Taylor Swift pulls songs off Spotify

TelkomUseless said:
+1

If she values her music more, then don't allow to stream. Who cares? She will fade away like most of them ...

I stopped buying music when you had to pay R150 for a cd (in the 90's) and 2-3 songs were good, the rest sucked ass. A single cd cost R50-60 for 1 song.. wtf man.

And looking at mtv cribs, these artist make huge amount of money (3 ferarris, gold plated toilet seats, 20 bedroom houses, in house swimming pools).. so don't tell me they are not making it...
Click to expand...
I still remember the South Park episode where Britney Spears was crying because she had to buy a Gulfstream 4 instead of a Gulfstream 5, and the Metallica dude had to wait a few extra months to buy his diamond-encrusted fish tank. All because of people downloading music.
 
Because only being able to break up with a human is so last year.
 
Well screw her, I'll just torrent it. actually, I'll probably just add it to headphones and get it off Usenet! In actual fact why not download 3 versions, just for the hell of it.
Wait a minute, I don't even like Taylor Swift.
 
Keeper said:
Well screw her, I'll just torrent it. actually, I'll probably just add it to headphones and get it off Usenet! In actual fact why not download 3 versions, just for the hell of it.
Wait a minute, I don't even like Taylor Swift.
Click to expand...

Give it to someone who does. For free.
 
DA-LION-619 said:
Butt hurt cause the publishers are taking 70% of the revenue...
Click to expand...

Publishers take their cut regardless of whether music is purchased DRM-free or streamed though. And it's not an entirely unfair practice, considering that publishers bankroll the artist before they've released a single album. Often the artist doesn't end up being commercially viable and it was wasted money. Successful artists receive a bigger share of the royalties, which reflects their dependence on their label. You can be sure that Taylor Swift gets the best cut available, because she'd start her own label if she didn't.

Producing a quality album takes an enormous amount of effort, collaboration and money. Quite frankly I think artists should just be glad that their albums exist, and place more concern on its availability than how much money they receive for it. The more people out there that listen to their music, the more tickets that will sell for their concerts.
 
DA-LION-619 said:
You guys are getting worked up over nothing, shake it off...
Click to expand...

It's not nothing. Artists pulling their music off of streaming services is a problem. Although we don't care about Taylor Swift, many young girls do and they won't be happy about it. As per the points I've already mentioned, I think it's a BS practice and the artists that do it can go screw themselves.
 
Bryn26 said:
It's not nothing. Artists pulling their music off of streaming services is a problem. Although we don't care about Taylor Swift, many young girls do and they won't be happy about it. As per the points I've already mentioned, I think it's a BS practice and the artists that do it can go screw themselves.
Click to expand...
Shake it off
 
DA-LION-619 said:
Shake it off
Click to expand...

Well the majority of music is available for streaming, so it's not a dire situation. It's just annoying, and is a discussion relevant to the thread. Forums are for discussing things.
 
Keeper said:
Well screw her, I'll just torrent it. actually, I'll probably just add it to headphones and get it off Usenet! In actual fact why not download 3 versions, just for the hell of it.
Wait a minute, I don't even like Taylor Swift.
Click to expand...

RazedInBlack said:
Give it to someone who does. For free.
Click to expand...

Approves :D

See what you gone done done now Taylor Swift :twisted:
 
The streaming services are also demonstrating that music is really a commodity. Most of the musicians are substitutable. Even when they're not these services show that there is an endless supply other good music, so it is easy to move on if someone gets it into their head to remove or restrict what they release for streaming. The problem is that some have made huge amounts from music and others are still getting into it to get fabulously rich. Those days may be numbered if they're relying on selling music to do it.

JustAsk said:
Yes, more artists should do it. Beyonce did a itunes only album at launch, delaying spotify listing (windowing) i think for 2 weeks. She did great. Beyonce proved that fans WILL buy your music if they can't get it on streaming sites. Adele, Coldplay, Daft Punk, & Black Keys did it too, also with great success.
Click to expand...
Are you referring to the same Daft Punk that made their album available for streaming before it went on sale? On the other hand delaying allowing a release on streaming services seems to have hurt Vampire Weekend. But there could be any number of reasons for those things just as Beyoncé's sales don't prove delaying helps sales. It'll be interesting to see what things are like when they're dealing with a generation that have grown up exposed to streaming services and the incredible amount of music available.
 
Bryn26 said:
Publishers take their cut regardless of whether music is purchased DRM-free or streamed though. And it's not an entirely unfair practice, considering that publishers bankroll the artist before they've released a single album. Often the artist doesn't end up being commercially viable and it was wasted money. Successful artists receive a bigger share of the royalties, which reflects their dependence on their label. You can be sure that Taylor Swift gets the best cut available, because she'd start her own label if she didn't.

Producing a quality album takes an enormous amount of effort, collaboration and money. Quite frankly I think artists should just be glad that their albums exist, and place more concern on its availability than how much money they receive for it. The more people out there that listen to their music, the more tickets that will sell for their concerts.
Click to expand...
That's basically bullsh*t. The music labels, with rare exceptions, have always existed to exploit the musicians. They were a basic necessity though because they provided a distribution network, something musicians could not easily do on their own. They also fronted the money for recording and pressing the music. In exchange for access to their network and the initial loan they took a huge cut of the income plus repayment of the capital they put up. Today though they serve less and less purpose, so it is difficult to continue justifying their cut.
 
noxibox said:
That's basically bullsh*t. The music labels, with rare exceptions, have always existed to exploit the musicians. They were a basic necessity though because they provided a distribution network, something musicians could not easily do on their own. They also fronted the money for recording and pressing the music. In exchange for access to their network and the initial loan they took a huge cut of the income plus repayment of the capital they put up. Today though they serve less and less purpose, so it is difficult to continue justifying their cut.
Click to expand...

If the musicians are being exploited so badly, why do the majority of major artists still use mainstream labels? My step-dad plays golf every week with a retired guy who used to work in the recording industry in the UK, and he has an infinite supply of stories about the s**t artists got up to. If I had to guess I'd say many artists stay with big labels because they'd never get anything done otherwise. And labels lose a lot of money to artists that don't produce the goods, so it's not fair to hate on them because they hold the successful artists in long term contracts. Obviously they want to hang on to the ones that make it.

I'm not saying that the labels are angels, because they certainly aren't. But they're not evil either. They're businesses that have to deal with valuable and volatile products.
 
Last edited:
JustAsk said:
Yes, more artists should do it. Beyonce did a itunes only album at launch, delaying spotify listing (windowing) i think for 2 weeks. She did great. Beyonce proved that fans WILL buy your music if they can't get it on streaming sites. Adele, Coldplay, Daft Punk, & Black Keys did it too, also with great success.

The overwelming majority of selling artists make almost 80% of an album's total sales in the first week, which includes sales of the 1 month pre-order period. If your album is available in that critical time on streaming sites, you lost a lot of your sales due to binge streaming at literally no cost.

I don't like her music but i can appreciate an artist that stands for something. If you as an artist is happy to get paid 0.002/5 cents per stream, then keep you music there and get fcked.
Click to expand...

Well said!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X