Taylor Swift

[Edu 3,961]

She is having ha moment

Similar to what happened when she first started, it's a new beggining for her (her 'debut' as pop singer)

[Robotboy 1,700]

she loses money on it. i certanly wont go buy her albums but i would stream some of her songs. she will lose in the long run especially since more and more people sees the light and start streaming

[Nemo 4,291]

Yes, she is right, she is not the only person that loses money but in the long run, she earns 80 million per year.

What has that got to do with anything? If she's losing money on the service, then why on Earth should she continue using it? As a gift to you?

[Spock 20,290]

Oh look, it's this thread/post again!

 

All the while people are calling her greedy, Taylor is

in her four US mansions, celebrating the iconic smash that is 1989.

 

She doesn't need your $9 a month subscription fee

 

Did you know that according to a study BuzzFeed did, artists on Spotify earn like 16 cents for 300 plays?

 

She didn't pull her music because she's greedy, she did it because it's worth a lot more than 16 cents. The fact that you are not rich like her has nothing to do with the fact that there's a value on music, and 16 cents ain't gonna cut it.

 

If you want to listen to it for free, pirate it
 

[Gagz 2,579]

Isn't it greedy to think you just deserve to stream it for free?

[RAMROD 109,223]

IDC about streaming trend.

So I thinkbshe is doing the right thing and wish more people would follow suit.

Get the CD.

[Miker 5,683]

If you want to listen, then pay otherwise don't listen. What has greed got to do with it? :roll:

[Navy 495]

Oh shut up. I really don't see the logic in this at all. So just because other people get paid $8.00 a hour Taylor shouldn't make millions? Stupid thread

[Teal Ambition 47,805]

If you want to listen, then pay otherwise don't listen. What has greed got to do with it? :roll:

This.

 

And don't act like the music isn't anywhere else on the internet. You can find it anywhere these days if REALLY don't want to pay for it.

[Applause 650]

Taylor isn't greedy. She doesn't set the prices. Her label does; her bosses. 

[StrawberryBlond 14,819]

Taylor owns 4 multi-million residences, has bought her parents a mansion, owns a private jet and airport hanger and makes over $50 million a year (and is grows richer every year). All this despite only releasing music in an era when music buying is at an all-time low. She's unspeakably rich and streaming would barely affect her. Why is it always some of the richest artists who get butthurt about the concept of some people listening to their music for a cheap price or for free? They have more money than they know what to do with and they're not going to lose it. Yet, some of the poorest artists get right behind streaming because they know that getting their music listened to, even if it's for free, means exposure, which generates sales and they're grateful for every penny they make. They're just happy earning enough money to live comfortably and are just happy that their music is getting listened to and streaming hightens that chance. I can't help thinking that artists who don't get behind streaming are afraid of the public finding out that their music is rubbish by listening to it for free on the day of release and then deciding not to buy it. They want to make their music unattainable, so the only way to hear it is to buy it. And there's only one reason why that would be: fear of missing out on potential sales from would-be blind purchasers.

I certainly don't blame people for listening to albums for free before buying, as so many albums this year have been utter letdowns. I never buy an album until I've listened to it for free and deemed it to be of a standard high enough that it deserves my money. Nothing worse than buying an album where the only good track is the lead single. So many artists think they can get away with releasing 2-3 amazing songs as singles and then making the rest of the album half-assed filler/complete garbage. Well, with streaming, we can put paid to that business plan.

[svvior 61]

She's saying that artists aren't making a profit off of their work when it's being streamed. Newer artists with smaller fanbases make practically nothing off of streaming when you could just buy a song.

[Redstreak 6,653]

Taylor owns 4 multi-million residences, has bought her parents a mansion, owns a private jet and airport hanger and makes over $50 million a year (and is grows richer every year). All this despite only releasing music in an era when music buying is at an all-time low. She's unspeakably rich and streaming would barely affect her. Why is it always some of the richest artists who get butthurt about the concept of some people listening to their music for a cheap price or for free? They have more money than they know what to do with and they're not going to lose it. Yet, some of the poorest artists get right behind streaming because they know that getting their music listened to, even if it's for free, means exposure, which generates sales and they're grateful for every penny they make. They're just happy earning enough money to live comfortably and are just happy that their music is getting listened to and streaming hightens that chance. I can't help thinking that artists who don't get behind streaming are afraid of the public finding out that their music is rubbish by listening to it for free on the day of release and then deciding not to buy it. They want to make their music unattainable, so the only way to hear it is to buy it. And there's only one reason why that would be: fear of missing out on potential sales from would-be blind purchasers.

I certainly don't blame people for listening to albums for free before buying, as so many albums this year have been utter letdowns. I never buy an album until I've listened to it for free and deemed it to be of a standard high enough that it deserves my money. Nothing worse than buying an album where the only good track is the lead single. So many artists think they can get away with releasing 2-3 amazing songs as singles and then making the rest of the album half-assed filler/complete garbage. Well, with streaming, we can put paid to that business plan.

But it doesn't really help unknown artists all that much, sure it's easier for people to find them, but unlike those on forums who know the impact of actually buying the record, why would a majority spend bucks on an unknown group that they just get right there for free? The reason album and single sales are literally dying is because you now have a legal methods of just listening to everything whenever you want for free, so saying that it would boost indie sales seems to go against the evidence.

[inuborg 4,136]

Just download it for free like i did

[Guest]

Why is everyone acting like Taylor logged onto Spotify's system and personally deleted all of her music? You realize her record company probably did this just because of how tremendously this album is selling. That's gonna raise sales for her other albums too, and they're just capitalizing on that. Beyoncé's latest album has yet to be added to Spotify, and we're nearing the 1 year anniversary of its release. The label didn't add it to streaming services because they want more money. Just because Taylor's label took her past albums off doesn't mean they aren't doing the same thing that Beyoncé's label did, and not a goddamn person said anything about BEYONCÉ not being available on Spotify or called her greedy, so why are we doing it to Taylor? Most record labels are only interested in the money. Have we not learned that from the ARTPOP era?!