Taylor Swift Criticizes Apple Music's Free Trial in Open Letter

[RebornProphet]

So, Taylor Swift has written an "open letter" to Apple explaining why she won't be putting her new album on Apple Music.

She says even though she's "ok and can afford not be be paid for 3 months" (Really? Like she's actually skint, aye?) she's "speaking up" for the indie labels who won't get paid during the 3 month trial period.

She's kidding no one on, she's raging she won't be paid. The simple fact here is that if she wanted to help Indie labels she'd use her Twitter to showcase upcoming names, but she doesn't. She is hiding her rant about not being paid behind the smokescreen of, "I'm doing this to raise awareness for those who don't make as much as me." No hen, you're not.

So, the good thing is that she's no longer on Spotify and soon she won't be on Apple Music. Another place where I can listen without being bothered by her psychotic ranting pop songs about the men who left her.

Brilliant.

Bottom line, I use streaming services but also buy thr hard copy of my favourite bands latest album. I'm older, so remember the buzz of going into a store and buying the album.

 

[AlliFlowers]

Perhaps she's annoyed that at the end of 3 months, lesser known (unknown) indie artists will be as popular as she is, and won't mind the free 3 month exposure to a new global audience.

Honestly, get over it.

 

[fanboy7]

I'm not a Taylor Swift fan but good for her.

Yeah, You go Girl! Let the whole world know you are a sell out, and only doing it for the money! Who really cares about just letting their music be heard, artistic expression, and the message of the music? This is a job not a passion or art form! Wake up people singers are just like accountants, and lawyers doing it for a pay check, Why should we expect our musicians to sing for free or care about performing when it doesn't feed their bank accounts?

 

[Small White Car]

That is simply not true. They get paid now via services like Spotify. When people switch to Apple Music during the free trial period, then these payments will go away. So it is not going from "nothing to something" but from "something to less and back to something". Some artists can't afford that "less" period.

Amazing how few people understand that here. The math is so unbelievably basic.

Perhaps we're all confused since we've read so many articles from artists explaining how streaming services basically pay nothing to the artists themselves.

So my impression is that it's NOT "something to nothing" but rather "one kind of nothing to another kind of nothing."

They've spent years convincing us that streaming services don't benefit artists and now the story gets flipped in a single week?

I think that's what people are having a hard time understanding.

 

[MentalFloss]

I know, clearly know. However, not all customers could afford thousands of dollars of content fee. All what I have now would worth maybe a couple of thousand dollars.

So you when you are not able to afford a product, your favorite alternative is to take it illegally as opposed to, well, perhaps, not getting that product at all? You know that is also an option, yes?

And yes, I can understand for example poor students pirating some stuff here and there. But there's people on an Apple forum here, people owning highly-priced Apple products. These people could afford the music they pirate, but they choose not to afford it and instead put their money into other expensive stuff. That is parasitism.

 

[marc55]

Sometimes you've got to give a little to get a lot. The music industry is no where near government assistance, and I remember Garth Brooks once indicating he had more money than he or his grand children could ever spend, so it's hard for me to have any sympathy for the music industry.

I agree everyone should be paid their fair share, but No one will end up on food stamps for the 90 days, and they will be rolling in the $$ afterwards.

 

[gnipgnop]

Think about it: why would Apple be hesitant to pay royalties during the free trial period if they really believe that the service is going to be a win for everyone in the long run? It makes Apple look like they're not really sure it's worth paying for the three month trial.

 

[TallManNY]

I think it is okay that Apple is getting the big labels to donate their songs for three months for free. But Apple could offer a different deal to the Indie labels (assuming the big labels would let that happen). Or Apple could say that it will pay normal streaming rates for any song up to X streams per month during the trial period. X could be set at a level that the Indies will get their relatively normal but modest monthly payment, and only the mega stars and big labels who have 10s of millions of streams per month have to take a hit.

I think this would make the process of spoofing and making fake accounts less rewarding. Also Apple could stop that issue in part by simply freezing the labels and the songs that end up in the song mix, with new songs being added only as they are reviewed for scams. That wouldn't stop an existing indie from partnering with a spam army to continually request their catalogue. But such shenanigans would probably be pretty easy to spot and the cap that I mentioned above would limit the incentive to try to do this.

 

[fanboy7]

And what does Apple want? Oh right, they're not in it for the cash, they're in it to make the world a better place.

They are a company, not an artist. Shouldn't artist care about their art? OR has even caring about sell outs been a thing of the past? I guess we have all lowered are expectations of "Artists"

 

[BuffaloTF]

The statement "sometimes you need to spend money to make money" seems rather applicable here... In spite of the debate over its validity.

Apple is clearly spending a lot of money, and giving away 3 months for "free." But nothing is free... So certainly some cost center in Apple is paying another for those 3 months. They're spending money to market it and update the OS to use it... They're spending money on legal fees to sign people up. The list goes on.

The goal is to in turn make money after those 3 months are up. So, maybe these starving artists need to understand this as well... They aren't giving their music away for free. Nobody will have permanent access to their music if they cancel after 3 months. But if they're so confident their music is so good, then maybe their inclusion would be a selling point for the service... And after 3 months they'll be paid accordingly...

 

[richman555]

I don't know all of the specifics of the payment models for artists for comparison... but consider that streaming is a new concept just like renting music. Once you stop paying, your access is completely gone and you are just paying for the entertainment value. Not sure how different this is when hearing these songs on the radio and how much is paid to artists for the radio time. Or the idea of having people buy complete albums was an argument made with the advent of digital downloads. Take me back to the early 90's when there was no digital music or streaming and how did artists make their monies back then?

