A note from our future President
June 23, 2015 6:00 AM Subscribe

About seven months after pulling her music from Spotify due to low royalties (previously), Taylor Swift posted a note to her Tumblr asking Apple to pay royalties for songs streamed during the free trial of its upcoming Apple Music service. Within 24 hours, Apple agreed.
posted by almostmanda (196 comments total) 21 users marked this as a favorite

I am sure there is backlash coming, or maybe it already arrived, but damn, Taylor Swift is pretty awesome. She keeps surprising me in utterly pleasant ways.
posted by Kitteh at 6:04 AM on June 23, 2015 [16 favorites]

Details have not been revealed, but it looks like artists will still get less during the trial.
posted by blue_beetle at 6:06 AM on June 23, 2015

I am sure there is backlash coming

The biggest backlash I've seen is from photographers complaining about the contract they are forced to sign in order to photograph Swift's concerts. The contract requires photographers to give up all rights to their photos without compensation. It's standard in music photography, though it being standard doesn't make it any better.

There's another contract that I saw posted yesterday for the 1989 concert tour, which is even worse. If you fail to comply with the awful contract, you allow Swift and her agents to confiscate and destroy any devices that contain the photos.

On preview, Gungo beat me to it.
posted by msbrauer at 6:12 AM on June 23, 2015 [14 favorites]

I am sure there is backlash coming, or maybe it already arrived, but damn, Taylor Swift is pretty awesome.

If I've learned anything at all from the Internet, it's that there will eventually be a backlash for everything.

Can't wait for the kitten backlash. That'll be interesting.
posted by bondcliff at 6:18 AM on June 23, 2015 [11 favorites]

Maybe we should ask Taylor Swift to write a Tumblr post asking NBC not to cancel Hannibal.
posted by Windigo at 6:19 AM on June 23, 2015 [42 favorites]

Man, fuck kittens. >:-(
posted by Swandive at 6:19 AM on June 23, 2015 [9 favorites]

Way to go Apple, giving Taylor Swift more power!

Steve is so waiting for you Tim.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 6:24 AM on June 23, 2015

She has the market power to force Apple to pay her. I give her credit for using that power to get Apple to pay everybody.
posted by burden at 6:24 AM on June 23, 2015 [26 favorites]

This was masterfully done. No snide remarks or whining, no throwing shade, no "reports from the Swift camp", just a direct, simple and reasonable request made in full view of her billions of fans, giving Apple zero options. Taylor and her management team are absolute PR geniuses.
posted by Rock Steady at 6:26 AM on June 23, 2015 [20 favorites]

The anti-Swift backlash has always been there, in the same ways that the anti-woman-in-popular-music backlash always is: "She's just a singer, and it's all autotune anyway. She doesn't really write anything. She makes the real songwriters give her writing credit so she gets more of their money. Her producers do all the heavy lifting. She's just a focus-grouped and primped and styled mannequin."
posted by Etrigan at 6:27 AM on June 23, 2015 [24 favorites]

Don't get too excited people, Taylor Swift is a monkey's paw. She's probably a secret Ayn Radian or something.
posted by blue_beetle at 6:27 AM on June 23, 2015 [2 favorites]

"Don't be stingy, Apple," said Taylor, royally.
posted by octobersurprise at 6:28 AM on June 23, 2015 [23 favorites]

Apple should just start their own label. still a 70/30 split with the artist taking care of recording and tours and Apple distributing...
posted by judson at 6:32 AM on June 23, 2015 [4 favorites]

maybe pop concerts could be documented by the sketch artists that used to do courtroom scenes
posted by thelonius at 6:32 AM on June 23, 2015 [24 favorites]

Trying to avoid paying royalties during "free" trials was such a brazen, shitty move to begin with, it's no wonder Apple bent when it went mainstream (if only just enough to get it to quiet down).

So many people seemed okay with it when it was announced--oh, Apple "isn't making money" from the plays? Then why should they pay? Gee, maybe because they're exploiting your work to sell a product? Maybe you'd like to protect your piddling revenue stream before it's eroded even further. Just a thought.

Also TayTay is basically the best, but I will not be even a little bit surprised when she turns back into Ursula.
posted by uncleozzy at 6:33 AM on June 23, 2015 [2 favorites]

A note from our future President

Why would she want a position with less power and influence than she already has?
posted by aught at 6:34 AM on June 23, 2015 [37 favorites]

There are some complaints about how fiercely she has pursued individual sellers providing stuff with her lyrics on them on Etsy, for example. As much as she is a kind of America's Sweetheart, this really just is in her own financial interest.

Not that there's anything wrong with acting in self-interest, but this is a pretty simple story about a girl who didn't like the terms of a contract and got them changed.

(that being said, i am absolutely enamoured with Taylor Swift and really want to be her best friend irl)
posted by one of these days at 6:39 AM on June 23, 2015

I am sure there is backlash coming, or maybe it already arrived, but damn, Taylor Swift is pretty awesome.

My personal backlash is that there are not nearly as many cat photos on her tumblr as I was led to believe.
posted by poffin boffin at 6:40 AM on June 23, 2015 [11 favorites]

If you fail to comply with the awful contract, you allow Swift and her agents to confiscate and destroy any devices that contain the photos.

In context it's pretty clear that the "destroy devices" is if you try to take photos outside of the designated area and during a song you're not allowed to take pictures during, not that if you put it on your webpage without permission they'll come and break your laptop.
posted by jeather at 6:41 AM on June 23, 2015 [1 favorite]

i wouldn't say i've seen backlash, exactly - but rather people recognizing that the reaction to this letter and, say, jay-z over at tidal has been pretty stark. thedream gave an interview at billboard where he touches on this some.

Taylor Swift and Big Machine pulled her music from Spotify. As a label owner and creator, do you support that?
I can support it, but I could never do the same. I’m black.

Meaning what?
It’s a race thing. It’s always going to be a race thing

[...]

I think my good friend Jay Z said it best: Apple makes a billion dollars doing something; we have no problem with it. We’ll buy 8,000 iPhones. But if a black man does it, immediately people say, “Wait, hasn’t he already made enough money?”

i'm glad taylor swift had the societal power to get that done and i'm glad it wasn't met with cries of "how much money do you think you deserve!?!" but, yeah, i also noticed how different the reactions were (which, of course, part of is down to a tumblr post vs whatever that tidal announcement was - but not fully, i don't think).
posted by nadawi at 6:43 AM on June 23, 2015 [11 favorites]

My personal backlash is that there are not nearly as many cat photos on her tumblr as I was led to believe.

here's a pretty cute video of meredith the cat drinking water
posted by nadawi at 6:46 AM on June 23, 2015 [2 favorites]

This is what happens when you're good at Infosec.
posted by drezdn at 6:50 AM on June 23, 2015 [33 favorites]

Anyone know what it is about Apple Music's royalty model that has persuaded Taylor Swift to allow her music on there? From the limited info I've seen the revenue share percentage is very similar to Spotify's (maybe a couple of points higher), so I'm a little confused on the different approach from her in each case.

Apple is larger. And Swift hasn't agreed to put 1989 on Apple streaming.

Man, Apple really fucked this up. They should have cut a deal with her so she would do a live performance at the announcement. That would have been gold right there.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 6:50 AM on June 23, 2015 [1 favorite]

I've assumed cynically this was Apple's plan all along, to "backtrack" and pay the artists to look generous. It seems to have worked in the court of public opinion, my Twitter feed was full of "look how nice and responsive Apple is!". But maybe Apple's just awful enough to think not paying artists for the music they stream to build their buessin was legitimate. Either way, fuck distribution monopolies.
posted by Nelson at 6:51 AM on June 23, 2015 [7 favorites]

Everybody wins. Swift gets royalties and people thinking of her when signing up for Apple Music, and Apple gets exposure for Apple Music and the meme in people's brains that they're "better for artists" than Spotify, which is important for them as they try to kill the freemium model (for music, of course)
posted by RobotVoodooPower at 6:51 AM on June 23, 2015 [1 favorite]

Good for her! I normally ignore her music with a passion, but this changes things... I now feel compelled to torrent her entire music catalog!
posted by markkraft at 6:53 AM on June 23, 2015 [17 favorites]

I totally think Apple screwed the pooch on this, I mean, some idiot bean counter thought they were saving a little money and managed to really bungle a detail of a major product relaunch.

That having been said, I also think this has less to do with Taylor Swift's album than it does to do with the fact that had Apple not handled this quickly, search results for "Apple" and "Swift" would have been filled with undead negative PR stories for years instead of the programming language stuff people were actually searching for.
posted by trackofalljades at 6:54 AM on June 23, 2015 [8 favorites]

I've assumed cynically this was Apple's plan all along, to "backtrack" and pay the artists to look generous.

Yup, I don't believe a machine as large and immovable as Apple makes any decision in 24 hours, especially on a Sunday. Especially since artists will probably get less during the trial, this is all a fake controversy to make them look generous. Whether Swift is part of it, or just the first artist to complain, I'm not sure.
posted by stobor at 6:58 AM on June 23, 2015 [6 favorites]

Why does she allow radio stations to play her music? Same logic, different delivery system.
posted by Roger Dodger at 6:59 AM on June 23, 2015

maybe pop concerts could be documented by the sketch artists that used to do courtroom scenes

Prince already does this., only with music critics acting as sketch artists (more evidence)
posted by dinty_moore at 6:59 AM on June 23, 2015 [3 favorites]

Why does she allow radio stations to play her music?

ASCAP. Apple Music is nothing like radio in business structure.

