When Taylor Swift first came onto the music scene,
she signed with an independent label, Big
Machine Records. Since this label was relatively unknown at the time, Swift
and her producers had to bring demos of her songs to radio stations and ask
them to play her music. Swift has
definitely come a long way from her teenage years, and has now become one of
most recognizable music artists in the world.
What is surprising about Taylor Swift is that she is a phenomenal
business woman. Swift is a huge advocate for artists because she illustrates
that music is art and that people should have to pay for that art; she then
proceeded by taking her music off of music streaming websites like Spotify because she did not feel
comfortable with fans listening to her music for free. Swift also stood up to Apple because during Apple Music’s free three month trial, no
artists were getting paid.
For the
past sixteen years, music sales have been shrinking due to online streaming of
music for free or piracy. Taylor Swift
points out that online streaming music websites are the main reasons that
artists’ albums are not selling and that leads to artists not receiving any
compensation for the music they make. Swift took all her music off Spotify because she felt that no one was
appreciating the art that she was releasing.
She told Time Magazine
interviewer, Jack Dickey that people “can still listen to my music if they get
it on iTunes.”
Carrying
on, by taking her music off of music streaming websites and having people pay
for her new album 1989, or her
previous albums guarantees her compensation for her music. According to Billboard.com, Swift’s album 1989 sold a little bit over a million
albums in the first week when it was released back in October of 2014. With her music off the music streaming
websites, fans have no other option but to buy the album on iTunes or in
stores. With her music sales through the
roof, Swift is advocating for the little people of the music industry to follow
her lead, and make fans pay for their art, instead of listening for free or
pirating music.
Furthermore, Apple is always coming up with new ways to promote music. ITunes is a huge music store where mostly
everyone purchases their music. Apple
came up with a new music streaming website called Apple Music that offers a free three month trial to the
public. Sounds amazing, right? Of course it sounds amazing, but there
happens to be one little problem, and that is artists will not be receiving any
compensation during those three months.
Some people who are just listeners did not even know that artists would
not be receiving any compensation for this trial. Taylor Swift wrote a letter to Apple via
Tumblr stating “I’m not sure you know that Apple 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.” The CEO of Apple, Tim Cook
quickly responded to Swift’s problem, and now artists will be receiving money
during the Apple Music free
trial. Taylor Swift confronting Apple
was a smart move not only for herself, but for other artists especially the new
artists who just released their first album.
Swift has put five albums out and is a multimillionaire and she has
enough money to rent out stadiums, and to pay her crew. On the other hand, new artists don’t
have as much money and need the money from their music sales in order to pay
the recording studio and their bills.
As the saying goes, if you want something to
change, you must change it yourself. Taylor Swift seems to have no problem
voicing her opinions about online streaming websites hurting artists. She is also helping artists out by making
sure that they receive their fair share of money from their music sales. If you disagree with this, and say that
people should be allowed to listen to music for free think again. Imagine you are a painter, and your beautiful
landscape is hanging in an art museum.
Then all of a sudden, someone wants your painting, and rips it down from
the wall and walks away with it. How
would you feel? Hurt maybe. Outraged,
yes! You want the money because you worked hard to paint the picture. After that scenario, do you still think music
should be free?
Works Cited
Caulfield, Keith. "Official: Taylor Swift's '1989'
Debuts With 1.287 Million Sold In First Week."
Billboard.
n.p., Nov.-Dec. 2014. Web.
<http://www.billboard.com/articles/columns/chart-beat/6304536/official-taylor-swifts-1989-
debuts-with-1287-million-sold-in>.
Dickey, Jack. "Taylor Swift on 1989, Spotify, Her
Next Tour and Female Role Models." Time.
n.p.,
Nov.-Dec. 2014. Web. <http://time.com/3578249/taylor-swift-interview/>.
Swift, Taylor. "To Apple, Love Taylor." Taylor
Swift. n.p., June-July 2015. Web.
<http://taylorswift.tumblr.com/post/122071902085/to-apple-love-taylor>.
I thought that this was a very interesting topic of choice, as I know I personally use Pandora and Spotify a lot. However, do you think there is a possibility Taylor could have actually sold more albums had she kept her album on Spotify? I know a lot of people tend to use streaming websites to "discover" new artists or listen to their favorite artists album before buying it. While people can listen to music for free on Spotify without premium it can be used as a good marketing tool for artists to get their music out there and potentially have future album sales from people who discovered the album on Spotify. Once they get sick of the ads interrupting their music then they could go out and buy that album that they may have not listened to otherwise. While I understand what Taylor was trying to achieve and think it was admirable I can’t help but wonder if she could have “frozen out” a potential market. I really enjoyed your blog though and agree that music artists should be compensated for their work
ReplyDelete