Jump to content

💓 DAWN OF CHROMATICA 💓

Follow Gaga Daily on Telegram

Spotify CEO: Taylor Swift would have made $6M this year


Morphine Prince

Featured Posts

TEANUS

I always knew she was a greedy c*nt.

Here's my theory as to why she is so pressed: She barely missed Britney's record. She feels cheated out of it because instead of buying her album, people streamed it, which caused her to not get as many sales and thus miss the record. She's well aware that the only way people will remember her album 10 years from now is if she were to surpass the record. She is really trying too hard. :toofunny:

This could kinda be true, she really didn't give a f*ck as much until after the first week, then it escalated to not just keeping the album off, but she took her WHOLE catalog off

British social ladies with upturned pinkies, glasses clinking // xoxoTEANUS
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 50
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Redstreak

I always knew she was a greedy c*nt.

Here's my theory as to why she is so pressed: She barely missed Britney's record. She feels cheated out of it because instead of buying her album, people streamed it, which caused her to not get as many sales and thus miss the record. She's well aware that the only way people will remember her album 10 years from now is if she were to surpass the record. She is really trying too hard. :toofunny:

She wrote a news piece on her being against Spotify for the New York Times all the way back in July?

This could kinda be true, she really didn't give a f*ck as much until after the first week, then it escalated to not just keeping the album off, but she took her WHOLE catalog off

That was her label head that came up with that idea. He said "if we're gonna make statement with 1989, why don't we make a statement with all your music about their inherent value?" and she agreed.

Take a moment to think of just flexibility, love, and trust~
Link to post
Share on other sites

TEANUS

She wrote a news piece on her being against Spotify for the New York Times all the way back in July?

That was her label head that came up with that idea. He said "if we're gonna make statement with 1989, why don't we make a statement with all your music about their inherent value?" and she agreed.

Oh ok :) Sorry my bad :hug:

British social ladies with upturned pinkies, glasses clinking // xoxoTEANUS
Link to post
Share on other sites

Taylor is on the wrong side of history with this one. I like her, but streaming is the future. 

 

She has millions anyways, so I doubt she's bothered by all of this.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I still see Taylor being the martyr for the bigger issue at hand: streaming doesn't pay out anywhere close to what it generates. I don't think the issue remains solely on Taylor wanting more money, I see it rather that with her celebrity and name she's taking a stance on what these services should be giving to ALL artists for use of their product.  

 

$333,333,333.33 per year to an incredibly wide community of artists isn't in reality that much when you take things into consideration. Among these includes the fact that it's only a small percentage of artists who garner a large amount of that money. The man who made the comment also doesn't take into consideration that all the money generated would or wouldn't have been album sales or even pirated copies. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...