(Also correcting myself above; "buessin" is a hell of a typo for "business".)
posted by Nelson at 7:03 AM on June 23, 2015 [7 favorites]

Thanks! I knew there must be an explanation.
posted by Roger Dodger at 7:03 AM on June 23, 2015

Man, Apple really fucked this up. They should have cut a deal with her so she would do a live performance at the announcement.

I'm not even sure Taylor Swift riding a unicycle holding sparklers balancing a stack of plates on her head could have saved that announcement. Seriously, "a complete thought around music?" Who cares? We still have to use iTunes to back up our photos.
posted by RobotVoodooPower at 7:05 AM on June 23, 2015

Man, fuck kittens. >:-(

Most states, man fuck kittens, man go jail.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 7:09 AM on June 23, 2015 [8 favorites]

There were other groups that protested the free trial from the get-go, especially Beggars Group. Word was that most indie labels were not signing on, especially ones trying to launch big album releases over the next 90 days. So did TSwift just give the final shove to the rock, or was Apple ignoring everyone until this thing blew up over a weekend?

Also, the app developers continue to be displeased.
posted by JoeZydeco at 7:11 AM on June 23, 2015 [3 favorites]

To me, the whole thing is about as big a victory for recording artists as when Michael Jackson became the first artist to make MTV pay for airing his album's ~~promotional ads~~ music videos.

This whole thing has absolutely nothing to do with your average recording artist, with a couple of albums and relatively average sales under their belt... because you know what the most common royalty amount is that most of them get from each download or listen via Apple, or Spotify, or any other royalty-paying site, service, or radio station?

Nothing. The most common amount that bands get for all their royalties is nothing. The money gets sent to record labels, who are able to use the contractual terms they have with performers to keep them permanently in hock, to the point that even when they do get money, most of the time, the labels simply choose not to even do the accounting.

They could owe the band, or they could not owe the band, but they choose to presumptively not owe the band, because that is the most cost-effective way -- for them -- of dealing with it.

The fact is, the labels only pay any real money to a very small percent of their artists who are tracked and accounted for, and who obviously get a lot of royalties, and have the legal representation needed to see to it that they get paid.
posted by markkraft at 7:11 AM on June 23, 2015 [5 favorites]

I could not actually name a Taylor Swift song, although probably if you played me one I'd go, oh, yeah, I've heard that. But I sort of had her filed in my mind as one of those pop blonde Brittney Spears types, popular but not very substantial. Is that wrong?
posted by JanetLand at 7:14 AM on June 23, 2015

Yes.
posted by Lemurrhea at 7:16 AM on June 23, 2015 [44 favorites]

jonnyploy: "Anyone know what it is about Apple Music's royalty model that has persuaded Taylor Swift to allow her music on there?"

Nothing - Taylor Swift hasn't actually allowed her music on Apple Music yet at all. Part of the apparent brilliance of her move: she's still in the position of bargaining over this, and I'm sure she and her agents will hammer out something fairly lucrative if she does actually go ahead and join up with Apple Music. But that's not a done deal yet, as far as I can tell.
posted by koeselitz at 7:17 AM on June 23, 2015

Details have not been revealed, but it looks like artists will still get less during the trial.

Well, the payment system has to be completely different, because the normal royalties involve essentially paying artists "their share" of the total monthly fees (or 71% of them), based on overall plays. If the monthly fee is zero, their share would be zero.
posted by smackfu at 7:17 AM on June 23, 2015 [1 favorite]

Everybody wins.

Swift and Apple are going to get paid, sure. We're going to have to pay more though. That's the whole point of the new Apple service.
posted by bonehead at 7:18 AM on June 23, 2015

(Let me state for the record that, as a 45 year old white dude, I'm not exactly in TS' demographic, so I was absolutely stunned to find that 1989 is just about as perfect a gem of a pop album as I think can be created. I'd say check it out on Spotify, but, well...

Anyway, it's one of the few records actually ripped into our car's hard drive. That's an eclectic setlist that includes both Swift, Black Sabbath, and Robert Ellis.)
posted by uberchet at 7:19 AM on June 23, 2015 [5 favorites]

This problem was easier than most for Apple to solve.
posted by infinitewindow at 7:21 AM on June 23, 2015 [11 favorites]

Yeah, pretty much, JanetLand. (And I say that as somebody who'd go to the mat for Britney Spears too.) Check out her wikipedia page to see her already fairly long career. She's been writing her own songs forever, and though I don't think that necessarily makes you a "better" artist when it comes to pop music, I think it does mean you can judge Taylor Swift a little differently.

I don't want to bring any of the ugliness of yesterday's Kim Kardashian thread into here, but I do think there's a lot of interesting stuff going on with famous women celebrities using traditionally feminine characteristics that are part of their media personae to their business advantage.
posted by MCMikeNamara at 7:21 AM on June 23, 2015 [7 favorites]

1989 is just about as perfect a gem of a pop album as I think can be created

Yes! It is so really very good.
posted by sweetkid at 7:21 AM on June 23, 2015 [1 favorite]

It's interesting to see how tight a grip Taylor Swift has on her music, in general. You think "everything is on YouTube now", but try to find some songs from 1989 that aren't singles yet, and you will come up empty. Mislabelled cover songs and muted audio galore!
posted by smackfu at 7:22 AM on June 23, 2015

I've never been very impressed with Taylor Swift. She stays up too late, has nothing on her brain, goes on too many dates but can't make them stay. That's what I say. That's what I say.
posted by gwint at 7:22 AM on June 23, 2015 [51 favorites]

I feel like Taylor Swift already had a frontlash before people liked her. Maybe she's just in the eye of the lash.
posted by GenjiandProust at 7:27 AM on June 23, 2015 [6 favorites]

I will always side with creators wanting to retain the value generated by the things they create.

In the vast majority of situations, promoters and distributors have all the leverage over artists. Taylor Swift is one of the lucky few to have reversed the situation. Good on her for using the leverage afforded to her.
posted by dry white toast at 7:30 AM on June 23, 2015 [2 favorites]

When I first read Apple's "We'll pay them," the first thing that passed my mind was, "... But not full freight."

The thing that makes Apple so awful (this time) is that music fans are fickle. And Apple knows this. A hit can be massive and then be gone. So Apple will reap the benefits of allowing a free trial whereas it's possible that the most played songs of those trial days doesn't get played at all once the person signs up. However, that particular song was instrumental in turning a lurker into a customer. And essentially Apple has fucked over the artist that's made them money.

One of the many reasons I've grown from a fanboi into a hater of this company. Hoping to be Apple-free later this year whereas I used to own iPads, laptops, desktops, iPhones... they're business practices just do not sit right with me and I won't give them a dime going forward.
posted by You Should See the Other Guy at 7:30 AM on June 23, 2015

She a billion dollar business. I'm sure when her management, who I'm assuming made the original deal with Apple, brought this to her attention to give her the option of making a statement as a way to force Apple's hand. Apple would have lost millions right off the bat not to mention a lot of good will had they not conceded. This all business 101 stuff and hardly some heroic act by Taylor Swift. With that said, good for her and her management for standing up to Apple.

As for the photography contract stuff, I'm a photographer and I deal with people and corporations who spend a ton of money creating personas that generates revenue. It's not just musicians. Athletes, actors and other artists do the same thing and they have a product to protect. Taylor Swift also has an extremely adversarial relationship with the celebrity press who has a vested interest in creating stories to generate revenue/ page views/ subscriptions/ etc. Every music act has a rights-grabbing contract that they try and get photographers and writers to sign because it's in their interest to protect their image. As a newspaper photographer back-in-the-day I refused to sign several contracts at a handful of concerts and was shown the door. One show in particular I remember walking out on was Prince.

Bottom line is it's all business. Don't hate the player, hate the game.
posted by photoslob at 7:34 AM on June 23, 2015 [9 favorites]

Assuming this was not an act of media play as suggested above, I find it interesting that Apple couldn't just pay royalties out of the gate, and it didn't take a musician's rights group or good data to convince them... it took Taylor Swift.
posted by koucha at 7:34 AM on June 23, 2015

"Everybody wins."

Except us... and most musicians, who get none of their royalties. For Apple, they have to weigh the cost vs. the positive publicity.

But hey, every label wins, and that's what counts!
posted by markkraft at 7:38 AM on June 23, 2015 [4 favorites]

Check out her wikipedia page to see her already fairly long career.

Hmmm, fascinating.
posted by JanetLand at 7:41 AM on June 23, 2015

Except us...

I guess, in the sense that we would have got the free three months regardless of whether Apple paid the artists.
posted by smackfu at 7:45 AM on June 23, 2015

I think it's some futureworld level shit when a super powerful and badass megapop star can wield her Tumblr Sword Of Justice at the richest corporation on earth, do battle with the leviathan and win her battle in a single blow.
posted by Annika Cicada at 7:45 AM on June 23, 2015 [5 favorites]

That anyone at Apple would dare to announce the company wouldn't be paying royalties during its free trial is such a clear sign of upper corporate culture gone completely fucking amok that's it's astonishing to me anyone could still have any good feelings at all left toward the company.

That they refused to respond to any of the complaints until an artist who could make them tons of cash spoke up is just another sign of that deeply shitty upper corporate culture.
posted by mediareport at 7:50 AM on June 23, 2015 [4 favorites]

Metafilter: Who is Taylor Swift? Check out her Wikipedia page.
posted by Nelson at 7:52 AM on June 23, 2015 [13 favorites]

That they refused to respond to any of the complaints until an artist who could make them tons of cash spoke up is just another sign of that deeply shitty upper corporate culture.

