when musicians from their youthful beginnings are programed (almost) to be naive about the outgo/costs of what they and those who support them - (moms, dads, wives, kids - yes, they too pay the price somewhere along the line when the gigs don't cover the cost of the new gear - ever) - those who invest into the overhead toward getting good enough to gig, as well as actually doing it... yeesh. Amongst grassroots players, the "industry" is far less the villain - they know how business runs, and how it fails when left to itself without quantifying income and outgo toward making a profit in order to continue it. -- If most any other business ran the way we too often run our personal music ventures.... yikes!

It costs us something to do music. It's a skilled profession. I personally choose to not underwrite what I do as a musician with a day job. I did it for years, but seeing "hospital worker" as occupation on my taxes was not what I really do. I'm a musician. And even with my income being meager, it's still so gratifying to carry that title, and to know that every penny I earn is because I'm a musician. (and because of this, i sure as heck get bugged when i find recordings of mine being file shared, not to mention, foreign licensed, with zero compensation coming back. but on the web, as across the sea to places with no way to track it - it's the wild west.)

btw - ABSOLUTELY NO! disrespect to those who LOVE to play and are true artists, yet identify as some other profession. I salute you all. -- The only thing I would encourage is that, while financing your music with your non-musical career income, please don't devalue your own music (and the music others do, by association) in the process, simply because the money potentially earned from music doesn't matter to you.

I deeply believe that the labor and skill of all artists has, not just an intrinsic value, but also a value that has long been quantified by - for example - anyone who has ever fought for an artist's rights and being given their due in order just to live.

[I'm not a union member, though likely should be - but I recognize that organizations like the The AF of M (for all their pros and cons), have long labored to put a value on the work of musicians of all levels (as well as the copyright office and laws re: mechanicals, and others, at least in principle). But unions or not - the value of the art doesn't just go away (nor the cost of it) because it's being paid for by the job at the law firm. Its cost and value doesn't evaporate simply because we love it and it's fun.]

So why do we, ourselves, devalue it so often, essentially on behalf of one another???? Yet, we do, and we continue to, despite being fully aware of the long history of injustice to artists of all disciplines. It's so standard that "starving artists" are a jokey stereo-type. But it need not be an endless reality if we note and practice the simple concept that music costs - therefore it has value - therefore it should not be downplayed as a merely fun, freebie, promotional lark - "hoping" to "maybe" get a paying fan or two. -- Sometimes is ok, but not as the hugely common posture that (it seems) the majority of lower tier artists take.

Music anywhere, Taylor Swift included (and Apple), succeeds not by chance, but by intention and design.

If it's a hobby, great. It's a wonderful one to have. But should the voices of those that don't make it a profession or career - (seriously part or full time - not merely under the table for beer money) be voices collectively lobbying for freebies for all? (you can bet with Apple's "free" they were mindfully aiming to NOT take money from their own pockets to pay royalties - in order to partly compensate for the "free" trial. Point being, if Apple has a freebie tactic it isn't a wild buckshot tactic that's really free. They've analyzed everything, calculating, planning, intending a pay off of huge proportions.

Do we ever do that with our freebies?

Unfortunately, it's a tricky business (as all business is). It's a gamble anyway, but even more if one does it blindly with no plan. (i suck at a lot of this, btw) - But if Taylor can value what we do, knowing firsthand the immense labor and cost/investment going into the music of every artist who would have lost pennies, dollars, hundreds, and top tier thousands+ -- I'm not a fan, but -- I'm glad someone with position said something.

So what about us in out little corner of the empire? Do we slice off a cut from the dog grooming paycheck, tell the kid that they can't have the new pair of jeans, and then go out and buy new music gear (telling the wife it only cost half what we paid) and then use it to produce some new stuff to give away, while not at all keeping track of what it all costs us - and them! - in hopes of getting another fan to the next gig that pays the 4 piece $80 (before expenses)?

I have a dumb philosophy: if I can't afford to do something musically that my musical work can't pay for - I do without until it can, or figure out how to make do with what I have to offset what my previous gear or stuff already cost me. OR, I could get a day job - totally respectable. But I'd miss telling people, when they ask me what I do for a living - "Oh, I'm a musician". (after that they usually say "no, what's your REAL job?") - No kidding... I'm a musician. -- it's only rock'n'roll, but i like it

 

[gln1955]

Yes please everyone hate on the one artist that has enough clout to swing back at corporations and decided to use it to make all artists money.

