Taylor Swift called "entitled" by former Spotify Exec

[zakariah 11,718]

it surprises me that there are people who still believe she did it for herself. she was obviously using her privilege to benefit smaller indie artists who had no means to take on a big company like Spotify. it just so happens what she did would benefit not only herself, but ALL artists. 

[jorja 1,149]

Oh wow, another white male talking sh*t, who would've thought 

[LandonM170 686]

She is entitled because she wants everyone including herself to get payed fair. I swear some people have the nerve. This is why Capitalism sucks because it is only about getting the most profit you can, and this shows.

[Illuminati 15,921]

No wonder he was fired

[INNA 3,660]

This is just saying that he hates her for advocating for better revenue for smaller artists. Thinly veiled greed mmmmm

[JohnWayne92 2,151]

18 minutes ago, zakariah said:

it surprises me that there are people who still believe she did it for herself. she was obviously using her privilege to benefit smaller indie artists who had no means to take on a big company like Spotify. it just so happens what she did would benefit not only herself, but ALL artists. 

The stuff people don’t like to know about Taylor, sadly 

[SchwineLove 1,374]

Well, i think she has the right to be entitled. She's freaking Taylor Swift. Now it will be a problem if a nobody is being entitled.

[Kadikaado 4,302]

I believe it's a yes and a no.

 

Yes because if you work you are entitled to receive accordingly to your work.

 

No because streaming is current radio and artists don't get payed by radios, on the contrary, radios promote artists and so does the streaming services.

 

But at the same time streaming made a revolution on how we consume music. People stopped paying for music because music is always available for free on streaming apps. So people don't need to buy music anymore. Unless you are really famous and people want to support your work anyway. And this sucks for minor artists and independent artists. Artists should get their money somehow.

I pay for Spotify because I want to support the artists I believe in. It's cheaper than buying albums. I also buy the albums of artists I really want to support because I think it's fair. But at the same I won't buy the album of an artist I only like 2 songs.

At same time selling albums was never the major source of income to ANY major artist. Selling ticket shows make much more money for artists. That's where they get their fortune from. Selling albums and singles is the way MUSIC LABELS get money. Of course they get a margin of shows profits as well and that's only fair because they aren't charity and they are the ones paying for artists music videos, photoshoots, sessions on studios, promo, performances on awards etc. etc. etc.

That's why I always think it's cringe when an artist says that their label treats them as a money machine. Of course they are, they invest millions on an artist, they must receive a profit in return. They aren't promoting an artist for charity, they are a business like any other.

 

So in the end of the day artists and labels need to get their amount of money from streaming. Streaming is a solution for piracy, it gives artists money, but at the same time it's a small amount of money and they wouldn't get any from piracy. What is truly needed is more sponsors for streaming services, but at the same time people hate listening to the sponsors and want to get the content from artists for free. So we need to think what is truly ethical. It's not like Spotify is making a lot of money, it actually is on the red, it spends more money paying artists than they get from subscription and ads. Should we abolish legal streaming and go back to piracy? I don't think so.

[Living 1,583]

I don’t get why anyone has Spotify, the company is garbage who pays little to nothing to artists and treats it staff like 💩

[artdoll 46,107]

someone correct me if I'm wrong but I'm pretty sure I read somewhere that other music streaming services, I believe Apple Music pay artists 1 penny per stream whereas Spotify pays them like 0.85 or 0.80 a penny or something like that?

[Guest]

Imagine calling someone titled for demanding X for their work. haha

[Pretty Please 634]

Poses an interesting question as to “who needs who more”?

 

does spotify need the artists more because there wouldnt be content to stream without them? Or do the artists need them more because of the prevalence of piracy/need to be relevant?

[MadreMonster 2,584]

19 minutes ago, Living said:

I don’t get why anyone has Spotify, the company is garbage who pays little to nothing to artists and treats it staff like 💩

As does literally 99% of any major corporation  they are nearly all the same.

[Living 1,583]

12 minutes ago, MadreMonster said:

As does literally 99% of any major corporation  they are nearly all the same.

Tea

[dit 46,398]

Is he dumb? It's not about TAYLOR making that much more...it's about the smaller artists who could for sure use that little hike up in streaming revenue shares.