This isn't just upper corporate culture, this is the entertainment business all around. I'm sure that Apple genuinely thought, "It'll be good for the artists to be heard during this free trial, and when people sign up for the service, that's when they'll make their money." Which is something that basically every creative person ever has heard for their entire career: "It'll be great exposure!"
posted by Etrigan at 7:56 AM on June 23, 2015 [5 favorites]

Anyone know what it is about Apple Music's royalty model that has persuaded Taylor Swift to allow her music on there?

The reason she's not on Spotify is because of the free tier. She was open to her music being available to paying subscribers only, but Spotify doesn't currently do that. Apple Music, on the other hand, does not have a permanent free tier.
posted by Lentrohamsanin at 7:59 AM on June 23, 2015 [1 favorite]

Way back when I signed up for Spotify I thought, "the labels hate this, they're going to kill it in five years when they get bored and want more revenue." I was a couple years late, but it seems to me they're using Apple as a wedge to do just that.

I like Spotify's democratized playlist sharing more than Apple's "expert" playlists, so I'll be sticking with them for now. I really don't like the idea of verticals having such great influence, especially if there's collusion involved -- which they haven't shied from in the past.
posted by RobotVoodooPower at 8:00 AM on June 23, 2015 [1 favorite]

Which is something that basically every creative person ever has heard for their entire career: "It'll be great exposure!"

This is what many young musicians believe, even. It has nothing to do with Apple's corporate culture and everything to do with the general devaluation of creative work. Notice: work.
posted by uncleozzy at 8:01 AM on June 23, 2015 [5 favorites]

The Spotify issue seems to be to a significant degree hiding and hogging revenue by the labels, the usual bad guys in these conversations.

Apple is attractive largely because she doesn't have to deal with the labels.
posted by bonehead at 8:03 AM on June 23, 2015 [2 favorites]

That anyone at Apple would dare to announce the company wouldn't be paying royalties during its free trial

They didn't exactly announce it. They buried it in a contract.
posted by smackfu at 8:04 AM on June 23, 2015 [1 favorite]

i'm glad taylor swift had the societal power to get that done and i'm glad it wasn't met with cries of "how much money do you think you deserve!?!" but, yeah, i also noticed how different the reactions were (which, of course, part of is down to a tumblr post vs whatever that tidal announcement was - but not fully, i don't think).

Heh, it's two completely different things. Tidal was a tsunami of bullcrap but well intentioned ideas, with a completely obnoxious media campaign from the start, that pulled fans/former fans (and obviously haters) from a multitude of backgrounds, that ended up in one of the most cringe-inducing announcements in a very long time. The equivalent of the G8 making an announcement to end world poverty, with David Cameron saying how he wants to help the little guy around the world and Angela Merkel signing it with one leg up the table and Putin with a stuffed bear head because he didn't want to be recognized. Swift decided to make a tumblr post very politely saying "fuck you, don't you realize how this might affect some young producer who could pocket a few 100ks if they have a hit in the summer and fail to follow on that?"

What I'm surprised is how Trent Reznor - who's one of the people behind Apple Music - hasn't immediately quit over this, considering his fierce pro-artist stance on the past 10 years or so. Either he sold out to a really cushy desk in Cupertino and a steady paycheck, or this was in fact just some wrestling style face turn mixed up with lawyer strategies - first threaten to give 0 out of 100, and then "settle" for 60 out of 100 "because we're not evil and totally back the Artists". Not saying Swift was on it, but someone on Apple might have well plotted to some big artist reacting to it in advance, giving it even more coverage than yet another streaming service would have, and already had the retraction planned.
posted by lmfsilva at 8:04 AM on June 23, 2015 [3 favorites]

Apple should just start their own label.

I don't even know if they could get away with it, but I'm curious if Apple will ever go that route. Sooner or later it's just the next step, isn't it?
posted by Nonsteroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drug at 8:06 AM on June 23, 2015

Is that wrong?

I'm not really a fan of her music; I actually don't know if I've ever heard one of her songs or not. But I really admire and enjoy the way that she navigates a media landscape that is, from the start, stacked against her because of her gender and her age. And I think in that sense she is a good role model for other young female artists. She also communicates with her fans much in the same way that Nicki Minaj does, with a lot of praise for their accomplishments and a lot of encouragement to succeed in ways that don't have the same kind of pressure and negativity that most teens and preteens are otherwise receiving from home and from society in general.
posted by poffin boffin at 8:09 AM on June 23, 2015 [15 favorites]

You know, I wouldn't be surprised if this was the plan all along.

Because if any press is good press....
posted by eriko at 8:09 AM on June 23, 2015 [1 favorite]

I totally think Apple screwed the pooch on this, I mean, some idiot bean counter thought they were saving a little money and managed to really bungle a detail of a major product relaunch.

Idiot bean counter? What makes you think this didn't come from the top?
posted by rocket88 at 8:11 AM on June 23, 2015

Now write a letter to bring back upgradable RAM.
posted by dirigibleman at 8:12 AM on June 23, 2015 [11 favorites]

My favorite Taylor Swift fact:

“I don’t like showing my belly button. When you start showing your belly button then you’re really committing to the midriff thing,” she explained. “I only partially commit to the midriff thing — you’re only seeing lower rib cage. I don’t want people to know if I have one or not.”--

posted by uncleozzy at 8:13 AM on June 23, 2015 [20 favorites]

I mean in general if someone names any popular young female celebrity, you can pretty much always take your first (usually negative) reaction to her and look at it as whatever you've been fed by a media whose job it is to demonize and dramatize their every move, and discard it as garbage. I think the media (and of course our own internalized kneejerk misogyny) has a whole lot to answer for in regards to not just Taylor, but Britney as well, and Kristen Stewart, and my god the list could literally just go on forever.
posted by poffin boffin at 8:14 AM on June 23, 2015 [11 favorites]

I don't know anything about TS, and this was a boneheaded thing for Apple to have done - and for the publishers to have agreed to.

What was interesting me, though, was last night on CBS news, they had a segment on this. They spent 30 seconds discussing the contretemps between TS and Apple, and the next 3 minutes slamming the fuck out of Pandora. Spotify, rDio, LastFM, etc. were never mentioned. It was a total hit piece and about as objective as an advertisement.

I'm very curious as to what was driving that editorial decision.
posted by Pogo_Fuzzybutt at 8:15 AM on June 23, 2015 [1 favorite]

Nonsteroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drug: "I don't even know if they could get away with it, but I'm curious if Apple will ever go that route. Sooner or later it's just the next step, isn't it?"

Weirdly, they would probably end up calling it Beats Recordings or something.
posted by Rock Steady at 8:15 AM on June 23, 2015 [1 favorite]

Idiot bean counter? What makes you think this didn't come from the top?

Yeah, Eddie Cue, the head of this stuff, has a pretty old reputation for driving hard deals.
posted by smackfu at 8:24 AM on June 23, 2015 [3 favorites]

Red helped Gentleman Caller get through a difficult time at work when one of his coworkers threw him under the bus. Her song about Kanye, in particular, really resonated with him. I've always kind of liked Taylor because of that, and learning about all the good things she does makes me like her a little more. This was pretty rad of her.
posted by pxe2000 at 8:31 AM on June 23, 2015 [1 favorite]

What I love is how many people completely ignore the fact that she acknowledged in her letter that she doesn't actually need this money and that she can pay her people & herself with what she earns on live shows. She's more concerned with indie and new artists.

God forbid someone famous have the same "look out for other people" ethic that us little people want to believe we have ourselves, right? I mean that's just unpossible!

Every time I hear someone criticize Taylor Swift, I wind up with a lower opinion of the critic.
posted by scaryblackdeath at 8:43 AM on June 23, 2015 [26 favorites]

I go back and forth on Taylor Swift. Her music is catchy. She's undeniably powerful and intelligent and talented. I think it's great how she's been casting shade on the media that demonized her, I think it's fantastic that she's determinedly dragging herself out from under the weight the media and public tried to hang from her shoulders. That she was able to use her power and clout successfully in this case is admirable.

But I object mightily to her demonization of free-level streaming options. It doesn't sit well with me, because what it says to me is, "I only want the fans with access to money."

I'm not TSwift's demographic, being primarily an old grunge-rock loving lady. But I have been a teenager (I mean all of us have yes) in a family who tightly controlled what she was allowed to spend money on. I had no allowance. If I bought music, it had to be by Christian artists, if I went to concerts, same thing. So had TSwift been around in the 90's, I would not have reliably had access to the cash needed to buy her CD or go to her concerts. I would have only been able to enjoy her music on the radio.

Kids like I was still exist. Spotify's free level (which still pays the artists!) and the radio (Big Machine has successfully negotiated royalty payments from the former Clear Channel corporation, is my understanding - which is unprecedented) and YouTube (ad revenue!) are their only access to music their parents don't control. Maybe they'll have a generous friend who'll burn their CDs onto a flash drive, too (no revenue for an artist here, oops). I don't like the message from a powerful role model that the only fans worth having are the ones who can literally pay for the privilege. I don't like that Scott Borchetta (head of Taylor's Big Machine label) is so out of touch that he says stuff like, “We never wanted to embarrass a fan. If this fan went and purchased the record, CD, iTunes, wherever, and then their friends go, ‘Why did you pay for it? It’s free on Spotify.’ We’re being completely disrespectful to that superfan who wants to invest.”

I mean, does anyone actually think for one second that it's the kids with the money to buy the CDs and merch who will be embarrassed? Seems to me these sorts of things are blithely assumed by people who have never had to worry about money.

