I agree with you on that. But the post I responded to seemed to imply that Taylor Swift's letter was produced in cooperation with Apple.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Taylor Swift's Apple Music Letter Surprised Her Record Label, but Pushed Talks 'Over the Edge'
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I'm sure the discussion inside Apple was let's see if we can get away with this (all the while planning for having to payout) and if we can't we'll do a 180 on a dime and get good PR out of it. Swift's letter was the perfect opportunity for Cue to make Apple look like the good guy.
I sincerely doubt that. Streaming doesn't pay that much (paid subscription or not). Taylor Swift could afford not to be paid during the trial, something she she as actually specifically admitted. For many others, it's astonishing that they'd be expected to stream their music for free because Apple is offering the user a (lengthy) free trial of the same service they'd get if they subscribed. Does it not make sense for Apple to bear the costs of the free trial of their own service rather than the labels/artists/etc.?
While true, you would do the same to keep your paycheck. I bet you don't work for free either. It's always "save your ass, then help others if you can to make yourself look good too"
I won't go that far. Mostly because something like that would most certainly leak and that would be terrible PR for Apple.
No one has denied that there weren't talks about paying them. They even mention it in the article just above. But it wasn't a planned maneuver from the start. Apple most likely always had a fallback plan of paying the artists if certain labels didn't agree to terms. Swift has a huge following, Apple understood that, so they responded to her complaints and initiated plan B. So it wasn't necessarily a coincidence, but it certainly wasn't as planned as some make it out to be.
LOL. Yeah, Swift wrote it. Just like she wrote all her songs too.
"wrote a scathing open letter" - really? A bit loose with the hyperbole, aren't we? It was more like a very calculated, carefully crafted scolding, tempered with buttery praise for Apple because she knows what would happen if she summoned the vindictive ****** side of Apple (and as we know, that's exceedingly easy to do, with or without Jobs at the helm).
Also I've been trying iTunes Radio and Playlists for a day or two now.
I skip a lot of songs.
I wonder if the artists get paid if I listen to a fraction of a song.
Sometimes I jump right to the middle to see if it gets any better.
I wonder what the algorithm is for paying the artists in that situation.
Any thoughts?
I skip a lot of songs.
I wonder if the artists get paid if I listen to a fraction of a song.
Sometimes I jump right to the middle to see if it gets any better.
I wonder what the algorithm is for paying the artists in that situation.
Any thoughts?
Taylor Swift thank you for breaking iTunes Match thanks to you Apple is worried to keep you on Apple Music your crappy music, no wonder you can never keep a guy around you always make them pay.
Scathing is a term designed to get people to read a column that otherwise would barely be noticed.
Each to his own ... unless you are Honda (and others), then it's "Each to their own" since those writers didn't get an education that included English.
What IS your problem? Taylor Swift does not affect the programming for iTunes.
If you listen to only a fraction of a song, what happens is that the label finds out where you stopped listening.
Then, the label calls up the artist, and they have a discussion about why the listener stopped listening at that particular point. They examine the harmony for structural weaknesses, look at the melody to see if the tune was a bit weak at that point. They also think about the rhythm; did the tambourine player sneeze at that point? Finally, they examine the singing and the lyrics. Maybe the singer had a frog in his throat, or perhaps he didn't enunciate the words clearly at that point.
After the inquisition, there are two possibilities. If the label and the musician agree that the music was at fault, the musician dons sackcloth and proceeds to undertake his next three recording sessions kneeling on a hard floor. If no agreement can be found, then both the label and the musician undertake a vow of silence for three months.
According to Borchetta, there was no such headway being made.
And it doesn't change the fact that Apple had admittedly wanted to NOT pay the artists.
What's really puzzling, is the idea that this was somehow a clever pre-planned PR stunt. That doesn't make one whit of sense, except maybe to a teen.
Last edited:
Business or not, but she was the only one, who got the balls to do it. In the mean time everybody else, including those potentially affected indie artists, didn't bother to pop the heads out of their butts.
Luckily it turned out good for almost everybody, and gave her a great boost of publicity and sales. A logical consequence.
So wtf is all the hate here?!
Luckily it turned out good for almost everybody, and gave her a great boost of publicity and sales. A logical consequence.
So wtf is all the hate here?!
On this forum, it's cool to hate Taylor Swift, it's cool to hate any version of OS X after Snow Leopard, and it's cool to hate AMD.
Seriously, bet none of these people have even met the woman, let alone accomplish half the stuff she's done.
No need to bag on her just because she's smarter and more talented than you.
She actually does. Try again son.
Her father, Scott Kingsley Swift, is a Merrill Lynch financial adviser. Her mother, Andrea Gardner (Finlay) Swift, is a homemaker who previously worked as a mutual fund marketing executive. Hence the "solid business sense."
Last edited: