Taylor Swift Shares Behind-the-Scenes Details of Her Apple Music Letter

[Tycho24]

Think of all the time you've wasted writing that.

Sorry.
I would've spent that time making lame jokes with Taylor Swift song titles that are a waste of EVERYBODY'S time that read them because they make precisely ZERO sense, I dunno like: "Now Samsung and Apple have a Picture to Burn", or something else as pointless, but you seem to have the nonsensical blathering COMPLETELY covered, so I guess I will just "waste" time poking fun each time you respond with anything other than: "my bad, I guess you're right... that "joke" really just wasn't... oops".

 

[Tycho24]

Queen's English only, please.

Many thanks.

Lol, agreed!
It's called: "lowest common denominator".
Apparently, I wasn't allowed to point out the absurdity of the OP's original statement in normal speech without a silly response in terms as if we were in the same frat together or something- thus, my reply in his language of choice.
Apologies for you having been exposed to it sir, lol.

 

[mojolicious]

Queen's English only, please.

What, here on the MacRumors [sic] fora?!

 

[JeffyTheQuik]

I wish she would reveal her retirement date. I'm so sick and tired of her and this whole Apple thing. Enough already.

I'll take non-sequiturs for $1000, Alex.

 

[Benjamin Frost]

What, here on the MacRumors [sic] fora?!

America hasn't always been independent, has it?

I imagine a fair few Yanks would prefer the Queen over Obama.

 

[JeffyTheQuik]

Kind of a pointless article, I think we already knew most of what's written here.

Not sure why Swift is so polarizing, but then again I don't follow music. Could someone explain for me?

I did a search for "good things that Taylor Swift has done" and got this:

http://www.justjared.com/2014/12/29/10-best-things-taylor-swift-did-for-her-fans-in-2014/

She seems like a nice person, and I'm sure if I had the popularity that she does, there are enough MR people on here to find me, on a bad day, overreacting to something, and attributing that to my whole persona.

In my years on this planet, it seems that good people are torn down, and bad people are propped up much more than would happen if the people knocking them down actually knew them, rather than get their news filtered through their own, and editors' prejudices.

 

[Andrei90]

Exclusive swift content on Apple music. Launching a product, good or bad publicity gets it into the Media, don't forget the outcome was win win for all

So you think Apple would have payed the artists in exchange of taylor swift's album? Get real please. They couldn't afford the bad publicity.

 

[MH01]

So you think Apple would have payed the artists in exchange of taylor swift's album? Get real please. They couldn't afford the bad publicity.

I said it was an Orchestrated pr stunt, with everyone a winner. Apple came out as the good guys and always could afford to pay

 

[Arndroid]

I wish she would reveal her retirement date. I'm so sick and tired of her and this whole Apple thing. Enough already.

Given her age snd her astute analysis of the behavior of spotify and apple and her actual talent she will be around for awhile.

 

[Arndroid]

now if only taylor swift wasn't such a bitch when it came to photography during her concert.

photographers have no rights.

screw this woman.

Lol yeah poor photographers have no rights to pictures of HER. I feel so bad for them.

 

[Arndroid]

Thought it was interesting that there was no mention of her company's extremely restrictive contract for photo use by media and free lancers that was the exact opposite of her request from Apple. They hashed it out after an uproar my the media (one paper sent an artist to a concert in response). Here's a link:
http://www.poynter.org/news/mediawire/359433/taylor-swift-makes-concessions-on-photography-contract/

Those two things are not even remotely similar.

 

[aront]

The general public are such gullible sheep. You really don't realize that PR people set this whole thing up? Taylor's PR people and Apple PR got together and created this entire story for publicity, long ago. Both sides win, publicity for Apple Music and PR for Taylor Swift, and both come out looking like hero's, while laughing at the gullible who eat it up.

She doesn't write anything. She has a team of lawyers, writers (including songs), publicists who handle everything. Get with it people.

 

[Andrei90]

I said it was an Orchestrated pr stunt, with everyone a winner. Apple came out as the good guys and always could afford to pay

I don't think Apple came out as the good guys at all. They were the ones who were trying to pull that ****. That's like saying Microsoft came out as the good guys for removing Xbox One DRM madness after all the heat they got.

 

[MacAddict1978]

10 million is a really strong start, even if it is a free trial period. Those are JUST IOS users. That still leaves 85% of the mobile market up for courting.

I'll give it a whirl when it hits my android. I kind of liked the original beats music app, but it had some wonki issues and Google gave me 6 months of Google music free when I bought my nexus 6. 6 months in, thousands of downloads, it's kind of hard to swap services. Curated radio and play lists aren't compelling enough of a reason.

A crap ton of people dont have access to install iTunes on their PC's. People in offices are one of the largest demographics for streaming music subscriptions and fremium use. Will be hard to lure those people without a web based version. I hope they have a plan for that, even if it's an iCloud Feature.

 

[Jstuts5797]

Lol, agreed!
It's called: "lowest common denominator".
Apparently, I wasn't allowed to point out the absurdity of the OP's original statement in normal speech without a silly response in terms as if we were in the same frat together or something- thus, my reply in his language of choice.
Apologies for you having been exposed to it sir, lol.