I believe in just and fair compensation for artists, I feel like the labels need to be a lot more generous about the revenue portions they pay out to the people who create the product they sell, I definitely feel like Spotify and similar services need to do more to encourage the freeloading cheapskates that do exist to bump up to their paid level and if they can pay more to the artists, they should do so. I am opposed to the "work for exposure" gambit, having been on the poor artist worker bee side of the fence.

But I also feel like it should be remembered that there are some fans who don't pay for things literally because they can't, and it doesn't make them any less of a fan, and they shouldn't be made to feel like they might be bad people because they can't afford to drop $13 on an album.
posted by angeline at 8:49 AM on June 23, 2015 [17 favorites]

I got curious about Taylor Swift's music after reading about Apple's instant capitulation before her politely worded Tumblr post, so I listened to a few of her hits. "Shake It Off" is hyper-catchy and lighter than helium; I would listen to it with enjoyment again (ideally on a car radio) despite the cringey spoken part. The other three or four tracks I forgot practically while I was listening to them.

Earl Sweatshirt doesn't like the "Shake It Off" video, and I see his point, though it's strange to hear someone from Odd Future going off on another artist for being offensive.
posted by FrauMaschine at 8:53 AM on June 23, 2015 [1 favorite]

"She's more concerned with indie and new artists."

It's a shame, then, that big label exploitation prevents the vast majority of indie and new artists from getting royalties.

If only big artists would use their influence with major record labels to create, essentially, a recording artist's bill of rights... a set pf common standards of integrity and basic decency that record labels are expected to follow.

Taylor Swift is right that she doesn't need the money to exist. But if the root problem isn't dealt with by those with leverage over the big labels, then all she is accomplishing here is making more money, despite the best intentions.
posted by markkraft at 8:53 AM on June 23, 2015 [1 favorite]

Taylor Swift vs. Apple: nobody wins
posted by blucevalo at 8:55 AM on June 23, 2015

earl sweatshirt is a pretty different person before and after his experience at a samoan reform school (not to mention that odd future is a thing of the past).
posted by nadawi at 8:58 AM on June 23, 2015 [1 favorite]

There were figures a few years ago showing that around 2/3 of people under 20 listened to music via Youtube, while just over half listened to radio and just under half used iTunes (people use multiple sources, so there's overlap). It's the elephant in the room in this conversation.
posted by bonehead at 9:00 AM on June 23, 2015 [1 favorite]

I'm just glad Swiftian can be redefined now.
posted by odinsdream at 6:20 AM on June 23 [1 favorite +] [!]

I just assumed she was already eating babies as part of her deal with the devil.
posted by chavenet at 9:00 AM on June 23, 2015 [5 favorites]

But I object mightily to her demonization of free-level streaming options. It doesn't sit well with me, because what it says to me is, "I only want the fans with access to money."

On the one hand, the quote from Scott Borchetta is not great (and honestly pretty weird), and Taylor absolutely is a business woman; her business is set up to make her money, with all the merchandise and product endorsement and multiple lines of perfume that that implies. On the other hand, if the only way you have to listen to music is through the radio, good news! This will in no way shape or form inhibit you listening to as much Taylor as you could want, and I say this as someone who is swimming deeper in the Taylor fan pool than most (though by no means the deep end, Lord). She's also pretty quick to take down her recent stuff that's floating around on YouTube, but older stuff doesn't seem to be a high priority. I don't even own the three bonus tracks off Red, but they're pretty easy to find on YouTube.
posted by Bulgaroktonos at 9:03 AM on June 23, 2015 [1 favorite]

This makes the rumours going around earlier this year that Apple was interested in buying Swift's label (Swift's parents own 3%) more interesting.
posted by RobotVoodooPower at 9:13 AM on June 23, 2015

I took the last 4 dollars in my bank account last year to buy my 4 favorite songs off Red on amazon. They downloaded to my phone and got me through a really spectacularly shitty summer of homelessness and gender transition. Easily the best 4 dollars I ever spent. Those songs nourished what I needed longer than 4 bucks worth of rice would have nourished my belly...So while I get the concern about "poor people" not being able to access her stuff, there's the flipside where being able to pay for something you appreciate requires sacrifice and you do it because art is important and needs to supported, no matter how dig you have to deep sometimes.
posted by Annika Cicada at 9:14 AM on June 23, 2015 [8 favorites]

Pay you? Fuck me.
posted by thelonius at 9:22 AM on June 23, 2015

I was mostly thinking of poor kids, specifically, poor kids being made to feel shitty because Big Machine's message is coming off as "you're not good enough for us as a fan because you don't have money." Not adults who get to make the choice between food and music.
posted by angeline at 9:24 AM on June 23, 2015

I was mostly thinking of poor kids, specifically, poor kids being made to feel shitty because Big Machine's message is coming off as "you're not good enough for us as a fan because you don't have money."

How does this make her different from every other form of entertainment?
posted by Etrigan at 9:26 AM on June 23, 2015 [3 favorites]

At least you can pirate CDs from your friends.
posted by smackfu at 9:27 AM on June 23, 2015 [1 favorite]

Etrigan: it doesn't, but since she's marketed pretty specifically to teenage girls who have enough problems getting on these days, it just irritates me an extra amount.
posted by angeline at 9:28 AM on June 23, 2015 [1 favorite]

Idiot bean counter? What makes you think this didn't come from the top?

Yeah, Eddie Cue, the head of this stuff, has a pretty old reputation for driving hard deals.

It is funny that "idiot bean counter" and "executive" are always treated as if they were orthogonal. One gets to shit on the grunts and massage the ego of "world changers", all in one go!
posted by sylvanshine at 9:35 AM on June 23, 2015 [1 favorite]

i would love to be a poor teen today with regards to music access. when my family was eating unlabeled dented cans in a southern trailer park back in the 80s i had to buy tapes i didn't want at yard sales, put scotch tape over the hole, and then record the songs i wanted off the radio - which of course was limited to what the radio would play in my town.
posted by nadawi at 9:36 AM on June 23, 2015 [5 favorites]

The modern version of taping seems to be ripping youtube videos.
posted by bonehead at 9:37 AM on June 23, 2015 [1 favorite]

What the heck is going on at Apple? They're giving interviews, responding to criticism, and seem to be eager to participate in the media circus.

This is a complete change of course from the company's impenetrable approach to PR for the past 15 or so years.

And, yeah. Apple should have gotten out of the music business when it had the chance.

The Balkanization of media consumption and delivery is nuts right now.
posted by schmod at 9:37 AM on June 23, 2015 [2 favorites]

Spotify pays artists .008 cents per play.

Seems awfully low.
posted by Thistledown at 9:37 AM on June 23, 2015

Youtube is notoriously close-mouthed as to their payout scheme, but it seems to be something like 1/10th of a cent per view, or a buck or two per thousand views. If right, then Spotify is paying 8% or less of the Youtube rate.
posted by bonehead at 9:42 AM on June 23, 2015

Perhaps Taylor can lend a hand/openletter to these folks.
posted by Poldo at 9:43 AM on June 23, 2015 [1 favorite]

This is a complete change of course from the company's impenetrable approach to PR for the past 15 or so years.

Their old PR person retired in mid-2014.
posted by smackfu at 9:43 AM on June 23, 2015 [1 favorite]

If you manage your time correctly, there's no reason why you can't get down & out about the liars and the dirty dirty cheats of the world AND get down to this... sick.... BEAT.
posted by dr_dank at 9:46 AM on June 23, 2015 [5 favorites]

The modern version of taping seems to be ripping youtube videos.

or tumblr audio, or passing of download codes, or ripping limited promotional streams, or torrenting
posted by nadawi at 9:49 AM on June 23, 2015

The Verge on the situation -- Taylor Swift vs. Apple: nobody wins (subtitle: A heartwarming victory for the status quo)

So what was this? A victory for Taylor Swift? A victory for Apple, which turned a day of headlines about Swift withholding 1989 into a day of Taylor Swift victory laps? A victory for consumers? A victory for the music industry?

Turns out it's none of the above. Instead, it's a victory for the status quo, which remains steadfastly in place even as Apple insists that its new music service will save the industry from plummeting streaming royalties just as the iPod and iTunes saved it from piracy.

Apple is duplicating the Spotify "freemium" model, with the hopes that their dedicated userbase with iDevices will have an increased percentage of users shifting from the free model with its low per-play payback to the subscription model with its higher per-play payback. So unless you're a musician or band on the level of Taylor Swift, you won't make much from the 3 months, or the period after that.
posted by filthy light thief at 9:55 AM on June 23, 2015

Hoping, praying for Taylor Swift to sing a duet with that other music industry fighter, David Lowrey.
posted by ZenMasterThis at 9:58 AM on June 23, 2015

So... random hypothetical question. Would more money go to artists if, say, someone were to youtube/torrent whatever they felt like and then bought an mp3 album off of amazon every month or so rather than just subscribing to a paid streaming like spotify?
posted by Zalzidrax at 10:09 AM on June 23, 2015

I don't think Swift has ever needed the money, seeing as her dad bought her record label for $120,000 when she was 16.
posted by colie at 10:13 AM on June 23, 2015 [1 favorite]

supporting independent artists directly is still the way i go - bandcamp, kickstarter, paypal, however they ask me to give them money. for small labels, if they give the option, i purchase straight from their site. i also have a paid spotify account - but i don't do it for any sort of fuzzy "pay the artist" mentality - i do it because it's a service i find useful. the major labels fuck over their artists and from a consumer point of view there's very little i can do to help that - which is why i support indies and small labels, so they won't have to go to the majors to try to make a living.
posted by nadawi at 10:18 AM on June 23, 2015 [1 favorite]

To be honest, I've been seeing a fair number of (particularly younger) artists these days going along more the lines of "if you can afford it, buy our records or a shirt and come to our shows, if you can't, well, that sucks, but thanks for being a fan anyway".

