Apple Music to miss out on Taylor Swift's '1989' album
Despite showing up onscreen in an Apple Music demo at WWDC, Taylor Swift will not be making her latest album "1989" available through Apple's upcoming streaming service, a report said Thursday.
According to BuzzFeed, both Swift's label Big Machine Records and Apple confirmed "1989" will be unavailable for streaming when Apple Music launches later this month. Prior to today, rumors percolated that Apple somehow executed an industry coup by nabbing exclusive rights to the album, which is not planned for streaming release on any platform.
Swift in the past voiced opposition to certain music streaming services, saying such products strip away value by breaking apart albums. In an op-ed for The Wall Street Journal, Swift said music should not be free and predicted artists will someday set album pricing for themselves.
In November, the singer yanked her entire library from Spotify in a power move against the company's free-to-stream offering.
With iTunes, Apple holds considerable sway in the digital music industry -- Swift previously released three bonus tracks from "1989" as an iTunes exclusive -- but artists and labels are reluctant to sign off on streaming deals. For content owners, the fairly new digital distribution model represents a further ceding of power to companies like Apple, which itself eroded honeypot album pricing schemes with iTunes and iPod.
While "1989" remains off limits for Apple Music, Swift's back catalog will be available for streaming. Similar deals are already in motion at competing subscription-based services like Rdio.
Apple Music debuts on June 30 for $9.99 or $14.99 for families up to six people.
According to BuzzFeed, both Swift's label Big Machine Records and Apple confirmed "1989" will be unavailable for streaming when Apple Music launches later this month. Prior to today, rumors percolated that Apple somehow executed an industry coup by nabbing exclusive rights to the album, which is not planned for streaming release on any platform.
Swift in the past voiced opposition to certain music streaming services, saying such products strip away value by breaking apart albums. In an op-ed for The Wall Street Journal, Swift said music should not be free and predicted artists will someday set album pricing for themselves.
In November, the singer yanked her entire library from Spotify in a power move against the company's free-to-stream offering.
With iTunes, Apple holds considerable sway in the digital music industry -- Swift previously released three bonus tracks from "1989" as an iTunes exclusive -- but artists and labels are reluctant to sign off on streaming deals. For content owners, the fairly new digital distribution model represents a further ceding of power to companies like Apple, which itself eroded honeypot album pricing schemes with iTunes and iPod.
While "1989" remains off limits for Apple Music, Swift's back catalog will be available for streaming. Similar deals are already in motion at competing subscription-based services like Rdio.
Apple Music debuts on June 30 for $9.99 or $14.99 for families up to six people.
Comments
aw shucks
There is this thing called torrent.
Apple music is shaping up to fail. Taylor won't make her music available unless people are paid subscribers... However, I don't really listen to her like that so it doesn't effect me directly.
Apple music is shaping up to fail. Taylor won't make her music available unless people are paid subscribers... However, I don't really listen to her like that so it doesn't effect me directly.
Is that a big of a deal she's in on free period or not? Apple Music will match any songs you have in the library even a crappy 96 kbps mp3 to 256 AAC. You can get "1989" in your library in no time, and with a good quality no less. This will pose no problem for anyone who intend to stay beyond a free trial, just saying'.
This is just websites taking potshots at Apple Music. Including this one
I do not listen to Taylor Swift so her latest album not being available on Apple Music makes me happy not sad. The reason for this is by not allowing Apple to stream the latest album, Taylor Swift did not provide the witch hunt being conducted by the NYC and CT AGs ammunition that could be used against Apple in an attempt to help Spotify stay around for a while longer. Since the AGs failed to find any incriminating collusion information between Apple and the record labels, the AGs decided to turn to Taylor Swift removing her music from Spotify aiming to claim Apple forced Taylor Swift to do what she did. Thanks Taylor Swift for depriving the witch hunters of much needed information to justify what is being done.
So Kevin Lynch showed off a Watch face with a time lapse of Big Ben and the Thames, but that face was missing when the Watch launched in May. Where was the BuzzFeed click bait on that scandal?
This is just websites taking potshots at Apple Music. Including this one
Wasn't the Big Ben/Thames Watch face shown at WWDC 2015 for watchOS 2 not for watchOS?
Whatever passes off for 'music' these days.....
Checked it out of the library, ripped it to iTunes and now its uploaded by Match. Done.
Common thief.
Although that hardly matters now anyway since 1989 is already past peak.
Isn't this the person who can't carry a tune without autotune?
Whatever passes off for 'music' these days.....
Does that give you the right to steal her work?
Don't be daft. I said nothing about stealing. (For the record, stealing is bad).
I was merely expressing befuddlement.
Common thief.
Please explain