Taylor Swift called "entitled" by former Spotify Exec

[Taylucifer 4,925]

it's incredible how some people just completely miss the point

[Future Lovers 5,698]

I swear people would defend the grossest things imaginable just as long as it worked against Taylor Swift. It is absolutely not about her, this creep just name dropped her because she was one of the biggest voices calling Spotify out for how fat their wallets get while they hand the artists scraps. Everyone deserves fair compensation for their hard work, and that includes musicians. Sure, massive artists have other revenue streams, but they’re the only ones that can seriously call attention to this because if the smaller artists who ARE suffering the consequences of Spotify’s policies, nobody hear them. And if they were heard, they would not be listened to. 

[MOT 2,195]

The idea of a Spotify exec describing someone like Taylor Swift as 'entitled' and meaning it as a criticism .... hilarious. Of course she's entitled. She's the artist.

Separately, wiith the concert tour postponed what would be the point in Gaga promoting Chromatica ?

[StrawberryBlond 13,476]

10 hours ago, Jill said:

This is like giving a dollar to a homeless man and expecting him to say "thanks" to you because "$1 is better than nothing". Artists deserve fair compensation. It doesn't matter if they want it or not; it doesn't matter if the alternative is worse. They're workers like the rest of us, and as such, they deserve to have a living (or better yet, thriving) wage. I'm tired of people belittling artists and their contribution to society.

You can't compare a homeless person to a multimillionaire and act like the stakes are the same. Millionaires have money, altogether too much of it in some cases. They already are thriving, they were thriving before streaming even existed. People living on minimum wage who can barely keep a roof over their head and food on the table? They're the ones who need a decent living wage. World famous singers with multiple homes? They've got more than enough already and could actually give some back. I once saw someone say that singers are crying because they don't make money from music like they used to so now they have to get a regular swimming pool instead of the gold plated one. That's what we're dealing with. I'm not feeling sorry for that and laugh at any notion that I should.

[Thomas P 18,383]

14 minutes ago, StrawberryBlond said:

You can't compare a homeless person to a multimillionaire and act like the stakes are the same. Millionaires have money, altogether too much of it in some cases. They already are thriving, they were thriving before streaming even existed. People living on minimum wage who can barely keep a roof over their head and food on the table? They're the ones who need a decent living wage. World famous singers with multiple homes? They've got more than enough already and could actually give some back. I once saw someone say that singers are crying because they don't make money from music like they used to so now they have to get a regular swimming pool instead of the gold plated one. That's what we're dealing with. I'm not feeling sorry for that and laugh at any notion that I should.

You completely missed the analogy. You originally said that indie artists who are making scraps for their art would be grateful for the $0.0001 they get because it’s “better than nothing”, and they explained that this would be like saying a homeless person should be grateful for the $1 they receive from a passerby because it’s better than nothing. 

[thefamebitch 695]

Considering that corporate executives are usually the most disgustingly overpaid, cut-throat and greedy people with no regard for their peers let alone the workers underneath them so… I’ll side with Taylor on this one 

[Pink Narcissus 298]

She’s Taylor swift.  Yes she’s entitled 

[Pharamon 6,766]

'A history of Taylor Swift’s odd, conflicting stances on streaming services'

^ google this article and you can see Swift's hypocrisy in regards to streaming services

[thisguyN 616]

19 hours ago, Kadikaado said:

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.

I don’t agree with the notion of music subscription services being the ‘new’ radio. This is not any different than a vinyl or casette, only the medium has changed. So the artists should get paid fairly for the work they produce.

If Spotify is on the red line of profit, then they can consider increasing the fees, that’s their problem. It’s like a music labels manufacturing and selling official CDs for 0.5$ and then saying we won’t pay artists cuz we don’t earn enough. How is this any different than piracy then? Price can’t be lower than cost.

After all, consuming music has never been this cheap in history, and it has to be sustainable for artists to earn enough so they can make more music. There is no other way. Not every recording artist has to (or can even if they want to) make their profit from concerts or merchandise. That is whole another business.

[thisguyN 616]

1 hour ago, StrawberryBlond said:

You can't compare a homeless person to a multimillionaire and act like the stakes are the same. Millionaires have money, altogether too much of it in some cases. They already are thriving, they were thriving before streaming even existed. People living on minimum wage who can barely keep a roof over their head and food on the table? They're the ones who need a decent living wage. World famous singers with multiple homes? They've got more than enough already and could actually give some back. I once saw someone say that singers are crying because they don't make money from music like they used to so now they have to get a regular swimming pool instead of the gold plated one. That's what we're dealing with. I'm not feeling sorry for that and laugh at any notion that I should.