 

[bushido]

Yeah, You go Girl! Let the whole world know you are a sell out, and only doing it for the money! Who really cares about just letting their music be heard, artistic expression, and the message of the music? This is a job not a passion or art form! Wake up people singers are just like accountants, and lawyers doing it for a pay check, Why should we expect our musicians to sing for free or care about performing when it doesn't feed their bank accounts?

huh? cuz for many people it is? unless you are an actual accountent doing it as a hobby on your weekend. this isnt 19whatever. music is a business

I don't know all of the specifics of the payment models for artists for comparison... but consider that streaming is a new concept just like renting music. Once you stop paying, your access is completely gone and you are just paying for the entertainment value. Not sure how different this is when hearing these songs on the radio and how much is paid to artists for the radio time. Or the idea of having people buy complete albums was an argument made with the advent of digital downloads. Take me back to the early 90's when there was no digital music or streaming and how did artists make their monies back then?

you cant hear a whole album on the radio and pick a song whenever you felt like it you were sitting in front of your recorder for 2 hours just to press record on the top 1 of 100 songs and if you wanted the whole album you actually had to pay for it

 

[jmh600cbr]

I have to agree with her, those folks work hard at their craft, why give away their stuff for 3 months without payment.

With billions in the bank why not pay the artists what they're due during the free trial period.

she is far too opinionated and frankly creating an uprising that in the long run will have no effect on almost every artist. most "starving artists" have been starving for longer than 3 months and IF ANYTHING Apple Music will expose them to a billion users. This means, a lot more money than they got before. They need to bite the bullet and deal with it, because after 3 months, they may very well become Taylor Swift.

 

[Oletros]

It was funny reading the comments when the open letters were written to Spotify

 

[Benjamin Frost]

Hear, hear, Miss Swift.

This is a deeply disappointing move by Apple, one that beggars belief. They are in the business of jumping sharks, which appears to be reflected by its stagnant share price. As a shareholder, I abhor this boot stamping on musicians' faces.

Perhaps Taylor Swift's next album should be called 1984, in respect of Apple's Orwellian repugnance.

Truly, something has died at Apple, that has lead to such blindness. It’s become a cliché to cite what Steve Jobs would have done, but it is particularly suitable here. He revived the music industry and gave new life to musicians.

Tim Cook appears to be killing that industry. Apple have now become the enemy of creativity. They stand for the destruction of music's worth.

He must change his mind and decide to pay musicians for working.

 

[robertcoogan]

I'm not a Taylor Swift fan but good for her.

Same here. At least this is better than Anton Newcombe ranting. Hard to take someone seriously when they have that kind of reputation. But Swift is more visible, and hopefully it will bring Apple around.

This is most definitely not Steve Jobs' company anymore. Sad.

 

[batchtaster]

Yeah, but did the workers who built the test driven Lexus not get paid? Where they told "This month we are building vehicles to go to dealer rooms where they get test driven. since they don't get sold, we aren't paying you for these cars."

So, you think the sound engineer, the producers, recording studio, the personal assistants and everyone else did it all for free and are sitting by the mailbox waiting for their cheques to arrive? And if nobody buys the music, then they don't get paid?
Try that approach with your next album and see how it goes down.

 

[Small White Car]

But you simply can't do that by giving away other people's products for free. Or writing them that you're entering into a publishing agreement unless they say otherwise!

That's not at all what happened. The labels signed contracts handing the music over. If it's a bad deal it's the LABELS' fault for signing the contracts.

They are the ones holding all the content. Whatever happens to it is 100% under their control.

 

[flat five]

Wow if that's the type of logic you employ, do I have a job offer for you!!! It pays ABSOLUTELY NOTHING for the first three months, but after that I promise I'll start paying you.

Sign here:


_____________________

that's actually quite common.. internships with possibility of hiring.

(not meant as a pro-apple argument in the context of this thread's topic.. just sayin)

 

[robertcoogan]

Perhaps Taylor Swift's next album should be called 1984, in respect of Apple's Orwellian repugnance.

Best comment in this entire thread. So true.

 

[AlliFlowers]

People who don't want to pay for music have plenty of ways to get it.

Yea, it's called radio. Radio is still alive and kickin', people.

I have a solution though. I will trade salaries with her for a year, and I will eat the free 3 months. She still gets my entire year, and I get 9 months of her salary. I'm probably safe making that deal with most of the indies, too. After all, I'm merely a teacher.

 

[jamesjingyi]

She's gonna write a song.....

Haha jks. I completely agree with Swift on her view. I would prefer maybe a 1 month trial or a 3 month 'cheaper' option so that artists still get paid. I mean Apple is one of the richest corporations in the world. They should put a bit of money behind this trial to get Apple Music to the top, where it should be.

 

[Killchain]

If Taylor Swift is pissed off, Apple's days are numbered.

 

[Gildarts]

Perhaps she's annoyed that at the end of 3 months, lesser known (unknown) indie artists will be as popular as she is, and won't mind the free 3 month exposure to a new global audience.

Honestly, get over it.

But the lesser known artists won't be getting payed tho.. So she's fighting for them to get as popular as she is while getting payed.

But I guess haters gonna hate

 

[gnipgnop]

Sometimes you've got to give a little to get a lot. The music industry is no where near government assistance, and I remember Garth Brooks once indicating he had more money than he or his grand children could ever spend, so it's hard for me to have any sympathy for the music industry.

So if the CEO of a private sector company makes more money than he and his grand children can ever spend, then there's no reason to be concerned about the pay of anyone else? There's no logic to that idea.