She's a brilliant business woman you can't deny that.
But artists that you respect, respect her.
Check out the Snarky Puppy facebook page, they have a long status about their opinion and approval
"I might not buy her album, but I'll definitely buy her a beer if I see her at the bar."

Just because you don't like her music, doesn't mean she isn't talented.
She's calling a corporation out on their BS. Isn't that sticking it to the man? Isn't that what rebel artists are supposed to be all about?
There are plenty of artists who were speaking out against it, but they weren't heard BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT TSWIFT.
Why does it matter what she personally got out of it when the entire artist base involved is also getting something out of it instead of nothing?

What more can she do to gain your approval?

But come to think of it, she doesn't need your approval.
Maybe that's why she lives in a mansion and is powerful enough for Apple to change their policy.
it baffles me that musicians on here are turning on another musician.

Even if it turns out it was a pr stunt. It's not helpful to be bitter about it. Stand united with other artists on this one issue. If you want to give your music away for free, fine. But don't let someone else give it away for you. Don't put someone down who is actually doing something about today's industry.

No good deed shall go unpunished, apparently.

 

[Panther]

The hilarious part was.."people are afraid to speak up because they admire and respect Apple"...lol...all in fear of the iPhone god!

 

[JollySpudd]

That sure is an interesting angle on it - doesn't really change my mind about the iTunes thing, but it certainly casts a shadow.

I'd be interested to know how common her photography contract is among the other huge name acts. Is that kind of thing a general standard or is she way over the top compared to her peers when it comes to photography rights?

Very interesting. In reading the photo authorization form, I can understand why it's the way it is. Don't have any idea if it's standard, but I'd imaging that, depending on who you are, any photos taken of a high profile artists/musician can be too easily done surreptitiously and be exploited out the wazoo. Paparazzi probably are the motivation for such details. Surely they're all negotiable.

I had one experience - not a problem really, but I found it sort of "complex" - I did a show with 3 other acts. The headliner had booked and paid one or two photographers, not something our band was aware of, but they were shooting away - took some really great pics, albeit not with our direct permission - but we were none the wiser of anything - didn't know they were pros, coulda been fans. I approached one of the photographers a few days later after seeing some of them posted on bookFace, and inquired about either getting or using pics of my own bad self and the band for our own personal and promotional use. "Sure" - then I was directed to the photog's website and price list for hard copy prints and electronic download prices, as well as licensing costs for single and multiple uses.

Mind you, the photographer was hired and paid for their work at the show. Their "ownership" of the photos and my personal shining image where likely not considered part of a work-for-hire, and were shot under the conditions of the photographer owning the work, as well as the exclusive rights to exploit them ad infinitum - barring a rather expensive buy out from me - (or someone else who wanted to own my sad mug, et al).

I did license a truly splendid shot of myself on bass for ONE single usage on an electronic poster I made for online use on said bookFace. It was very specific for where, when and how much it could be used. To use the same pic for anything else, even on bookFace - apart form the original limited use poster - would cost more. Ownership of the entire pic set for my exclusive use would have been couple hundred dollars.

I absolutely respect every artist's work and skill. Monetarily so. - What I struggle with is one being hired and paid, then owning what they were paid for with the full freedom to exploit the images of people who they photographed, without the subject's understanding that - the photographer is free to both be paid for the initial work, as well as - if I got really really famous - exploit my pics for huge sums (like TS would be and has been) - forever and/or to the highest bidder.

That's a little tricky. But I understand both sides. [btw, not really complaining. they're a great photographer, excellent work, worth every penny they ask - if it wasn't me ]

I now know that, if I want to use for any reason that split second of my gloriousness as a work of art - it'll cost me. But it's me, I wasn't warned or asked, and it was a benefit gig, to boot, and the photographer was paid in full for services. hmmmm.... Let their be Authorization Forms!

