Taylor Swift may have announced she was shaking off Apple Music last week, but today she published an open letter to Apple explaining in more detail why her hit “1989” album won’t be joining the other 30 million songs available on Apple’s streaming music service when it launches.
“I’m sure you are aware that Apple Music will be offering a free 3 month trial to anyone who signs up for the service,” Swift writes. “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.”
Swift goes on to argue that:
“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.
These are not the complaints of a spoiled, petulant child. These are the echoed sentiments of every artist, writer and producer in my social circles who are afraid to speak up publicly because we admire and respect Apple so much. We simply do not respect this particular call.”
The “Shake it off” songstress ends her letter by saying that it’s not too late for Apple to reverse its decision and agree to absorb the costs of its three-month free Apple Music trial. “We don’t ask you for free iPhones,” Swift says. “Please don’t ask us to provide you with our music for no compensation.”
As one of the biggest music stars in the world — whose “1989” album has sold more than 8 million copies worldwide since its release last October — Swift’s concerns about Apple Music are sure to garner plenty of attention. She isn’t the only person to voice similar views, however. Last week, for example, the Australian Independent Record Labels Association (AIR) wrote that Apple’s three-month free trial is not “fair or equitable to independent music companies.”
Who knows? With Swift throwing her name in the anti-Apple Music hat, maybe Apple will reconsider its position for the sake of artists.
Either that or we’ve got a Tim Cook breakup song coming on the next Taylor Swift album…
Source: Tumblr
Luke Dormehl is a U.K.-based journalist and author, with a background working in documentary film for Channel 4 and the BBC. He is the author of The Apple Revolution and The Formula: How Algorithms Solve All Our Problems … and Create More, both published by Penguin/Random House. His tech writing has also appeared in Wired, Fast Company, Techmeme and other publications.
27 responses to “Taylor Swift explains her bad blood with Apple Music”
Just the musicians who can live only with their music sales are the world famous, the rest with their performances, so she is wrong. I meet a lots of musicians who prefer to give their cd albums to people in order to get fame therefore more performances. I know she is in her right to decide if she gives her music or not and so everyone has them, but the reasons she claims are ridiculous.
She is correct — despite your anecdotal claims of “[meeting] lots of musicians.” Many artists tour just to promote the sales of their albums. Some lesser-known artists don’t even make a profit touring, relying on sales of their CDs at the end of each performance to put them in the black.
I wonder who know more about the music industry, you or Taylor Swift (who owns her own record label).
I have chosen to opt out of listening to Taylor Swift, even before Apple Music
I’m sure that Taylor Swift is heartbroken to learn that a renowned music expert and trendsetter like Disqus commenter Aannddyy is not a fan.
I have chosen to opt out of a lot of music. That is most certainly no indication that they are bad.
I’ll take it she didn’t get an Apple Watch Editions like Beyoncé did
It’s not about me……bullshit
If you have some evidence to show that she’s lying, please present it here instead of just being vulgar.
Her latest album has sold over 8 million copies. I don’t think she’s hurting for money, so I take her at her word.
What it really boils down to is a music industry that is broken and defeated. A music industry that would rather sue a family into a poor house based on the actions of a minor who downloaded music illegally, and did not know they were sharing with the rest of the world. It’s about an industry who would much rather hold onto physical sales of CD’s rather than embracing the digital revolution. An industry who does not realize that the shift to streaming service, rather than purchasing music.
Sorry Taylor,
You are worried about not being paid for an initial 3 month launch to everybody who has an Apple device, rather then looking towards long term goals. I am sorry, but if you were concerned about these young artists, then you will start your own label and help them out. This is not about Apple, this is about Apple trying to re-define the music industry again. And sadly, you have been brainwashed by the Music Industry.
“What it really boils down to is…”
…that you want music for free and you’ll rationalize it by citing lawsuits that the RIAA ceased filing back in 2008.
You wrote: “An industry who does not realize that the shift to streaming service, rather than purchasing music.”
This is all about an artist recognizing that shift. It’s about how it impacts artists if they are uncompensated, or poorly compensated, by streaming services.
You wrote: “I am sorry, but if you were concerned about these young artists, then
you will start your own label and help them out.”
You are such a self-serving prick. Now you want her to open up a charity record label in which she pays artists out of her own pocket so that you can listen to their music for free on Apple’s streaming service.
You wrote: “This is not about
Apple, this is about Apple trying to re-define the music industry again.”
Yes, exactly! It’s about Apple trying to re-define the music industry into one where artists get an even smaller slice of the pie; where a wildly popular single nets an artist a tiny fraction of what they would have received in the days prior to streaming.
“This is not about Apple, this is about Apple trying to re-define the music industry again.”