Wow I bet your great at parties and other social get togethers. There is no need to be so formal on the internet bro, unless it's for business. I tend to use words the words bruh, dude and bro when I speak, why not when someone types too? All the problems and issues in the world and your up in arms about the use of the word bruh, bruh? I think you need to chill out a bit, relax. People post on here for fun, dude. People enjoy the activity of reading and posting there thoughts, no need to tear a bro down for being chillax on here. As a "bro" myself, I dub you a bro-hater.

 

[Tycho24]

Wow I bet your great at parties and other social get togethers. There is no need to be so formal on the internet bro, unless it's for business. I tend to use words the words bruh, dude and bro when I speak, why not when someone types too? All the problems and issues in the world and your up in arms about the use of the word bruh, bruh? I think you need to chill out a bit, relax. People post on here for fun, dude. People enjoy the activity of reading and posting there thoughts, no need to tear a bro down for being chillax on here. As a "bro" myself, I dub you a bro-hater.

Fair enough.

You actually clocked it!!
I'm a nerd. I have always been.
I'm not your frat homey. I don't like or respect you or any of your friends. I'm DEF a "hater" of you and your type... in every meaning of the word.
Oh, I also automatically don't want to talk to anybody that says "chillax".

 

[Jstuts5797]

Yea us bros can be nerds to though man. Otherwise I wouldn't be here, bro. =)

 

[Macronym]

But Apple are the ones providing this service. They want people to join up, they have to saddle the costs not the musicians.
How can I put this in it's simplest form?
Say you're an artist and a friend wants to start up an art gallery. They're going to host your work and normally you'd hope to sell pieces. But instead the host wants to bring people in, gather emails, gain support, so they start to give away your product. The artist gets no benefit from this especially when they're already getting paid from other places, why should they give away work to benefit another entities business?

That doesn't make any sense. "They want people to join up, they have to saddle the costs not the musicians." And musicians want to sell their work on Apple's service, which everyone knows will be profitable, given the quality and clientele Apple has built over the years. Both sides are profiting - one has the infrastructure, the other the content, simple as that. According to you, that infrastructure doesn't matter; like Apple paying for marketing, servers and their maintenance, running the service, providing a clientele etc. Also, let's not forget that artists aren't forced to use Apple's service, so nobody is forced to "give away" their work. Well, except Apple, apparently.
Your example with galleries is a very bad one. Galleries are extremely picky, take huge commissions (some even take money for displaying art), rarely pay shipping/framing/etc. (costs are often split with the artist) and have expenses to pay (same as Apple). You are making it sound like artists aren't gaining anything from that service, which is nonsense.

 

[till213]

She should write yet another letter about it...

 

[greenstumps]

Tbh her stance was so short sighted, just because you're not getting money from something doesn't mean you're not getting money from that person at another time. It's not like these Music artists are strapped for cash is it, the popular ones will make lots of money, the unpopular ones wont, this changes nothing.

 

[0098386]

That doesn't make any sense. "They want people to join up, they have to saddle the costs not the musicians." And musicians want to sell their work on Apple's service, which everyone knows will be profitable, given the quality and clientele Apple has built over the years. Both sides are profiting - one has the infrastructure, the other the content, simple as that. According to you, that infrastructure doesn't matter; like Apple paying for marketing, servers and their maintenance, running the service, providing a clientele etc. Also, let's not forget that artists aren't forced to use Apple's service, so nobody is forced to "give away" their work. Well, except Apple, apparently.
Your example with galleries is a very bad one. Galleries are extremely picky, take huge commissions (some even take money for displaying art), rarely pay shipping/framing/etc. (costs are often split with the artist) and have expenses to pay (same as Apple). You are making it sound like artists aren't gaining anything from that service, which is nonsense.

Are you aware of a recent phenomena with paying artists (visual ones)? There's a whole joke about companies, individuals, whoever just asking artists for work and being "paid in exposure". It doesn't work like that. Apple are the ones who want to sell a subscription, musicians make barely any money from these services. They already sell their music through iTunes, Amazon, etc.

This is a wonderful case of creatives being screwed over by a big company because they feel they have to, only to then be paid for their work.

But you think it's nonsense. What would artists get from being paid nothing for being on Apple Music?

(The art gallery example works too. You seem to think there's only one type of art gallery. I've sold work at galleries without paying to display my work)

 

[mrxak]

a) she doesn't have to take her clothes off to sell records unlike 90% of the female pop industry;

Uh, except she does. Haven't you actually listened to her songs? They're all about her very public sexual relationships. She might not be taking her clothes off on stage, but if she wasn't taking her clothes off elsewhere she'd have no material for her most popular songs.

 

[mrxak]

Queen's English only, please.

Many thanks.

Take it to MacRumours.

 

[AFEPPL]

It was a great result for common sense and Apple should be ashamed of what they tried to do.
I hope the idiots behind the nasty letters are found and dealt with accordingly.

 

[OllyW]

Take it to MacRumours.

Do you mean www.macrumours.co.uk?