 

[Double E]

It is not economically feasible for every musician out there pushing their wares to be compensated generously for their work. there will always be a contingent of players that are happy to play for beer money in order to get out and enjoy their own art. It is in fact quite often the quest for the artist's own enjoyment that draws them into the public eye to perform their music.

We wouldn't be having this discussion if the sole purpose of playing music was to make money, basically those that couldn't command the high dollars would just take their toys and go home. Instead, we persevere because it is quite enjoyable after all.

As for the artists that do want to make a living I cannot imagine a better vehicle to get your music out there than streaming Internet. As with any time in history a song has to become insanely popular before it makes any real money. And it has to be heard before it can become popular. Back in the day we all wished we could have a chance to have our song heard on the radio now it could be made available worldwide with a few keystrokes and a mouse click.

From the other side of the coin I absolutely love the fact that I can be exposed to so many artists worldwide and listen to music I would never have been exposed to otherwise.

 

[kikstand454]

Ya know..... I have always found the hate for TS disturbing. I mean..... Her music may not be your cup of tea. That's fine. I can't stand listening to more than 10minutes of Victor Wooten. Different tastes and all....
But to slam her for not being an " artist" is just ignorant. Unlike a vast majority of Nashville ( and the music business in GENERAL nowadays) she writes or at least co-writes all of her music and lyrics. She is allegedly very active in the studio, arranging and recording..... Just like any other artist that cares about their music. She then performs that music.....never lip synching to my knowledge.... And has always been reported as completely accessible to her fans and rarely someone who "Hollywood's" out on them. She has always shown a deep admiraion for other artists work, typically singing and dancing along to other artists in her own award category. Even when they win. She doesnt sit there with her arms folded and politely clap becauwe she thinks she sold more than so and so..... She trully enjoys the art.
Art......yes.....it's art.. She creates it....she performs it... And it doesn't matter at all if you like it. Because millions and millions of others do. Aren't these traits what we are supposed to admire in a performer? As musicians ourselves.... Aren't we glad that there's someone doing things THEIR way and to hell with what the record company says? That heres a person who has made it to the absolute top of the game.... Who still dances in aisles at stuffy awarsa shows? Who still writes lyrics that are actually relevent to her own life.?Who enjoys and respects the talents of other artists and frequently invites them to share the spotlight?

Its also funny to ASSUME that her only motivation is money.....you don't know her. You know nothing about her motivation. Just because shes succesful- that means she's only about the money? Really? Lots of other artists worshiped here that never have to worry about how they're going to pay their light bill. Almost all of them in fact.

What's really disappointing about this thread .....is that these SAME PEOPLE who are saying things like " she's rich who cares" and " what about the little guy who wants his stuff played for free"........ Are the same people who jump a novice on here who suggests that they play shows for free or pay to play.

So..you feel when you're a struggling nobody, that you should fight and stand up for your art and never let the powers that be hold you down- but once you've gone through that struggle and achieved great success...... Then you should let all of that integrity go and accept the exploitation and theft or your property?!?!

Huh?

 

[danosix]

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.

Would you? The reality is this is not some NEW IDEA (streaming audio) that needs to be tested on the public. This is just another big company trying to break into an existing business by offering a free sample for 3 months.
Why should Taylor Swift (and more importantly, all the artists WITHOUT the power to influence Apple) Have to give away her music for three months? Is it so she can get "exposure" - guess what, she's getting it on all the outlets that PAY for the music.
The analogy is this - if you were to open a brand new radio statio (remember those) cahnces are better than even that it won't make money for at least three months with startup costs and lack of advertising, but you would have to pay the musicians whose music you are playing FROM DAY ONE. I'm willing to bet that you (or anyone else starting up a radio station) has a little LESS cash in your pockets than Apple.
While TS may be doing this entirely out of self-interest, I think it is good on her as someone has to tell the BILLIONAIRES that they can't take advantage of the MILLIONAIRES and more importantly can't take advantage of the NOT WEALTHY.
The thing is Apple Radio is a COMMERCIAL VENTURE - this is just a gimmick to get people using it - another analogy - if you open a restaurant and decide to give away free appetizers for the first three months should the people who sold you the ingredients not be paid because, you know it's an opportunity for them to make money later? NOPE. You choose to give away what you're selling for free, you can, but you don't get to make that decision for the people selling to you.
Also - as other have said - you DO have the right to give your music away for free through Apple - but it needs to remain YOUR CHOICE and not theirs - it's YOUR MUSIC. Think about how protective Apple is about it's intellectual property. If you followed all of their law suits you'd think they'd invented GUIs (nope Xerox and they never paid them) and RECTANGULAR SCREENS (Samsung who supplies their screens is sued for looking too much like an iPhone) - that's like when they sued John Fogerty for sounding too much like CCR - gee I wonder why THAT is).