They’re trying to redefine their bank account. It’s what business does. Apples interest in music seem to be limited to nothing more than taking business from other companies. They are just another part of “the Music Industry.” i.e. they are one of the most expensive collection agencies in the world.
I’m not familiar with music industrial in western world, but here in Asia, singers or publishers will just remaster a new single album based on one or two hits exclusively for the new channel. I’d say that’s a win-win strategy.
I get the argument however what some artists do not see is how much publicity and notice they COULD get being on the radio service. It’s a little like the old iPod commercials. Apple did not pay many to be in those. But artists made a lot of money. But this is a new venture I am not sure how it will pan out.
The music industry never got technology. And Taylor has nothing to gain since she is well known already I guess.
Apple could afford to pay artists though. My head hurts I don’t know. Bahh,
It’s unlikely that Apple did not pay for the use of the music in the iPod commercials. They would constitute public performances, and Apple would have to come to an agreement to use that music legally. (That’s why you don’t hear the Beastie Boys in commercials — they don’t allow it.) It is possible that Apple struck some minimal deal, arguing that the exposure was the real compensation.
Who’s Taylor Swift? #ImSerious
Apple shouldn’t be thinking like Google – who believe information (and other creative works) should be free. It should be the champions of artists everywhere. If Apple wants to offer a free trial, it shouldn’t be on the backs of he artists.
Thank you. I agree with you completely.
This is a promotion of Apple’s service and, indirectly, their devices on which the service is available. Asking an artist, who may only have one big hit in his/her entire career, to give up proceeds from their work for 90 days is unreasonable.
Someday Ms. Swift will be doing nightly shows in Reno.
Will Ms Swift be paying apple back all of the money she has made from Apple’s iTunes distribution.. The way people listen to music has moved on, spoilt rich kids (Ms Swift) are only famous because of the general public, they are going to have to realise that streaming is the way forward
You wrote: “Will Ms Swift be paying apple back all of the money she has made from Apple’s iTunes distribution.”
Will Apple be paying back all of the money it made from the sales of computers that are no longer in use?
You wrote: “…they are going to have to realise that streaming is the way forward”
So you want a streaming model where artists aren’t paid but Apple is? That’s “the way forward” in your world?
Artists are very much aware that streaming is huge. It is already cannibalizing music sales. That’s the whole point of this — to assure that artists don’t end up with a smaller slice of the pie once streaming is the predominant means of listening to music.
then start paying for software updates.
You wrote: “then start paying for software updates.”
We already do. It’s built into the price of the hardware. It’s one reason why Macs cost more than PCs.
You wrote: “i wont even get into the fact that the cost of music distributed
digitally had increased by 30% in a 10 year span with no measurable
change in the quality of the product.”
Ten years ago, the music you bought on iTunes had DRM. It was encoded at a much lower bitrate that resulted in significantly poorer fidelity.
You wrote: “after a worldwide economic depression that decreased prices of goods and effectively increased the fortunes and buying power of the wealthy,
some within the music industry, the rest of us were mostly affected
negatively through stagnation of wages and lost jobs. and yet no
decrease in the cost of music, even at pace with the measured decrease
in middle-class income”
The music industry is just that; an industry. They seek to maximize profits. Price normally affects demand inversely — the higher the price, the lower the sales (except for Giffen goods and Veblen goods). There’s a price point that maximizes profits (number of units sold * price per sale – costs).
You wrote: “let’s break it down in one sentence: “your effort to provide promotion
and exposure, for free, to generate sales is unfair as you should have
to pay us for the opportunity to promote and expose us.” ”
The only thing that Apple is promoting and exposing is their service. Apple doesn’t care if you listen to “Shut Up And Dance” for six weeks and never buy a copy after the free trial ends — as long as you subscribe to their service.
Isn’t it about getting famous for new artists? I believe Apple Music gives them the opportunity to get heard.
that’s the point. we’re supposed to fund their opportunity for exposure. free exposure is not enough.
it’s why we pay for the samples they give out at Costco/Sam’s Club/Price Club. oh wait…
If you want free samples of Taylor Swift’s music, head over to Amazon-dot-com where you can listen to 30 seconds from each track on her albums. Then you can decide which tracks to purchase.
That’s what a free sample is. It’s not 90 days of streaming her entire music catalog with no compensation to her.
Go into “Costco/Sam’s Club/Price Club” and tell a person handing out samples that you want all-you-can-eat free food for the next 90 days. That seems to be your idea of a “sample.” Tell their suppliers that it would be unfair to charge for the food because it’s “free exposure.”
I appreciate your well reasoned comments it this thread.
Thank you. That was kind of you to take the time to write that.