They ain't got that new Taylor Swift shawty. Platinum in a week nicca!

Taylor Swift Pulls Her Music From Spotify

Nov 3rd '14 by Chris DeVille @ 11:49am

What do Taylor Swift, Thom Yorke, and Patrick Carney have in common? (Aside from being three of the richest, most famous, most influential musicians in the world, that is?) All of them are keeping their music off Spotify. As Spotify announced in a blog post today, Swift is the latest superstar to pull her catalog from the streaming service. The company noted that nearly 16 million of its 40 million users have streamed one of Swift’s songs in the past 30 days and that she’s part of 19 million Spotify playlists, then tried to win her back:

We hope she’ll change her mind and join us in building a new music economy that works for everyone. We believe fans should be able to listen to music wherever and whenever they want, and that artists have an absolute right to be paid for their work and protected from piracy. That’s why we pay nearly 70% of our revenue back to the music community.

PS – Taylor, we were both young when we first saw you, but now there’s more than 40 million of us who want you to stay, stay, stay. It’s a love story, baby, just say, Yes.

Swift’s new 1989 was already kept off Spotify for its initial launch, just like Red was in 2012. When the plan to keep 1989 off streaming services was announced, Spotify spokesman Jonathan Prince tweeted this:

jonathan prince @jonathanmprince
Follow
Hey @taylorswift13 the haters gonna hate, hate, hate but 40 million+ Spotifiers gonna play, play, play. Don’t let them down for too long. xo
9:20 AM - 30 Oct 2014

The Guardian speculates that one factor in Swift’s decision to take her music off Spotify could be the potential record-breaking sales for 1989 — it might break Britney Spears’ record for highest first-week sales ever in the US — though it’s unclear how removing Swift’s other music affects 1989’s chart race, particularly since its first-week sales window ended last night at midnight.

The real reason Swift’s music is gone from Spotify probably has to do with some other Swift-related business news. The NY Post recently revealed that Scott Borchetta, owner of Swift’s label home Big Machine, is looking to sell the label for $200 million. Swift is signed to Big Machine for one more album, and her family owns a stake in the label. Billboard cites a source close to the situation who says Big Machine removed Swift’s music from Spotify as a negotiating ploy to make the label more valuable:

This came as a complete surprise. Big Machine is in the process of selling itself, and that can’t be forgotten here. They're looking to increase the multiple for the sale of that company. Scott Borchetta is a very old-school thinker. He’s wrong.

Finally, in news completely unrelated to Spotify, Swift announced a huge 2015 world tour at her website today. Check out those dates here.

UPDATE: As NY Post points out, Swift’s pre-1989 albums are still available on rival services like Rhapsody and Rdio — but only the paid tiers. Rdio’s free, ad-supported service doesn’t have Swift either. You may recall that in a Wall Street Journal editorial this summer Swift wrote, “It’s my opinion that music should not be free, and my prediction is that individual artists and their labels will someday decide what an album’s price point is. I hope they don’t underestimate themselves or undervalue their art.”

******************************************
Falcons, Braves, Bulldogs and Hawks

Geto Boys, Poison Clan, UGK, Eightball & MJG, OutKast, Goodie Mob

artists that big can do without spotify.

http://i54.tinypic.com/2j51hj4.jpg

>artists that big can do without spotify.

wouldn't you want it on everything? Spotify doesn't really hurt big artists does it?

they are making enough where they can turn down some streams of income
if they choose.

http://i54.tinypic.com/2j51hj4.jpg

i kinda get not putting it on the free plans, but choosing some subscription plans but not others seems to be directed at Spotify rather than streaming in general

.000000001 per play

its a couple dollars

http://howardlloyd.bandcamp.com

One of my homies makes a respectable monthly sum from Spotify plays
(3 figures). And he's indie.

He looks at it like it's better than them getting it for free, cause
ppl are gonna get it the way they get it anyway.

http://i54.tinypic.com/2j51hj4.jpg

it undermines musicians two ways in the long term

1 makes music as a whole more disposable

2 lessens the value of the master over time

so...yeah for today its good for you. but what about in the long run. especially #1

musicians keep having a hand in their own undoing by making short term decisions


like in the 80s when everybody started making videos. did it get them more exposure and sales in that moment? sure... but now what has it led to. the visual is more important than the aural aspect.... and only those with the most easily digestible (i.e. plays into stereotypes and easily accepted notions) images can even sell enough to profit off records

long term is the way to go

i dont like taylor swifts music but her statement about musicians recognizing their worth is spot on... i wish more thought like that

http://howardlloyd.bandcamp.com

>UPDATE: As NY Post points out, Swift’s pre-1989 albums are
>still available on rival services like Rhapsody and Rdio —
>but only the paid tiers. Rdio’s free, ad-supported service
>doesn’t have Swift either.

does Rdio just pay more?

but not by much

http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/permalink/2013/12/13/quicksummarystreaming

Although the above link is helpful, it's probably out of date by now and the numbers are sketchy to begin with. The major problem is that most streaming services, and esp. Spotify, have been *really* vague and a bit shady in telling people how much artists make from their services.