 

[Stealth Fighter]

I have a problem with people referring to Tater Swift as artist. That's going to require a very loose definition.

Really? Show us you work.

 

[danosix]

A lot of good points and interesting opinions on both sides of the equation.

it unfortunately stirs one (ME) toward a rant of sorts....

As an indie, but as full time musician as I can muster, I agree on principle that any/every artist is worth being paid for their work, and that mega-corporations, Apple or whoever they are, shouldn't just make such a sweeping decision to not pay because of their marketing a "free" trial. It's their move, it's on them, no one else should have to pay for it.

When I first heard of it - Taylor Swift not being in the news yet about it - my first thought was - that stinks. The music biz is so historically rife with all sorts of people who have been ripping off artists since the beginning, yet the wee voices of lower tier artists and lower tier business people who do love the arts and value them properly, have long been no match for those with the $iphoned off cash via every underhanded legalese trick in the book. Mo' money most always wins. So if a person with industry clout like $wift gets corporate attention that, in even the smallest way, benefits lower level people, or puts a tiny bug in the ear of any consumer or industry person to see a glint of justice about the arts - I'm for that, though it may never positively effect me at all.

I personally regret developing a "feeling" - after so many years of working with, and being in an environment of non-music-income dependent musicians who have no concerns of playing for or giving music away - for nothing. My feeling is that one of the biggest problems with the arts, and music especially, is that too often we devalue it ourselves - not caring if we get a fair wage or not - just as long as "PLEASE! PLEASE!!!! SOMEBODY LISTEN TO MY MUSIC!!! It's FREEE!!! Take it! Love it! Please pay attention to my art and validate my years of sacrifice". BTDT

I honestly have no fundamental problem with any artist choosing to give away their work. However, when it becomes a lifestyle for so many that it's seems the norm - so much so that a club balks at the idea of hiring solid artists, preferring never ending open mic entertainment or anyone groveling to put in an 8 hour day of humping gear, traveling, gigging the sets, and hauling it all back home - for $20 per player - or when musicians from their youthful beginnings are programed (almost) to be naive about the outgo/costs of what they and those who support them - (moms, dads, wives, kids - yes, they too pay the price somewhere along the line when the gigs don't cover the cost of the new gear - ever) - those who invest into the overhead toward getting good enough to gig, as well as actually doing it... yeesh. Amongst grassroots players, the "industry" is far less the villain - they know how business runs, and how it fails when left to itself without quantifying income and outgo toward making a profit in order to continue it. -- If most any other business ran the way we too often run our personal music ventures.... yikes!

It costs us something to do music. It's a skilled profession. I personally choose to not underwrite what I do as a musician with a day job. I did it for years, but seeing "hospital worker" as occupation on my taxes was not what I really do. I'm a musician. And even with my income being meager, it's still so gratifying to carry that title, and to know that every penny I earn is because I'm a musician. (and because of this, i sure as heck get bugged when i find recordings of mine being file shared, not to mention, foreign licensed, with zero compensation coming back. but on the web, as across the sea to places with no way to track it - it's the wild west.)

btw - ABSOLUTELY NO! disrespect to those who LOVE to play and are true artists, yet identify as some other profession. I salute you all. -- The only thing I would encourage is that, while financing your music with your non-musical career income, please don't devalue your own music (and the music others do, by association) in the process, simply because the money potentially earned from music doesn't matter to you.

I deeply believe that the labor and skill of all artists has, not just an intrinsic value, but also a value that has long been quantified by - for example - anyone who has ever fought for an artist's rights and being given their due in order just to live.