While Swift's media presence is commendable and seems a pretty decent and very likeable person, I don't think anyone should confuse that with, or expect, some sort of punk rock, working class solidarity. She will care and speak out on these issues if her bottom line is being affected. If tomorrow any service with her stuff would implement a program where the top performing artists would have a hard cap on payouts substantially lower than her average payout, with anything over it redistributed to new artists in the middle-low tiers, we'd have another "Taylor Swift pulls x, y and z from service" headline.
posted by lmfsilva at 10:19 AM on June 23, 2015 [2 favorites]

Looks like Google is finally getting into the ad-supported streaming radio business, too.

Which led me to another question -- can shared playlists be susceptible to payola? Turns out there's a cottage industry springing up devoted to pay-to-promote on user playlists. Which makes me wonder if Apple/Spotify/Google/etc see control of their own "expertly curated playlists" as a future vehicle for paid promotion also, free of FCC oversight.

Ok, off to listen to Tom Petty's "The Last DJ" again.
posted by RobotVoodooPower at 10:24 AM on June 23, 2015 [2 favorites]

When I linked some media friends to that article, I immediately got rants back. As mentioned up thread the Swift team is absolute shit to deal with. My best friend has a long list of stories about those contracts that she makes people sign, and has kicked more than one excessively aggressive Swift staffmember out of her room. Given that, I don't question her commitment to new artists, but find her letter hypocritical.

She's also yet one more person who used Black women as props (see: the "Shake It Off" video), so I'm inclined to give her a HUGE "fuck you" on the strength of that alone*, but usually the best middle finger I can give is my indifference/lack of page clicks.

*Because that crap is inexcusable and damaging no matter how her fans try to spin it
posted by Ashen at 10:26 AM on June 23, 2015 [9 favorites]

I dunno: until there's a system where my monthly fee gets divvied up between the artists *I* actually listen to rather than going mostly or entirely to 'Top 100' types (like Swift) whose music I never listen to, I'd say things remain unfair and broken. Despite the current brouhaha, no one's calling for a real change to this part of the streaming music infrastructure. Apple changing their mind about the trial likely makes no difference to 99.999% of artists out there. Essentially Swift is making hay out of nothing.
posted by Insert Clever Name Here at 10:39 AM on June 23, 2015

my monthly fee gets divvied up between the artists *I* actually listen to

I actually thought that's how it worked! Plays = $ for the artist? Is that not the case?
posted by cell divide at 10:42 AM on June 23, 2015

I actually thought that's how it worked! Plays = $ for the artist? Is that not the case?

What happens is that everyone's subscription fees are thrown into one master kitty, from which shares are doled out based on overall statistics. The problem with this is it favors broadly popular artists over niche artists with solid fanbases.

A suggested solution is for every subscriber's fee to be treated as its own unique kitty, divided solely among the artists that listener streamed. This would benefit smaller acts with small but dedicated fanbases.
posted by NoxAeternum at 10:50 AM on June 23, 2015

Not gonna weigh in on whether free streaming is bad for artists or not because I haven't got a clue, but I definitely think "Hey we are having a sale where we give other peoples' stuff away for free!" is a questionable approach and I'm not sure why Apple shouldn't just shoulder the cost of their own promotions.
posted by Hoopo at 10:54 AM on June 23, 2015

Not wrong. Wikipedia: "Swift caught the attention of Scott Borchetta, a DreamWorks Records executive who was preparing to form his own independent record label, Big Machine Records. She became one of the label's first signings, with her father purchasing a three per cent stake in the fledgling company at an estimated cost of $120,000."

When you're 16, your dad isn't usually dropping 120k on you and your acoustic guitar. He is telling you to shut that goddamm racket up. I can handle her music fine, but the 'aw shucks little ol' me' routine is just too much.
posted by colie at 10:57 AM on June 23, 2015 [3 favorites]

I actually thought that's how it worked! Plays = $ for the artist? Is that not the case?

If you are a Spotify subscriber and you spend an entire month listening to albums by a single artist, that artist does not get the entire artist's share of your $9.99. They get the share of the total amount of artist revenue relative to their overall popularity. So if you're the only person listening to their album, even though it's all you listened to, they could wind up with effectively 0 income from that. Buying albums and radio play create more of the correlation that you're expecting, since there are systems set up to try and create that equivalence.
posted by camcgee at 11:00 AM on June 23, 2015

When you're 16, your dad isn't usually dropping 120k on you and your acoustic guitar. He is telling you to shut that goddamm racket up. I can handle her music fine, but the 'aw shucks little ol' me' routine is just too much.

I'm sure Mr. Swift isn't sorry about the choice he made.
posted by Bulgaroktonos at 11:03 AM on June 23, 2015 [2 favorites]

When you're 16, your dad isn't usually dropping 120k on you and your acoustic guitar

Yeah, rich kid who got a killer break, but ... why does that make her a phony? I mean, would you or I have had the same success if our dads had owned a minority stake in a record label? (Almost certainly not.) A parent who evidently had a ton of money to gamble recognized genuine talent and invested in it. If my kid is as good at anything as 16-year-old Taylor was at music, I'd probably go into hock supporting her. Not to the tune of the price of a house in Cleveland, but ...
posted by uncleozzy at 11:05 AM on June 23, 2015 [1 favorite]

Not to the tune of the price of a house in Cleveland, but ...

Wait wait wait. You can get houses in Cleveland for $120,000?
posted by Bulgaroktonos at 11:07 AM on June 23, 2015 [2 favorites]

Not to the tune of the price of a house in Cleveland, but ...

I didn't realize that VCRs were $120k in Cleveland.
posted by pxe2000 at 11:09 AM on June 23, 2015 [2 favorites]

From Techdirt: Taylor Swift is not the savior artists need.
posted by COD at 11:12 AM on June 23, 2015

A couple comments deleted. Just to get out ahead of this a bit: let's not veer off into a very general "Taylor Swift, threat or menace" thing; that's a recipe for pointless angry derails. Plenty to talk about in this actual situation.
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 11:13 AM on June 23, 2015 [1 favorite]

She's a nightmare wrapped in a daydream! She says so herself! Can't you people see what's right in front of you!?
posted by prize bull octorok at 11:15 AM on June 23, 2015 [3 favorites]

that was a swift turnaround
posted by East Manitoba Regional Junior Kabaddi Champion '94 at 11:16 AM on June 23, 2015 [2 favorites]

"I could show you incredible things"

SHE'S A CENOBITE! ARE YOU ALL BLIND!?
posted by prize bull octorok at 11:26 AM on June 23, 2015 [1 favorite]

As an iOS developer, anything Apple can do to minimize the "Apple Swift" collateral search engine damage is deeply appreciated.
posted by ~ at 11:27 AM on June 23, 2015 [4 favorites]

"I could show you incredible things"

Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion? C-beams glittering in the dark near the Tannhäuser Gate?
posted by chavenet at 11:32 AM on June 23, 2015 [3 favorites]

From Techdirt: Taylor Swift is not the savior artists need.

Mike Masnick bitching that artists aren't kowtowing to their tech betters and saviors?

Yup, day ending in "y".
posted by NoxAeternum at 11:38 AM on June 23, 2015

"Saw you there, and i thought, oh my god, look at that face. how magnificent it would look in my face collection."

"I say, "i hate you," we break up, you call me, "i love you." i hiss, "i said not to call again." millions of spiders pour out of your iphone"

If you're on Twitter and you're not following EldritchSwift, you're missing out and the Old Ones will remember your failures when they rise.
posted by scaryblackdeath at 11:48 AM on June 23, 2015 [5 favorites]

I recently met an engineer from Apple at the San Jose Bike Party. He told me he decided to leave the company, and told Apple management how much they suck and how he hated the 16, 17-hour days, etc, and they wrote him a big check. Then a few days later he said, essentially, "you know what, you guys really suck, fuck you" and they gave him another check. So in conclusion, someone telling Apple "hey, you suck!" and then Apple being like "hey, you know what, you're right, we do suck, here's a check" does not seem to be an uncommon occurrence. Now if you'll excuse me I have to go tell Apple they suck.
posted by DrAmerica at 12:02 PM on June 23, 2015 [2 favorites]

It just irks me that the Beatle's record label would be so mercenary. Wait....What?....Never mind.
posted by TDavis at 12:12 PM on June 23, 2015

But I object mightily to her demonization of free-level streaming options. It doesn't sit well with me, because what it says to me is, "I only want the fans with access to money."

Between YouTube, torrents, uploaded.net, and good-ole' FM radio, I would think approximately zero teens who can't afford to buy Taylor Swift's music are unable to listen to it.
posted by straight at 12:14 PM on June 23, 2015 [3 favorites]

How very Amanda Palmer of her, since Taylor, like Amanda has solicited unpaid work from her fans, and pros alike, I'm amazed that she would be so adamant about getting paid for her work. Throwing stones

False comparison. If you hire a photographer to take photos of you at a concert you yourself produce, they shouldn't have rights to resell the pictures you've paid them to shoot for you.
posted by discopolo at 12:24 PM on June 23, 2015 [4 favorites]

Yes, I apologize for apparently failing utterly to make it clear that it's the "only money kids welcome at my fan table" message from every teenage girl's best music buddy to which I object. I understand that yes! Kids these days can do all sorts of things, some of them not so much legal, to get their hands on music. I do know that. I wish they didn't have to, because torrenting gets no money to an artist whereas streaming, while in desperate need of a better system, has something of a chance of doing so.