This isn’t about multimillionaire artists though. Indie artists rely on the music they sell, and don’t have the options to tour the world or sell jockstraps (nothing wrong with it either though). They put out a product and they have to be paid fairly just like anybody else.

and even for the ultra-rich artists, they are rich for a reason most of the time, and them being rich doesn’t mean they shouldn’t get paid fairly than any other worker. They work and produce material just like anybody else. 

[StrawberryBlond 13,476]

1 hour ago, Thomas P said:

You completely missed the analogy. You originally said that indie artists who are making scraps for their art would be grateful for the $0.0001 they get because it’s “better than nothing”, and they explained that this would be like saying a homeless person should be grateful for the $1 they receive from a passerby because it’s better than nothing. 

I really didn't. Even the lower tier artists aren't homeless so you really can't compare. Homeless analogies are best not used at all as they're far too extreme and make things out to be worse than they actually are. It's a fact of life that the less you have, the more grateful you are for every little thing. I know I am. I've put my art out for free and am grateful for one compliment, never mind a million and money isn't even applicable. Ok, I'm not making a living out of it but the idea still stands. Why don't you see the indie artists speaking about this stuff? Because they don't care, they actually champion streaming as it gives them a platform and money that they didn't have before.

1 minute ago, thisguyN said:

This isn’t about multimillionaire artists though. Indie artists rely on the music they sell, and don’t have the options to tour the world or sell jockstraps (nothing wrong with it either though). They put out a product and they have to be paid fairly just like anybody else.

and even for the ultra-rich artists, they are rich for a reason most of the time, and them being rich doesn’t mean they shouldn’t get paid fairly than any other worker. They work and produce material just like anybody else. 

I'm not saying I don't support them. If they get paid more for it, great, but I want to see the concern coming from them, not from big names who don't need extra money. I just can't get behind the rich bemoaning the fact that they're not even richer. They already have millions of fans who buy their music. Taylor is probably the second most successful female artist after Adele right now, one of the few females who can generate multi-million sales per album without fail. What issues does she have? If I had that success, I'd be on my knees every day, thanking God and money would be the least of my worries.

[Versace 7,496]

Oh so she is entitled but you the corporate pig are not when it comes to benefiting off her own damn music and music of the many artists that put of food on your table? The irony 

Songwriters and indie artists are heavily underpaid from streams in case you didn’t know. But watch them make Taylor a villain again for doing the right thing yet again. 

[Roseblud Kisses 685]

I feel two ways about this: Yes Taylor is "entitled", but she is entitled to feel entitled!  After all, she *IS* the music industry, so how she does things or doesn't do things needs to be respected. It's strictly business. This Spotify nobody, though he may be right, is just bitter and reaching for relevance. So I support Tay in that regard 

On the other hand, she really doesn't care for small artists! Quite the contrary. Nor should she have to, of course. But her recent comments are so hypocritical, as others have noticed. She DOESN'T care about indie artists. But nor should she 

[thisguyN 616]

5 hours ago, StrawberryBlond said:

I really didn't. Even the lower tier artists aren't homeless so you really can't compare. Homeless analogies are best not used at all as they're far too extreme and make things out to be worse than they actually are. It's a fact of life that the less you have, the more grateful you are for every little thing. I know I am. I've put my art out for free and am grateful for one compliment, never mind a million and money isn't even applicable. Ok, I'm not making a living out of it but the idea still stands. Why don't you see the indie artists speaking about this stuff? Because they don't care, they actually champion streaming as it gives them a platform and money that they didn't have before.

I'm not saying I don't support them. If they get paid more for it, great, but I want to see the concern coming from them, not from big names who don't need extra money. I just can't get behind the rich bemoaning the fact that they're not even richer. They already have millions of fans who buy their music. Taylor is probably the second most successful female artist after Adele right now, one of the few females who can generate multi-million sales per album without fail. What issues does she have? If I had that success, I'd be on my knees every day, thanking God and money would be the least of my worries.

Exactly because of the reason that Taylor is one of the biggest names in the music industry, she also has the responsibility to put forward the issues that her peers face. A random indie artist with 10k followers won’t be heard by the music industry giants, but when Taylor talks, people will listen. I hate the type of music she makes, but damn she is vocal about these issues, and uses her platform,  while everybody else including our fave is keeping silence.