[I'm not a union member, though likely should be - but I recognize that organizations like the The AF of M (for all their pros and cons), have long labored to put a value on the work of musicians of all levels (as well as the copyright office and laws re: mechanicals, and others, at least in principle). But unions or not - the value of the art doesn't just go away (nor the cost of it) because it's being paid for by the job at the law firm. Its cost and value doesn't evaporate simply because we love it and it's fun.]

So why do we, ourselves, devalue it so often, essentially on behalf of one another???? Yet, we do, and we continue to, despite being fully aware of the long history of injustice to artists of all disciplines. It's so standard that "starving artists" are a jokey stereo-type. But it need not be an endless reality if we note and practice the simple concept that music costs - therefore it has value - therefore it should not be downplayed as a merely fun, freebie, promotional lark - "hoping" to "maybe" get a paying fan or two. -- Sometimes is ok, but not as the hugely common posture that (it seems) the majority of lower tier artists take.

Music anywhere, Taylor Swift included (and Apple), succeeds not by chance, but by intention and design.

If it's a hobby, great. It's a wonderful one to have. But should the voices of those that don't make it a profession or career - (seriously part or full time - not merely under the table for beer money) be voices collectively lobbying for freebies for all? (you can bet with Apple's "free" they were mindfully aiming to NOT take money from their own pockets to pay royalties - in order to partly compensate for the "free" trial. Point being, if Apple has a freebie tactic it isn't a wild buckshot tactic that's really free. They've analyzed everything, calculating, planning, intending a pay off of huge proportions.

Do we ever do that with our freebies?

Unfortunately, it's a tricky business (as all business is). It's a gamble anyway, but even more if one does it blindly with no plan. (i suck at a lot of this, btw) - But if Taylor can value what we do, knowing firsthand the immense labor and cost/investment going into the music of every artist who would have lost pennies, dollars, hundreds, and top tier thousands+ -- I'm not a fan, but -- I'm glad someone with position said something.

So what about us in out little corner of the empire? Do we slice off a cut from the dog grooming paycheck, tell the kid that they can't have the new pair of jeans, and then go out and buy new music gear (telling the wife it only cost half what we paid) and then use it to produce some new stuff to give away, while not at all keeping track of what it all costs us - and them! - in hopes of getting another fan to the next gig that pays the 4 piece $80 (before expenses)?

I have a dumb philosophy: if I can't afford to do something musically that my musical work can't pay for - I do without until it can, or figure out how to make do with what I have to offset what my previous gear or stuff already cost me. OR, I could get a day job - totally respectable. But I'd miss telling people, when they ask me what I do for a living - "Oh, I'm a musician". (after that they usually say "no, what's your REAL job?") - No kidding... I'm a musician. -- it's only rock'n'roll, but i like it

Did you notice that when you put the $ in 'siphoned it looks like iPhone? Coincidence? I think not.

 

[marko138]

Apples to.oranges

Thank you for your input, Dwayne.

 

[danosix]

A lot of good points and interesting opinions on both sides of the equation.

it unfortunately stirs one (ME) toward a rant of sorts....

As an indie, but as full time musician as I can muster, I agree on principle that any/every artist is worth being paid for their work, and that mega-corporations, Apple or whoever they are, shouldn't just make such a sweeping decision to not pay because of their marketing a "free" trial. It's their move, it's on them, no one else should have to pay for it.

When I first heard of it - Taylor Swift not being in the news yet about it - my first thought was - that stinks. The music biz is so historically rife with all sorts of people who have been ripping off artists since the beginning, yet the wee voices of lower tier artists and lower tier business people who do love the arts and value them properly, have long been no match for those with the $iphoned off cash via every underhanded legalese trick in the book. Mo' money most always wins. So if a person with industry clout like $wift gets corporate attention that, in even the smallest way, benefits lower level people, or puts a tiny bug in the ear of any consumer or industry person to see a glint of justice about the arts - I'm for that, though it may never positively effect me at all.