Or not, since Labels are Evil. Maybe it is true that no one can win.
posted by angeline at 12:25 PM on June 23, 2015

I can think of a bunch of good reasons why Swift shouldn't allow contract photographers to milk "their work" (images of her) for money and leave use of these images up to some photographer's discretion.

It's not the same. You're being invited into a private concert to do your work.
posted by discopolo at 12:31 PM on June 23, 2015

In addition to indie record labels criticizing the plan, there was also Anton Newcombe of Brian Jonestown Massacre. He ranted on twitter, complaining that he was told if he didn't allow BJM music on Apple Music for free for the three months then their songs would come off iTunes.
posted by mountmccabe at 12:33 PM on June 23, 2015

I actually thought that's how it worked! Plays = $ for the artist? Is that not the case?

Ideally, that's how it should work, in reality it's what NoxAeternum said. Of course, good luck implementing that. But just for fun and because I was bored:

Let's say, lmfsilva's streaming service was 10$ a month, and it takes a30%, $3 service fee to cover costs. According to last.fm, last 30 days I played 1720 tracks, so, it comes around to a laughable $0,004 for each play, even slightly below Spotify current rates. Mission of Burma (or their label) would get 93c, Fleetwood Mac would be 89c richer, Franz Ferdinand + Sparks gets 65c, Boards of Canada get 48c and PINS close the top 5 with 36c.
If I pushed to 3 months, the $21 would be victims to some, huh, compulsive Fleetwood Mac listening, cashing in $8.19 from 2119 plays, with a very slight drop in payouts (because, more listens).

Also, I would be paid 6c, with the 15 plays I did from myself to see if I wasn't self-plagiarizing. It would be going on my Lear Jet fund.
Ok, a desk model. A small one, is that ok?
Oh, fine, give me a piece of cheap paper with origami instructions *sobs*

If anyone wants to fool around with your own charts, service cost and fee, or limit to only, say top 10 artists (delete all plays from C11 and below) you can download it from Google Docs.
posted by lmfsilva at 12:51 PM on June 23, 2015 [2 favorites]

When you're 16, your dad isn't usually dropping 120k on you and your acoustic guitar.

She had a development deal already with a major record label that wasn't releasing her songs. She got the offer from Borchetta and made the decision to end her contract with major record label. Let's not cherry pick and be dismissive of her talent or the fact that her parents were supportive of her.
posted by discopolo at 12:54 PM on June 23, 2015 [2 favorites]

The idea that Apple is giving away other peoples stuff for their own promotion is not quite right. Every trial subscriber that becomes a paying subscriber pays money to both Apple and the Labels, not just Apple. In fact, they pay more to the Labels than they pay Apple. So, by Apple paying during the free period, you could just as easily claim that Apple is paying to make the Labels money. They are in it together. The problem is that the cost of customer acquisition is basically being amortized over 3 months, a very short period. Labels don't mind that, but any artist who had a good rush during that 3 months and doesn't have a long term career sure will. Even that seems to be a bit of a contrived argument. The decision by Apple was tone deaf, but I don't think it is unfair, at least not in the business context.

How much apple choses to pay during the trial period will be an interesting problem. They don't have revenue to split, so how do they decide how much to pay? A possible fair solution would be to measure some payouts in the months following the trial period, and then calculate the trial period payout based on that.
posted by Bovine Love at 12:55 PM on June 23, 2015

I don't understand the praise for Swift. I have no beef with her or her music but this comes off to me as utterly neutral business. Like, would you praise Coca-Cola for getting upset that Costco was selling their Coke for too little and it was making it hard for smaller Coke-vendors? It's just ... business. Transacted through social media (if you believe this was not pre-ordained, which I do not) but it's not "kick ass" any more than it's "kick ass" to negotiate, say, a new distribution deal. As has been noted above, the little guys have nothing to do with any of this.

More than the event itself, I think it's fascinating how this conversation almost immediately threw Swift into a Satan/Savior binary.
posted by Tevin at 1:00 PM on June 23, 2015 [3 favorites]

Every trial subscriber that becomes a paying subscriber pays money to both Apple and the Labels, not just Apple. So, by Apple paying during the free period, you could just as easily claim that Apple is paying to make the Labels money. They are in it together.

Yes, and also Dunkin Donuts doesn't have to pay their flour or sugar suppliers for ingredients used in donuts given out free on Donut Day, since next week those free donut eaters will pay for donuts.
posted by uncleozzy at 1:01 PM on June 23, 2015 [1 favorite]

Swift by Apple, Swift by Apple.
posted by signal at 1:02 PM on June 23, 2015

Spotify's streaming royalties were discussed in a previous FPP, based on someone's suggestion on how to make royalties more fair. The author eventually comes into the thread.

Personally I think the idea - payout the money from each user to the artists listened by that user - is a distraction. The effect is much the same as the current model of using one big kitty and paying from that. The only change is that someone that listens to 1400 streams a month doesn't get more influence than another person that only listens to 7 songs.

(By the current method each of those streams is treated equally, but the proposed method streams from the former user are worth half a cent each, while the streams from the person that barely used the service are worth a dollar each).
posted by mountmccabe at 1:11 PM on June 23, 2015

But I object mightily to her demonization of free-level streaming options. It doesn't sit well with me, because what it says to me is, "I only want the fans with access to money."

But she's got a lot of free access to her stuff -- all over youtube, I hear it on the radio a lot, etc, it's easily more accessible than music was for poor kids pre-internet, even without free streaming. I think she's mistaken about Spotify to some extent, but the "how dare this young woman put a material value on what she's created" (which I've seen around in general, not from you in particular), just seems like part of a sexist culture which doesn't approve of women who hold themselves out as being worth money/time/investment/more than sex.
posted by jeather at 1:15 PM on June 23, 2015 [2 favorites]

It's weird to me that people think everything she does is a calculated PR move. It tells me more about how sadly hypercynical that person is. Anyone who has ever met her knows her to be genuine, kind, caring, and a great person. Someone who strives to be authentically herself. She knows fame is most likely fleeting. Honestly, she pushes past all the negativity and remains positive and true to her opinion. She was fortunate to have intelligent parents and a loving family. She's only 25 years old. I think she's an amazing role model for young women and even the rest of us (not young women).

Being hypercynical is not necessarily being hypercritical or intelligent. It's just posturing, and that's disingenuous.
posted by discopolo at 3:52 PM on June 23, 2015

What the heck is going on at Apple? They're giving interviews, responding to criticism, and seem to be eager to participate in the media circus.

I was in a meeting with a high level Apple exec last week on a totally non-music issue - he said this was all down to Tim Cook.
posted by His thoughts were red thoughts at 3:56 PM on June 23, 2015

We really need the ability to post gifs here.
posted by desjardins at 5:07 PM on June 23, 2015 [6 favorites]

Yes, and also Dunkin Donuts doesn't have to pay their flour or sugar suppliers for ingredients used in donuts given out free on Donut Day, since next week those free donut eaters will pay for donuts.

If Dunkin Donuts paid 70% of its sales to flour and sugar providers, those providers may well sponsor a free donut day if they felt it would increase over all donut sales. Share promos like that are done all the time. The reason they don't is that Dunkin donuts pays them a pittance of the total sale. When you are paying out 70%+, that changes the equation.
posted by Bovine Love at 6:06 PM on June 23, 2015

Mission of Burma (or their label) would get 93c,

...from you. It sounds like nothing when you put it that way, but just ten thousand other lmfsilvas could turn this into making a living. (label accounting magic permitting)
posted by ctmf at 6:32 PM on June 23, 2015

When you are paying out 70%+, that changes the equation

Granted, Apple are probably paying fewer vendors than DD, but no one entity is getting that 70% since it all goes into one pot. Labels who are likely to see a smaller piece of that 70%--Big Machine has Swift and a number of big country acts, but it's nothing like a Warner, say--have a disincentive to subsidize the business.
posted by uncleozzy at 6:49 PM on June 23, 2015

What I'm surprised is how Trent Reznor - who's one of the people behind Apple Music - hasn't immediately quit over this, considering his fierce pro-artist stance on the past 10 years or so.

What? Criticize a dude in music? When there's a perfectly good woman to shit on? It's just not done, man!

Anyway, I'm kind of realizing why I didn't stay up late the other night to do this FPP. BUt I really appreciate almostmanda doing so.
posted by happyroach at 8:58 PM on June 23, 2015 [4 favorites]

I don't understand why T-Swift can't be both a genuinely kind, thoughtful positive person AND a super-savvy businesswoman who knows how to drive a hard deal and cannily utilise social media.

If you take away your own opinion of her and simply look at what she's actually done - carefully crafted and enacted a music career and public image, then methodically and meticulously changed that same public image & career while achieving enormous musical success and a somewhat-surprised critical acclaim - it seems fairly likely that she is, indeed, both.

I tend to come to the conclusion that she is just as thoughtful and sweet to her fans as she seems to be, but I don't see why this precludes her from being intelligent enough to also know how those things appear to the wider world and how they can affect her career.