Actually, here are some more recent links:
http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/permalink/2014/02/21/favoritepays
http://www.spotifyartists.com/spotify-explained/#how-we-pay-royalties-overview

While I think the Spotify rationale of how it pays for music - and its implicit critique of labels, who they (essentially) argue should be paying more to artists themselves - is built on quite a bit of rhetorical acrobatics, there's something to what they are saying... and one of the reasons it is so hard to compare services and find out what artists are *really* being paid is because 1) services pay different labels different amounts; and 2) labels have different contracts with their own artists. So providing the label owns the rights to X's recording, X's payout is going to be determined by a pretty large # of variables...

-thebigfunk

~ i could still snort you under the table ~

i guess spotify wasn't gonna pay the label enough?

.....I'm good.




Since 1976

At least for me, if your shit is not on spotify... I definitely might not be bumping it even if I wanted to. This doesn't apply to everyone or every release, because Run The Jewels, Flylo's new album, and Thom Yorkes are certainly going to be bumped. But those are all potential album of the years in my book, 2nd tier or sleeper picks... you might get slept on. I still haven't bumped the newest fourtet because of this. I plan to at some point, but it adds a hurdle to check out the newest music...

giving your music away for free never made any sort of financial sense as a measure to combat piracy.

when it became the norm in the late 00's, sales dwindled only that much further.

now it's created a condition much worse than the initial piracy it was trying to undercut: complete and utter lack of interest from the public to even stream music being given away for free.

psychologically, products need to have a value.

if haagen-dazs ice cream was given away for free, eventually nobody would eat it.

..|.,

If you still don't know what Jade Typhoon is, click here:
http://jadetyphoon.blogspot.com/ (WS)

i don't see why they cant start

..|.,

If you still don't know what Jade Typhoon is, click here:
http://jadetyphoon.blogspot.com/ (WS)

http://www.wired.com/2014/11/aloe-blacc-pay-songwriters/

Consider the fact that it takes roughly one million spins on Pandora for a songwriter to earn just $90. Avicii’s release “Wake Me Up!” that I co-wrote and sing, for example, was the most streamed song in Spotify history and the 13th most played song on Pandora since its release in 2013, with more than 168 million streams in the US. And yet, that yielded only $12,359 in Pandora domestic royalties— which were then split among three songwriters and our publishers. In return for co-writing a major hit song, I’ve earned less than $4,000 domestically from the largest digital music service.

If that’s what’s now considered a streaming “success story,” is it any wonder that so many songwriters are now struggling to make ends meet?

..|.,

If you still don't know what Jade Typhoon is, click here:
http://jadetyphoon.blogspot.com/ (WS)

-----
Cameo
Soundshape Records

Pandora and Spotify are not the same thing.

Pandora is considered "Internet Radio" so it has royalty rate that is very different than Spotify.

Double 0
DJ/Producer/Artist
Producer in Kidz In The Hall
-------------------------------------------
twitter: @godouble0
IG: @godouble0
www.thinklikearapper.com

This download era has gotten consumers lazy and cheap. But such is the nature of the digital era. Intangible items seem to be devalued by the populous.

And with people steady pirating/stealing music, there's a lack of knowledge of what the music should be worth.

You're such pests...now, what is it you want? In your depths of your ignorance, what is it you want? Well, whatever it is you want, I can't deliver because I just don't see it. - Orson Welles


Never Tired, Always Sleepy

people listening to music off off YouTube, Pandora, Spotify, etc. and its gonna be that way going forward. Its up to these companies to work out these deals and artists to demand them.

But consumers need to realize that artists are in self-preservation mode, and for good reason. Swift's record company (she's signed to her own label, which is a great move) said that they had only made $500,000 from Spotify. That's ridiculous for an artist that moves platinum units in a week.

The music business model sucks for an artist, but they actually make more from individual units than from streams. And that's crazy.

And with the way we consume music, which is basically through on-demand singles if you will, I wonder will we get to a place where the album goes away as the default unit, and is replaced by the single.

You're such pests...now, what is it you want? In your depths of your ignorance, what is it you want? Well, whatever it is you want, I can't deliver because I just don't see it. - Orson Welles


Never Tired, Always Sleepy