I personally regret developing a "feeling" - after so many years of working with, and being in an environment of non-music-income dependent musicians who have no concerns of playing for or giving music away - for nothing. My feeling is that one of the biggest problems with the arts, and music especially, is that too often we devalue it ourselves - not caring if we get a fair wage or not - just as long as "PLEASE! PLEASE!!!! SOMEBODY LISTEN TO MY MUSIC!!! It's FREEE!!! Take it! Love it! Please pay attention to my art and validate my years of sacrifice". BTDT

I honestly have no fundamental problem with any artist choosing to give away their work. However, when it becomes a lifestyle for so many that it's seems the norm - so much so that a club balks at the idea of hiring solid artists, preferring never ending open mic entertainment or anyone groveling to put in an 8 hour day of humping gear, traveling, gigging the sets, and hauling it all back home - for $20 per player - or when musicians from their youthful beginnings are programed (almost) to be naive about the outgo/costs of what they and those who support them - (moms, dads, wives, kids - yes, they too pay the price somewhere along the line when the gigs don't cover the cost of the new gear - ever) - those who invest into the overhead toward getting good enough to gig, as well as actually doing it... yeesh. Amongst grassroots players, the "industry" is far less the villain - they know how business runs, and how it fails when left to itself without quantifying income and outgo toward making a profit in order to continue it. -- If most any other business ran the way we too often run our personal music ventures.... yikes!

It costs us something to do music. It's a skilled profession. I personally choose to not underwrite what I do as a musician with a day job. I did it for years, but seeing "hospital worker" as occupation on my taxes was not what I really do. I'm a musician. And even with my income being meager, it's still so gratifying to carry that title, and to know that every penny I earn is because I'm a musician. (and because of this, i sure as heck get bugged when i find recordings of mine being file shared, not to mention, foreign licensed, with zero compensation coming back. but on the web, as across the sea to places with no way to track it - it's the wild west.)

btw - ABSOLUTELY NO! disrespect to those who LOVE to play and are true artists, yet identify as some other profession. I salute you all. -- The only thing I would encourage is that, while financing your music with your non-musical career income, please don't devalue your own music (and the music others do, by association) in the process, simply because the money potentially earned from music doesn't matter to you.

I deeply believe that the labor and skill of all artists has, not just an intrinsic value, but also a value that has long been quantified by - for example - anyone who has ever fought for an artist's rights and being given their due in order just to live.

[I'm not a union member, though likely should be - but I recognize that organizations like the The AF of M (for all their pros and cons), have long labored to put a value on the work of musicians of all levels (as well as the copyright office and laws re: mechanicals, and others, at least in principle). But unions or not - the value of the art doesn't just go away (nor the cost of it) because it's being paid for by the job at the law firm. Its cost and value doesn't evaporate simply because we love it and it's fun.]

So why do we, ourselves, devalue it so often, essentially on behalf of one another???? Yet, we do, and we continue to, despite being fully aware of the long history of injustice to artists of all disciplines. It's so standard that "starving artists" are a jokey stereo-type. But it need not be an endless reality if we note and practice the simple concept that music costs - therefore it has value - therefore it should not be downplayed as a merely fun, freebie, promotional lark - "hoping" to "maybe" get a paying fan or two. -- Sometimes is ok, but not as the hugely common posture that (it seems) the majority of lower tier artists take.

Music anywhere, Taylor Swift included (and Apple), succeeds not by chance, but by intention and design.

If it's a hobby, great. It's a wonderful one to have. But should the voices of those that don't make it a profession or career - (seriously part or full time - not merely under the table for beer money) be voices collectively lobbying for freebies for all? (you can bet with Apple's "free" they were mindfully aiming to NOT take money from their own pockets to pay royalties - in order to partly compensate for the "free" trial. Point being, if Apple has a freebie tactic it isn't a wild buckshot tactic that's really free. They've analyzed everything, calculating, planning, intending a pay off of huge proportions.

Do we ever do that with our freebies?

Unfortunately, it's a tricky business (as all business is). It's a gamble anyway, but even more if one does it blindly with no plan. (i suck at a lot of this, btw) - But if Taylor can value what we do, knowing firsthand the immense labor and cost/investment going into the music of every artist who would have lost pennies, dollars, hundreds, and top tier thousands+ -- I'm not a fan, but -- I'm glad someone with position said something.