I find it actually quite odd that people can think that someone who has retained as much continuous control over her career as she has wouldn't assume she's that savvy. That she answered the obvious criticism within her letter (by pointing out that her motivation here wasn't self-interest, since she doesn't need this revenue) shows that she's entirely aware of the PR aspects, even if they're not her goal.
posted by pseudonymph at 9:20 PM on June 23, 2015 [7 favorites]

...from you. It sounds like nothing when you put it that way, but just ten thousand other lmfsilvas could turn this into making a living. (label accounting magic permitting)

Oh, absolutely. Even if I was the only person in the world to listen to Mission of Burma, this months paycheck from me alone probably wouldn't be much lower than what they get from the label now, judging from some risible paychecks that appear online. Add in a few listeners when Pitchfork or FACT do a retrospective, some curated playlists, a new album, and some months could actually pay some bills for non-top 40 people.

A different, but also interesting question, is how track length would factor into it. For instance, Boards of Canada Geogaddi packs 23 tracks in 66 minutes. Those who tell the truth... by Explosions In The Sky is about 15 minutes shorter, but also has less 17 tracks. Some genres are heavily penalized by escaping from the usual 2:30/4:30 song length, and would require listeners with consistent tastes lengthwise to pay off. But this speculation might be going off topic a bit too much.
posted by lmfsilva at 10:24 PM on June 23, 2015

Response from Swift on the dumb comparison made by the photographer:

The standard photography agreement has been misrepresented in that it clearly states that any photographer shooting The 1989 World Tour has the opportunity for further use of said photographs with management’s approval.

‘Another distinct misrepresentation is the claim that the copyright of the photographs will be with anyone other than the photographer – this agreement does not transfer copyright away from the photographer.

‘Every artist has the right to and should protect the use of their name and likeness.’
posted by discopolo at 2:55 AM on June 24, 2015

I tend to come to the conclusion that she is just as thoughtful and sweet to her fans as she seems to be, but I don't see why this precludes her from being intelligent enough to also know how those things appear to the wider world and how they can affect her career.

I don't know if you're responding to my comment but in case you are:
She's obviously extremely intelligent (that's clear and a given); what I was responding to was the typical accusation from the dismissive which usually is that she's just some vapid Barbie who has a bunch of "smart men" orchestrating her every move and that nothing she does successfully is of her own doing. That she's disingenuous, and that anyone who thinks otherwise is being hoodwinked.

It's the whole "her dad bought her a record label/her career for her." It's weird and offensive.

There is no question that I sincerely believe she's very intelligent and that she's also very genuine. The intelligence is something that I don't even think is a question. But the discussions are usually over if she's being genuine or not. And I think she is and that she's also very gifted.
posted by discopolo at 3:13 AM on June 24, 2015 [1 favorite]

typical accusation from the dismissive which usually is that she's just some vapid Barbie who has a bunch of "smart men" orchestrating her every move and that nothing she does successfully is of her own doing.

I've never heard that. But it's just pop music, and it is true that Swift's first number one, and all her subsequent ones, came with a lot of co-writing input from Max Martin who'd done the same for the album that made Katy Perry huge. That's why she went to him. So it's a very successful move on her part, but the two records sound very similar.
posted by colie at 6:23 AM on June 24, 2015 [1 favorite]

colie, you have totally missed the point. She's co-written a lot of great songs, she's frequently collaborated with lots of people. There's nothing wrong with that. But this isn't just about her record or music.
posted by discopolo at 7:26 AM on June 24, 2015

Also, colie, you and I had the album discussion in the last Taylor Swift thread and I'm not interested in rehashing it, frankly. This isn't about the material on 1989---a phenomenally successful album worth buying. It's about how she's cultivated a loyal fanship in a really genuine and intelligent and human way, at the age of 25. And she holds her own. I think that's great and really fascinating. I find her really interesting, as a person.
posted by discopolo at 7:35 AM on June 24, 2015 [1 favorite]

having cowriters is so different from having all her moves orchestrated by smart men. i also very much disagree that red or 1989 sounds like katy perry's max martin stuff. taylor swift wouldn't do roar or teenage dream and katy perry wouldn't do blank space.

100% with nadawi on this (and pretty much everything, tbh)

(Also Taylor Swift didn't steal "Brave" like Perry did with "Roar.")

And if you compare Perry and Swift as personalities, Swift comes out as the more intelligent, more interesting, more thoughtful, and more articulate person every time.
posted by discopolo at 7:40 AM on June 24, 2015 [1 favorite]

And she holds her own. I think that's great and really fascinating. I find her really interesting, as a person.

That's cool, but conversations about music are also allowed.
posted by colie at 7:58 AM on June 24, 2015

sure, and disagreements about your read on the music are also allowed.
posted by nadawi at 8:00 AM on June 24, 2015 [1 favorite]

Well obviously. What I meant was that it's possible to like or dislike the music but also discuss it without constant reference to the perceived character of the artist.
posted by colie at 8:13 AM on June 24, 2015

maybe best to just make the arguments you want to make then, and not anchor them on a statement about the character of the artist when you're just wanting to talk about the music. it makes it seem like you're saying that cowriters are on the same level as women not being able to run their own businesses without an army of smart men in suits.
posted by nadawi at 8:23 AM on June 24, 2015 [3 favorites]

If you're as successful in the music industry as Swift (or Bon Jovi or Michael Jackson or whoever), then there must be an army of smart people around you who include writers, producers and money people. Simply working out where they fit into the puzzle is not the same as saying the artist at the centre of it all is not talented.
posted by colie at 9:33 AM on June 24, 2015 [1 favorite]

but it is a thing we only seem to hyper focus on it when it's women. weird.
posted by nadawi at 9:50 AM on June 24, 2015 [3 favorites]

Well my previous comments on Adele or Katy Perry should indicate that I'm not going after Swift because she is a woman. There are constant debates about how much George Martin or Brian Epstein had to do with the Beatles' success, and that's before you get into people putting down One Direction for being manufactured industry puppets.
posted by colie at 9:58 AM on June 24, 2015

adele hasn't even been mentioned in this thread? i'm not even really sure what you're getting at. taylor swift has cowriters, and? what does that have to do with her open letter to apple? or do you think max martin wrote that too?
posted by nadawi at 10:05 AM on June 24, 2015 [2 favorites]

This feels like it's sort of getting into a circular talking-about-what-we're-talking-about thing at this point, maybe just let it drop now.
posted by cortex (staff) at 10:08 AM on June 24, 2015 [1 favorite]

I don't want to argue tetchily so apologies if I came across that way. Her letter to Apple is relevant to her position of power in the music industry, as others have mentioned. Her position in the music industry is of interest on multiple levels, in terms of the stuff like getting 120k spent on her career at 16 (while Adele was living in a single room with her mum), or her label CEO's suggestion that she work with Max Martin specifically in order to cross over into pop

Did Adele already have a development deal with a major record label based on songwriting skills? also citations to Borchetta telling her to work with Martin are helpful. She also works with her friend Jack Antonoff who is vocal about not being interested in writing a Katy Perry type song with Swift.

Colie, I get what you're trying to insinuate and I don't know why that's so important to you. It just doesn't hold up.

Btw, Borchetta asked her specifically for country songs on 1989 and she wasn't interested. She's stayed with the big machine label because she likes the autonomy.
posted by discopolo at 1:30 PM on June 24, 2015

Did Adele already have a development deal with a major record label based on songwriting skills?

Adele was signed by an indie label in the UK based on demos of her songs, totally straightforward I think.

citations to Borchetta telling her to work with Martin are helpful.

Borchetta suggested Swift bring in Max Martin to give “Red” its musical infusion

Colie, I get what you're trying to insinuate and I don't know why that's so important to you.

I find it fascinating how some people who are just playing the same pop music game as everyone else get anointed with the holy water of authenticity and credibility and some don't - that's what Perry vs Swift is about. It's not that big of a deal, but getting called a sexist and told that I don't understand the true Taylor personality or whatever has made me continue the discussion - politely and cheerfully enough I hope.
posted by colie at 2:05 PM on June 24, 2015 [2 favorites]

Her position in the music industry is of interest on multiple levels, in terms of the stuff like getting 120k spent on her career at 16

also some people's parents give them the old car when they're 16. some people's parents even buy them a car! sometimes even a new car!! i demand to know why we let them have an opinion on traffic laws, even when they are adults who have been driving for many years
posted by kagredon at 2:06 PM on June 24, 2015 [1 favorite]

lmfsilva, are you me? minutemen, boards of canada and school of seven bells??
posted by joeblough at 3:51 PM on June 24, 2015 [2 favorites]

I find it fascinating how some people who are just playing the same pop music game as everyone else get anointed with the holy water of authenticity and credibility and some don't - that's what Perry vs Swift is about. It's not that big of a deal, but getting called a sexist and told that I don't understand the true Taylor personality or whatever has made me continue the discussion - politely and cheerfully enough I hope.

I don't think it's holy water and it's actually not much of a game either. It's the difference between having a strong foundation in a high stakes business and being a high school dropout with crazy parents.

Katy Perry, born in Santa Barbara, was not poor, had evangelical and extremely religious parents. She didn't have a support system. It's not her fault. She went with Christian pop rock at first. She dropped out of school. Also, Katy is unfortunately without a non-dysfunctional family support system. Her mom was smart and went to Berkeley but ended up being a Christian zealot. Katy didn't even have a decent, non-religious education. She can't write her own songs. Of course she's making weird song lyrics with plastic bags in them.

Swift had intelligent and professional and normalparents that loved and supported her hopes and dreams. She dropped out of school, did some easy Christian 2 yr homeschooling course she completed in less than a year. But she had really intelligent and cultured parents who weren't crazy religious. That alone enables her to reach heights other artists can't.

It's not a random choice of who is better poised for long term success. Swift is well brought up with a support system and parents who have protected her best interests because they are intelligent. She's been blessed with great parents. Everyone who has met her remarked how gracious and well brought up she is.