So what about us in out little corner of the empire? Do we slice off a cut from the dog grooming paycheck, tell the kid that they can't have the new pair of jeans, and then go out and buy new music gear (telling the wife it only cost half what we paid) and then use it to produce some new stuff to give away, while not at all keeping track of what it all costs us - and them! - in hopes of getting another fan to the next gig that pays the 4 piece $80 (before expenses)?

I have a dumb philosophy: if I can't afford to do something musically that my musical work can't pay for - I do without until it can, or figure out how to make do with what I have to offset what my previous gear or stuff already cost me. OR, I could get a day job - totally respectable. But I'd miss telling people, when they ask me what I do for a living - "Oh, I'm a musician". (after that they usually say "no, what's your REAL job?") - No kidding... I'm a musician. -- it's only rock'n'roll, but i like it

Well said.
I have long believed that they reason you can't get paid for playing decent music is because so many people are giving lousy music away for free. This creates the mindset of "playing for exposure" I entirely do not ascribe to this nonsense.
A good rule in life is if someone like what you do they'll eventually double your pay, but if the starting point is FREE that makes FREE.

Anyone who want's to promote their original music for free has the right to do so on their websites and wherever else they can get it played, however, it is THEIR right, not Apple's to chose. More to the point - if you are still at the point of having to "give it away to be heard" you are not likely going to be on too many play lists at n ultra main-stream player like Apple's. Moreover, if you are giving it away you are better off in iTunes on your own website where people are seeking new and interesting music out rather than being slipped in between songs people already know. Yes, you have a slight chance of being heard by some people who will think you're brilliant and seek you out from there, but for the most part you will slip past without being noticed and you won't even have the small royalty for your play (also remember that if you are not popular enough to charge you will be WAY down on the playlist and might get played a couple times a week. Finally, if you are willing to give it away (momma told you it's a bad idea!) at what point do you expect to get paid by the people who played you only because they got your music for free? When you are "ready to be paid" someone else will be in your position waiting to give their music away.

 

[Jeffrey Bryan]

I'll admit it, I'm a big Spotify lover. But the last physical CD I bought was the one which didn't have all songs on Spotify (Stratovarius - Nemesis). Perhaps we have to find ways to "beat" the streaming industry with using it to our benefit compared to putting every single track on it. Much like the japanese bonus tracks on japanese cd's.

 

[TMARK]

A lot of good points and interesting opinions on both sides of the equation.

it unfortunately stirs one (ME) toward a rant of sorts....

As an indie, but as full time musician as I can muster, I agree on principle that any/every artist is worth being paid for their work, and that mega-corporations, Apple or whoever they are, shouldn't just make such a sweeping decision to not pay because of their marketing a "free" trial. It's their move, it's on them, no one else should have to pay for it.

When I first heard of it - Taylor Swift not being in the news yet about it - my first thought was - that stinks. The music biz is so historically rife with all sorts of people who have been ripping off artists since the beginning, yet the wee voices of lower tier artists and lower tier business people who do love the arts and value them properly, have long been no match for those with the $iphoned off cash via every underhanded legalese trick in the book. Mo' money most always wins. So if a person with industry clout like $wift gets corporate attention that, in even the smallest way, benefits lower level people, or puts a tiny bug in the ear of any consumer or industry person to see a glint of justice about the arts - I'm for that, though it may never positively effect me at all.

I personally regret developing a "feeling" - after so many years of working with, and being in an environment of non-music-income dependent musicians who have no concerns of playing for or giving music away - for nothing. My feeling is that one of the biggest problems with the arts, and music especially, is that too often we devalue it ourselves - not caring if we get a fair wage or not - just as long as "PLEASE! PLEASE!!!! SOMEBODY LISTEN TO MY MUSIC!!! It's FREEE!!! Take it! Love it! Please pay attention to my art and validate my years of sacrifice". BTDT

I honestly have no fundamental problem with any artist choosing to give away their work. However, when it becomes a lifestyle for so many that it's seems the norm - so much so that a club balks at the idea of hiring solid artists, preferring never ending open mic entertainment or anyone groveling to put in an 8 hour day of humping gear, traveling, gigging the sets, and hauling it all back home - for $20 per player - or when musicians from their youthful beginnings are programed (almost) to be naive about the outgo/costs of what they and those who support them - (moms, dads, wives, kids - yes, they too pay the price somewhere along the line when the gigs don't cover the cost of the new gear - ever) - those who invest into the overhead toward getting good enough to gig, as well as actually doing it... yeesh. Amongst grassroots players, the "industry" is far less the villain - they know how business runs, and how it fails when left to itself without quantifying income and outgo toward making a profit in order to continue it. -- If most any other business ran the way we too often run our personal music ventures.... yikes!

It costs us something to do music. It's a skilled profession. I personally choose to not underwrite what I do as a musician with a day job. I did it for years, but seeing "hospital worker" as occupation on my taxes was not what I really do. I'm a musician. And even with my income being meager, it's still so gratifying to carry that title, and to know that every penny I earn is because I'm a musician. (and because of this, i sure as heck get bugged when i find recordings of mine being file shared, not to mention, foreign licensed, with zero compensation coming back. but on the web, as across the sea to places with no way to track it - it's the wild west.)

btw - ABSOLUTELY NO! disrespect to those who LOVE to play and are true artists, yet identify as some other profession. I salute you all. -- The only thing I would encourage is that, while financing your music with your non-musical career income, please don't devalue your own music (and the music others do, by association) in the process, simply because the money potentially earned from music doesn't matter to you.

I deeply believe that the labor and skill of all artists has, not just an intrinsic value, but also a value that has long been quantified by - for example - anyone who has ever fought for an artist's rights and being given their due in order just to live.

[I'm not a union member, though likely should be - but I recognize that organizations like the The AF of M (for all their pros and cons), have long labored to put a value on the work of musicians of all levels (as well as the copyright office and laws re: mechanicals, and others, at least in principle). But unions or not - the value of the art doesn't just go away (nor the cost of it) because it's being paid for by the job at the law firm. Its cost and value doesn't evaporate simply because we love it and it's fun.]

So why do we, ourselves, devalue it so often, essentially on behalf of one another???? Yet, we do, and we continue to, despite being fully aware of the long history of injustice to artists of all disciplines. It's so standard that "starving artists" are a jokey stereo-type. But it need not be an endless reality if we note and practice the simple concept that music costs - therefore it has value - therefore it should not be downplayed as a merely fun, freebie, promotional lark - "hoping" to "maybe" get a paying fan or two. -- Sometimes is ok, but not as the hugely common posture that (it seems) the majority of lower tier artists take.

Music anywhere, Taylor Swift included (and Apple), succeeds not by chance, but by intention and design.

If it's a hobby, great. It's a wonderful one to have. But should the voices of those that don't make it a profession or career - (seriously part or full time - not merely under the table for beer money) be voices collectively lobbying for freebies for all? (you can bet with Apple's "free" they were mindfully aiming to NOT take money from their own pockets to pay royalties - in order to partly compensate for the "free" trial. Point being, if Apple has a freebie tactic it isn't a wild buckshot tactic that's really free. They've analyzed everything, calculating, planning, intending a pay off of huge proportions.

Do we ever do that with our freebies?

Unfortunately, it's a tricky business (as all business is). It's a gamble anyway, but even more if one does it blindly with no plan. (i suck at a lot of this, btw) - But if Taylor can value what we do, knowing firsthand the immense labor and cost/investment going into the music of every artist who would have lost pennies, dollars, hundreds, and top tier thousands+ -- I'm not a fan, but -- I'm glad someone with position said something.

So what about us in out little corner of the empire? Do we slice off a cut from the dog grooming paycheck, tell the kid that they can't have the new pair of jeans, and then go out and buy new music gear (telling the wife it only cost half what we paid) and then use it to produce some new stuff to give away, while not at all keeping track of what it all costs us - and them! - in hopes of getting another fan to the next gig that pays the 4 piece $80 (before expenses)?

I have a dumb philosophy: if I can't afford to do something musically that my musical work can't pay for - I do without until it can, or figure out how to make do with what I have to offset what my previous gear or stuff already cost me. OR, I could get a day job - totally respectable. But I'd miss telling people, when they ask me what I do for a living - "Oh, I'm a musician". (after that they usually say "no, what's your REAL job?") - No kidding... I'm a musician. -- it's only rock'n'roll, but i like it

This is REAL TALK. Thanks for taking the time to post this.