To be honest, it's simply the difference between Natalie Portman and Lindsay Lohan. People can resent and malign Swift and say she's had it easy, but she's going to be the one with staying power.
posted by discopolo at 4:22 PM on June 24, 2015

Yeah but Left Shark
posted by prize bull octorok at 4:38 PM on June 24, 2015 [6 favorites]

I dunno, also, be kind because everyone is facing a struggle. T-Swift's mom has cancer. I don't think finding painful life moments brag is the way to find out who's a true artist or not.
posted by sweetkid at 5:20 PM on June 24, 2015 [1 favorite]

I dunno, also, be kind because everyone is facing a struggle. T-Swift's mom has cancer. I don't think finding painful life moments brag is the way to find out who's a true artist or not.

Yeah, I don't mean that painful life moments or parents should dictate someone's trajectory or likeability or anything. I definitely didn't mean it in the sense of who is the true artist. I most meant that Swift has been blessed with emotional resources and an emotional fortitude, as well as intellectual gifts that will serve her well.

She's been lucky in the most fortunate way. She is realistic. She talks about what she'll do after she isn't making albums anymore, how she can see herself being a songwriter for artists and living a quiet life. She thinks about these things and plans for them.

It is in no way Perry's fault that her parents are not supportive or savvy. and I never meant to imply that. I only meant to say a good upbringing and familial safety nets and a strong support system make a difference in outcomes, and I suspect that's the reason Swift is Who she is, and uniquely gifted and poised for long term success in life. She's already excellent at building relationships with people in the entertainment industry and with her fans. There was an article talking about how her dad, Scott Swift (who enjoys photobombing and is generally just a positive guy), is one of the best financial advisors because he's gifted at genuinely taking an interest in people and just likes people. That's a really important characteristic to have, to be able to genuinely enjoy other people. Basically Taylor has great role models and the ability to build lasting bonds with people. And her mother has always been there for her and on her side. It makes a very important difference.

She's gifted, she's lucky, the world is her oyster.
posted by discopolo at 5:52 PM on June 24, 2015

Yeah but Left Shark

Oh right. The Super Bowl thing. I forgot about it because the Bad Blood video was amazing. Also

Btw, Swift allowed Louisa Wendorff to record and sell an amazing mashup of Blank Space/Style on iTunes. I bought it. It's incredible. Swift encourages and publicizes covers of her songs.
posted by discopolo at 6:00 PM on June 24, 2015

I don't really understand the comparisons between Swift and Perry. They have a totally different vibe/style to me, plus Katy Perry is 30, which is a little long in the tooth for the Mean Girls shenanigans they both seem to go in for. 25 to 30 isn't a huge difference but I'm less surprised by a 25 year old going in for some of that stuff. At 30 it's a little off.
posted by sweetkid at 6:10 PM on June 24, 2015

I dunno, joeblough. I've been up for way too many hours, and I'm not sure who I am anymore.

(but yay SVIIB and the cult of the weirdo scottish brothers!)
posted by lmfsilva at 1:36 AM on June 25, 2015

Katy Perry, born in Santa Barbara, was not poor, had evangelical and extremely religious parents. She didn't have a support system. It's not her fault. She went with Christian pop rock at first. She dropped out of school. Also, Katy is unfortunately without a non-dysfunctional family support system. Her mom was smart and went to Berkeley but ended up being a Christian zealot. Katy didn't even have a decent, non-religious education.
This was part of Perry's original narrative/packaging. It was the spin by her PR/management team, just as the "Taylor Swift grew up on a Christmas tree farm and knocked on Nashville doors when she was 9" was part of the narrative by the Swift team.

It is in no way Perry's fault that her parents are not supportive or savvy.
Perry's parents are savvy in a way different than Swift's parents. Perry's father was/is a successful charismatic preacher who built an international career doing what he did/does spanning almost 40 years. Many comment on the similarities between Perry and her father in terms of stage presence, charisma, the ability to work a crowd and get attention. Perry does have supportive family (her sister has accompanied her throughout her tours; they are very close), but this aspect is not as big a part of Perry's public-facing narrative as compared to Swift's.

Swift's father was a senior VP at Merrill Lynch, and it was a smart move to use his background, connections and knowledge to help his daughter get her start. (Buying part of her label was astute, and more artists should realize that it is beneficial to structure their debut similarly. It may not seem significant when you first start out, but it translates into a big accumulation - financially, and in terms of bargaining power - once your career gains momentum.)
Swift's father was not unique in this sense - Lady Gaga's father and Lana del Rey's father were also similarly business-savvy in propelling their daughters' careers. (E.g. Lady Gaga's father rejected the standard production/distribution deal proposed by Fusari, and instead insisted on forming 2 companies with Gaga (one of which Fusari also shared in ownership), that would own and manage the music created by Gaga and Fusari. Lana del Rey's father - a millionaire with a background in marketing - was involved in marketing and to some extent financing the beginnings of her career.) This however does not mean any of these female artists are necessarily mere puppets/figureheads in their own careers.

Comparing the influence of Katy Perry's parents vs the influence of Taylor Swift's parents is a bit like comparing apples to oranges. Each set of parents contributed positively in different ways. Neither set of positives is or will be absolute in determining "staying power".

Btw, Swift allowed Louisa Wendorff to record and sell an amazing mashup of Blank Space/Style on iTunes. I bought it. It's incredible. Swift encourages and publicizes covers of her songs.
This is not particularly unique (licensing covers out), and Swift receives a portion of royalties earned from Louisa Wendorff's mashup. It's a complementary product that Swift benefits from as well, so from a business (and PR) perspective, it's good to promote this.
posted by aielen at 4:05 AM on June 25, 2015 [3 favorites]

I don't really understand the comparisons between Swift and Perry.

It's simply because they've both shifted the most records in the female pure pop artist category in the last few years, both working from a limited vocal palette (unlike Lady Gaga or Adele) and using some of the same producers to help make their biggest hits.
posted by colie at 4:57 AM on June 25, 2015

aielen: " …is a bit like comparing apples to oranges…"

I've never understood this saying. Of course you can compare apples to oranges: by shape, color, size, smell, sweetness, calories, duration, skin type, availability, etc. It would make more sense to say something like "comparing a rock to the Cosmological Constant".
posted by signal at 5:48 AM on June 25, 2015 [2 favorites]

"It's like comparing apples to oranges [according to a rubric that inappropriately assumes one is comparing two objects of either one or the other of a single class from among the 2-ply set of classes that includes both apple and orange]" just doesn't roll off the tongue the same way.
posted by cortex at 6:13 AM on June 25, 2015 [3 favorites]

i'm just so glad that now we're talking about whether this woman with an opinion is famous for enough of the "right" reasons instead of the opinion
posted by kagredon at 8:23 AM on June 25, 2015 [2 favorites]

and that the way we're arbitrating it is by pitting her against another woman who hasn't commented on the issue at hand
posted by kagredon at 8:25 AM on June 25, 2015 [1 favorite]

pitting her against another woman

I thought Swift and Perry famously pitted themselves against each other, with the media's complicity.
posted by colie at 8:31 AM on June 25, 2015

Swift's father was a senior VP at Merrill Lynch, and it was a smart move to use his background,

I think you have to understand that he was/is a stockbroker/financial advisor, a profession that requires you to build your own client base. He wasn't an investment banker or trader or just some executive or even a hedge fund guy. He built his networks, he built his business and portfolio of clients.
posted by discopolo at 8:50 AM on June 25, 2015

Perry hasn't said anything recently about Apple/streaming royalties (and stuff she's said in the past has not been discussed in here at all, though that would at least be a relevant and interesting reason to compare them.) William Shatner and George Takei (well okay William Shatner and lots of people) also famously have beef with one another, doesn't mean we hash out their relative merits every time one of them says something.
posted by kagredon at 8:57 AM on June 25, 2015 [1 favorite]

I think you have to understand that he was/is a stockbroker/financial advisor, a profession that requires you to build your own client base. He wasn't an investment banker or trader or just some executive or even a hedge fund guy. He built his networks, he built his business and portfolio of clients.

Sure. I don't see how we might disagree on this or its implications.
posted by aielen at 10:12 AM on June 25, 2015

and that the way we're arbitrating it is by pitting her against another woman who hasn't commented on the issue at hand

Definitely Perry hasn't commented on the issue at hand. Re their rivalry, she Tweeted that Swift was Regina George in sheep's clothing. But that's certainly not the issue. And you're right. I do tired of people who are dismissive of Swift's hard-earned and fortunate success, as though anybody be her, regardless of personality, intelligence and temperament.

Sure. I don't see how we might disagree on this or its implications.

I'm sorry. I think I misunderstood your tone. I thought you were saying her father's network was a big part of her success, as though he bought her a career. Sorry for misreading. Yeah, she does have his ability to build relationships. I don't think it makes her fake or disingenuous or undeserving of success or fame or untalented.
posted by discopolo at 10:16 AM on June 25, 2015

Taylor Swift tweeted that she has decided to make 1989 available on Apple Music:

"After the events of this week, I've decided to put 1989 on Apple Music...and happily so."
posted by mountmccabe at 2:25 PM on June 25, 2015

« Older Procedural justice | Petting Cthulhu Newer »

This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments

MetaFilter

A note from our future President
June 23, 2015 6:00 AM Subscribe

Tags

Share

A note from our future President June 23, 2015 6:00 AM Subscribe

Tags

Share

A note from our future President
June 23, 2015 6:00 AM Subscribe