Being free on the service doesn't mean the artist can't be paid does it? If Youtube can I'm sure Apple could come up with a little something during the "free" three months.
The context of this is Artists that don't want to participate, don't have to contractually, as stated by Apple.
That Apple would not want to pay the Artists during the free trial is an example of a participatory partnership between two parties.
Why should Apple pay to have Artists participate? It is enough that Apple has a desirable destination for music.
What a stupid comment. Apple is NOT giving anything away for free that belongs to anyone who didn't already AGREE to do so. If you don't want to be on Apple Music and agree with their 90 day trial, then DON'T SIGN THE FRICKIN CONTRACT. Go peddle your asses to Pandora or Spotify.
It amazes me that people actually think Apple is doing something WITHOUT the artists/labels approval first. Apple Music is launching in 100+ countries. That alone would have been a Herculean effort of licensing and negotiations. 30 million plus songs from people who apparently don't have any issues with the idea of a 90 day trial. Yet this idiot lies his ass off because he's a whiny little bitch and suddenly everyone thinks he speaks for the entire music industry?
I think the issue is "why does the artist have to wear the risk for Apple starting a new service". If you value your work you don't give it away for free. "Exposure" doesn't pay the bills.
I think the issue is "why does the artist have to wear the risk for Apple starting a new service". If you value your work you don't give it away for free. "Exposure" doesn't pay the bills.
They're not getting paid. In many cases a streamed listen on Apple music is one thats not happening on spotify or pandora or whatever.
It's apples service and if their content creators don't want to eat some of the cost of starting it then they should exercise that choice. Evidently this is what's happening here with some artists.
Of course you put yourself in that position and a prospective employer asks you to work for three months for free. How does that sit with you? I appreciate its not a direct equivalence but that's the idea.
They're not getting paid. In many cases a streamed listen on Apple music is one thats not happening on spotify or pandora or whatever.
It's apples service and if their content creators don't want to eat some of the cost of starting it then they should exercise that choice. Evidently this is what's happening here with some artists.
Of course you put yourself in that position and a prospective employer asks you to work for three months for free. How does that sit with you? I appreciate its not a direct equivalence but that's the idea.
So? They're not getting paid for 3 months in exchange for a larger payout later on. Why is everyone focused on the 3 months free, and not the years to come? Or the fact the Apple Music subscriber share is destined to surpass all other streaming services for number of users (and therefore, money made)?
Spotify is in 68 countries. Google is in 58. Pandora is only in 3. Apple Music will be over 100 at launch. It took years for Spotify (for example) to get to 68 countries. Meaning artists weren't gettng paid much at all in the beginning since they had limited availability. Couple that with 71.5% and it's clear the most money to be made is with Apple Music.
And, the bottom line, everyone has AGREED to these terms with Apple, save for a very small number of highly vocal, not too intelligent whiny ass bitches. Why are people listening to their lies? Oh right, because Apple.
And, the bottom line, everyone has AGREED to these terms with Apple, save for a very small number of highly vocal, not too intelligent whiny ass bitches. Why are people listening to their lies? Oh right, because Apple.
"I write this to explain why I’ll be holding back my album, 1989, from the new streaming service, Apple Music. I feel this deserves an explanation because Apple has been and will continue to be one of my best partners in selling music and creating ways for me to connect with my fans. I respect the company and the truly ingenious minds that have created a legacy based on innovation and pushing the right boundaries.
I’m sure you are aware that Apple Music will be offering a free 3 month trial to anyone who signs up for the service. I’m not sure you know that Apple Music will not be paying writers, producers, or artists for those three months. I find it to be shocking, disappointing, and completely unlike this historically progressive and generous company.
This is not about me. Thankfully I am on my fifth album and can support myself, my band, crew, and entire management team by playing live shows. This is about the new artist or band that has just released their first single and will not be paid for its success. This is about the young songwriter who just got his or her first cut and thought that the royalties from that would get them out of debt. This is about the producer who works tirelessly to innovate and create, just like the innovators and creators at Apple are pioneering in their field…but will not get paid for a quarter of a year’s worth of plays on his or her songs.
These are not the complaints of a spoiled, petulant child. These are the echoed sentiments of every artist, writer and producer in my social circles who are afraid to speak up publicly because we admire and respect Apple so much. We simply do not respect this particular call.
I realize that Apple is working towards a goal of paid streaming. I think that is beautiful progress. We know how astronomically successful Apple has been and we know that this incredible company has the money to pay artists, writers and producers for the 3 month trial period… even if it is free for the fans trying it out.
Three months is a long time to go unpaid, and it is unfair to ask anyone to work for nothing. I say this with love, reverence, and admiration for everything else Apple has done. I hope that soon I can join them in the progression towards a streaming model that seems fair to those who create this music. I think this could be the platform that gets it right.
But I say to Apple with all due respect, it’s not too late to change this policy and change the minds of those in the music industry who will be deeply and gravely affected by this. We don’t ask you for free iPhones. Please don’t ask us to provide you with our music for no compensation."
So what do you think now Eric? Any change in your opinion of the free three months or view of Ms. Swift for opting out?
"I write this to explain why I’ll be holding back my album, 1989, from the new streaming service, Apple Music. I feel this deserves an explanation because Apple has been and will continue to be one of my best partners in selling music and creating ways for me to connect with my fans. I respect the company and the truly ingenious minds that have created a legacy based on innovation and pushing the right boundaries.
I’m sure you are aware that Apple Music will be offering a free 3 month trial to anyone who signs up for the service. I’m not sure you know that Apple Music will not be paying writers, producers, or artists for those three months. I find it to be shocking, disappointing, and completely unlike this historically progressive and generous company.
This is not about me. Thankfully I am on my fifth album and can support myself, my band, crew, and entire management team by playing live shows. This is about the new artist or band that has just released their first single and will not be paid for its success. This is about the young songwriter who just got his or her first cut and thought that the royalties from that would get them out of debt. This is about the producer who works tirelessly to innovate and create, just like the innovators and creators at Apple are pioneering in their field…but will not get paid for a quarter of a year’s worth of plays on his or her songs.
These are not the complaints of a spoiled, petulant child. These are the echoed sentiments of every artist, writer and producer in my social circles who are afraid to speak up publicly because we admire and respect Apple so much. We simply do not respect this particular call.
I realize that Apple is working towards a goal of paid streaming. I think that is beautiful progress. We know how astronomically successful Apple has been and we know that this incredible company has the money to pay artists, writers and producers for the 3 month trial period… even if it is free for the fans trying it out.
Three months is a long time to go unpaid, and it is unfair to ask anyone to work for nothing. I say this with love, reverence, and admiration for everything else Apple has done. I hope that soon I can join them in the progression towards a streaming model that seems fair to those who create this music. I think this could be the platform that gets it right.
But I say to Apple with all due respect, it’s not too late to change this policy and change the minds of those in the music industry who will be deeply and gravely affected by this. We don’t ask you for free iPhones. Please don’t ask us to provide you with our music for no compensation."
So what do you think now Eric? Any change in your opinion?
First off, I'm not talking about Taylor Swift - I'm talking about Newcombe (you know, the person who was quoted in this article) and the UK indie labels.
However, she sounds just as whiny. The only difference is she's taking the "concern troll" approach. Say one good thing about Apple in one sentence, and follow it with some "concerned" negative. This way she can trick people into thinking she's offering constructive criticism when she's still just as out-of-touch as the rest of them.
It's clear she has the same mentality as Newcombe. Talking about making a living and getting paid for your music. Sorry, Taylor, but NOBODY has the right to choose music as their career and expect to make a living off it. There's a reason the phrase "starving artist" exists. It's because a ridiculously small percentage of people in the music industry ever make enough money to survive. It's literally like winning the lottery. And people who plan their life around expecting to win the lottery to support themselves don't have any credibility when talking about "working to support themselves".
Taylor knows this, which is why she carefully added the phrase "These are not the complaints of a spoiled, petulant child". Sorry, they are. Nobody is going to take you seriously just like nobody took all the artists at Tidal seriously when a group of people worth billions are whining about not making enough money.
^ That's a whole lot of entitlement that you've imagined a large group of people having. Not wanting to provide your product for free is not the same as "expecting to make a living off of it". Many musicians never hit the big time, but manage to do alright.
These labels/bands/artists are being myopic about the 3 months free -- people are much more likely to try and pay for a service they can first experience for free. i.e. some risk up front could equal more rewards later for all these bands -- Americans just do not think long term. It is not like the bands don't get paid for 3 months, they just don't get streaming royalties for 3 months... The biggest money maker any band has is live performance, as that full experience can not be replicated electronically -- it is just never the same.
Also, since when did 25 year old know it all Taylor Swift become an expert in the electronic music streaming industry? I mean she can do as she pleases w/her creations, but she is also sounding myopic.
These labels/bands/artists are being myopic about the 3 months free -- people are much more likely to try and pay for a service they can first experience for free. i.e. some risk up front could equal more rewards later for all these bands -- Americans just do not think long term. It is not like the bands don't get paid for 3 months, they just don't get streaming royalties for 3 months...
Also, since when did 25 year old know it all Taylor Swift become an expert in the electronic music streaming industry? I mean she can do as she pleases w/her creations, but she is also sounding myopic.
Artists want to be paid for their music. I see nothing wrong with that. If Apple want to give a free trial, then Apple should should bear the cost.
Artists want to be paid for their music. I see nothing wrong with that. If Apple want to give a free trial, then Apple should should bear the cost.
Another of the bigger paid subscription music streamers is offering two months free to try but still paying royalties to the artist/producer/publisher during that period AFAIK. It would be odd that they would be more respectful of the artist's work than Apple who carries a long public perception of being friends with the music industry.
I personally think Apple will recognize this as an error in judgement on their part, putting money before what's right. IMO they'll come around and change this before the service rolls out.
Artists want to be paid for their music. I see nothing wrong with that. If Apple want to give a free trial, then Apple should should bear the cost.
If anybody doesn't want to participate, no one from Apple will be standing in their way. The artists makes nothing, loses nothing except 3 months of exposure that, at least according to the bad Apple bunch, hasn't any value anyway.
Another of the bigger paid subscription music streamers is offering two months free to try but still paying royalties to the artist/producer/publisher during that period AFAIK. It would be odd that they would be more respectful of the artist's work than Apple who has a long public perception of being friends with the music industry.
I personally think Apple will recognize this as an error in judgement on their part, putting money before what's right. IMO they'll come around and change this before the service rolls out.
It's not an error in judgement on Apple's part. It's Apple's business model.
A very successful business model as everyone is aware of. Nothing for Apple to change. Let the Artist's opt out or find other streaming outlets that are more willing to pay them for a free customer trial.
It's not an error in judgement on Apple's part. It's Apple's business model.
A very successful business model as everyone is aware of. Nothing for Apple to change. Let the Artist's opt out or find other streaming outlets that are more willing to pay them for a free customer trial.
ALL the others pay them during a free customer trial AFAIK. IMO it's not worth the bad PR to do otherwise but perhaps the decision makers at Apple feel that Apple fans will be more tolerant and/or push back hard against any bad press? I can't imagine that if it were some other provider doing this, say Microsoft or Samsung for instance, you'd be quite so supportive of it. Would that be accurate?
I could just as easily argue that those others are doing it wrong.
You could just as easily argue those other services are more fair to the artists. Or more respectful. Or not as wealthy. There's lots of arguments you could make, and probably would IMHO if it were anyone else you were commenting on.
You could just as easily argue those other services are more fair to the artists. Or more respectful. Or not as wealthy. There's lots of arguments you could make, and probably would IMHO if it were anyone else you were commenting on.
Nice concern trolling.
As a small business person, I would expect that when I partner with somebody, I should share the same risk/reward.
If artists aren't able act in a business like manner, and make business judgements, then I wouldn't expect them to be able to understand the rewards of a free trial. I would not to have them participate at all, rather than pay out of pocket for them based on some arbitrary and unearned respect.
As a small business person, I would expect that when I partner with somebody, I should share the same risk/reward.
If artists aren't able act in a business like manner, and make business judgements, then I wouldn't expect them to be able to understand the rewards of a free trial. I would not to have them participate at all, rather than pay out of pocket for them based on some arbitrary and unearned respect.
As another small business person when one of my customers decides to promote their business and runs a half-off or $20 off or whatever sale I don't expect to be required to drop my product price accordingly nor would I. Especially if that requirement came from the richest company on the planet. You do? Be honest.
I stopped selling to Walmart because of things like that. It was a one-way street with one of us benefiting far more than the other one. I'll let you guess which one was getting richer and which one was getting the scraps, enough to get by I suppose.
As another small business person when one of my customers decides to promote their business and runs a half-off or $20 off or whatever sale I don't expect to be asked to drop my product price accordingly nor would I. You do? Be honest.
I machine stuff.
I've been working with the same person for near 20 years, a Phd in RF Design. His father was one of my Mechanical Engineering Professors/ and Department Chairmen.
Early on, I made a conscious decision to machine and design the mechanicals for his prototypes for free; risk reward sharing and all that. I even gave him extremely low pricing so that he could be competitive. We still do that today, but early on, it made a huge difference in his and my survival. Now his business is about 95% of my income, and frankly, I'm working 16-18 hrs/day to keep up with his current workload. I'm running parts now on a couple of machines in between my comments. It isn't important whether you believe that or not.
It's obvious that your business model differs from mine and Apple's.
I've been working with the same person for near 20 years, a Phd in RF Design. His father was one of my Mechanical Engineering Professors/ and Department Chairmen.
Early on, I made a conscious decision to machine and design the mechanicals for his prototypes for free; risk reward sharing and all that. I even gave him extremely low pricing so that he could be competitive. We still do that today, but early on, it made a huge difference in his and my survival. Now his business is about 95% of my income, and frankly, I'm working 16-18 hrs/day to keep up with his current workload. I'm running parts now on a couple of machines in between my comments. It isn't important whether you believe that or not.
It's obvious that your business model differs from mine and Apple's.
That would be 7 days a week, BTW.
Why wouldn't I believe you?
If he were the richest company in the industry when he came to your originally would you given him extremely low pricing, taking the profit hit yourself so that he could make more money? It would not have been necessary to his survival in that case. While that might be your business model it certainly isn't the rich customer's. He's the one getting the better end of the deal if you do that.
You're hardly offering a comparable case. Apple is hurting for nothing. Both you and your customer apparently were.
Comments
Being free on the service doesn't mean the artist can't be paid does it? If Youtube can I'm sure Apple could come up with a little something during the "free" three months.
The context of this is Artists that don't want to participate, don't have to contractually, as stated by Apple.
That Apple would not want to pay the Artists during the free trial is an example of a participatory partnership between two parties.
Why should Apple pay to have Artists participate? It is enough that Apple has a desirable destination for music.
What risk exactly is there to the artist?
It's apples service and if their content creators don't want to eat some of the cost of starting it then they should exercise that choice. Evidently this is what's happening here with some artists.
Of course you put yourself in that position and a prospective employer asks you to work for three months for free. How does that sit with you? I appreciate its not a direct equivalence but that's the idea.
So? They're not getting paid for 3 months in exchange for a larger payout later on. Why is everyone focused on the 3 months free, and not the years to come? Or the fact the Apple Music subscriber share is destined to surpass all other streaming services for number of users (and therefore, money made)?
Spotify is in 68 countries. Google is in 58. Pandora is only in 3. Apple Music will be over 100 at launch. It took years for Spotify (for example) to get to 68 countries. Meaning artists weren't gettng paid much at all in the beginning since they had limited availability. Couple that with 71.5% and it's clear the most money to be made is with Apple Music.
And, the bottom line, everyone has AGREED to these terms with Apple, save for a very small number of highly vocal, not too intelligent whiny ass bitches. Why are people listening to their lies? Oh right, because Apple.
Hardly whiny. Read why she did it rather than knee-jerkingly calling her names as you seem to be doing "oh right, because Apple".
http://taylorswift.tumblr.com/post/122071902085/to-apple-love-taylor
"I write this to explain why I’ll be holding back my album, 1989, from the new streaming service, Apple Music. I feel this deserves an explanation because Apple has been and will continue to be one of my best partners in selling music and creating ways for me to connect with my fans. I respect the company and the truly ingenious minds that have created a legacy based on innovation and pushing the right boundaries.
I’m sure you are aware that Apple Music will be offering a free 3 month trial to anyone who signs up for the service. I’m not sure you know that Apple Music will not be paying writers, producers, or artists for those three months. I find it to be shocking, disappointing, and completely unlike this historically progressive and generous company.
This is not about me. Thankfully I am on my fifth album and can support myself, my band, crew, and entire management team by playing live shows. This is about the new artist or band that has just released their first single and will not be paid for its success. This is about the young songwriter who just got his or her first cut and thought that the royalties from that would get them out of debt. This is about the producer who works tirelessly to innovate and create, just like the innovators and creators at Apple are pioneering in their field…but will not get paid for a quarter of a year’s worth of plays on his or her songs.
These are not the complaints of a spoiled, petulant child. These are the echoed sentiments of every artist, writer and producer in my social circles who are afraid to speak up publicly because we admire and respect Apple so much. We simply do not respect this particular call.
I realize that Apple is working towards a goal of paid streaming. I think that is beautiful progress. We know how astronomically successful Apple has been and we know that this incredible company has the money to pay artists, writers and producers for the 3 month trial period… even if it is free for the fans trying it out.
Three months is a long time to go unpaid, and it is unfair to ask anyone to work for nothing. I say this with love, reverence, and admiration for everything else Apple has done. I hope that soon I can join them in the progression towards a streaming model that seems fair to those who create this music. I think this could be the platform that gets it right.
But I say to Apple with all due respect, it’s not too late to change this policy and change the minds of those in the music industry who will be deeply and gravely affected by this. We don’t ask you for free iPhones. Please don’t ask us to provide you with our music for no compensation."
So what do you think now Eric? Any change in your opinion of the free three months or view of Ms. Swift for opting out?
Hardly whiny. Read why she did it rather than knee-jerkingly calling her names as you do "oh right, because Apple".
http://taylorswift.tumblr.com/post/122071902085/to-apple-love-taylor
"I write this to explain why I’ll be holding back my album, 1989, from the new streaming service, Apple Music. I feel this deserves an explanation because Apple has been and will continue to be one of my best partners in selling music and creating ways for me to connect with my fans. I respect the company and the truly ingenious minds that have created a legacy based on innovation and pushing the right boundaries.
I’m sure you are aware that Apple Music will be offering a free 3 month trial to anyone who signs up for the service. I’m not sure you know that Apple Music will not be paying writers, producers, or artists for those three months. I find it to be shocking, disappointing, and completely unlike this historically progressive and generous company.
This is not about me. Thankfully I am on my fifth album and can support myself, my band, crew, and entire management team by playing live shows. This is about the new artist or band that has just released their first single and will not be paid for its success. This is about the young songwriter who just got his or her first cut and thought that the royalties from that would get them out of debt. This is about the producer who works tirelessly to innovate and create, just like the innovators and creators at Apple are pioneering in their field…but will not get paid for a quarter of a year’s worth of plays on his or her songs.
These are not the complaints of a spoiled, petulant child. These are the echoed sentiments of every artist, writer and producer in my social circles who are afraid to speak up publicly because we admire and respect Apple so much. We simply do not respect this particular call.
I realize that Apple is working towards a goal of paid streaming. I think that is beautiful progress. We know how astronomically successful Apple has been and we know that this incredible company has the money to pay artists, writers and producers for the 3 month trial period… even if it is free for the fans trying it out.
Three months is a long time to go unpaid, and it is unfair to ask anyone to work for nothing. I say this with love, reverence, and admiration for everything else Apple has done. I hope that soon I can join them in the progression towards a streaming model that seems fair to those who create this music. I think this could be the platform that gets it right.
But I say to Apple with all due respect, it’s not too late to change this policy and change the minds of those in the music industry who will be deeply and gravely affected by this. We don’t ask you for free iPhones. Please don’t ask us to provide you with our music for no compensation."
So what do you think now Eric? Any change in your opinion?
First off, I'm not talking about Taylor Swift - I'm talking about Newcombe (you know, the person who was quoted in this article) and the UK indie labels.
However, she sounds just as whiny. The only difference is she's taking the "concern troll" approach. Say one good thing about Apple in one sentence, and follow it with some "concerned" negative. This way she can trick people into thinking she's offering constructive criticism when she's still just as out-of-touch as the rest of them.
It's clear she has the same mentality as Newcombe. Talking about making a living and getting paid for your music. Sorry, Taylor, but NOBODY has the right to choose music as their career and expect to make a living off it. There's a reason the phrase "starving artist" exists. It's because a ridiculously small percentage of people in the music industry ever make enough money to survive. It's literally like winning the lottery. And people who plan their life around expecting to win the lottery to support themselves don't have any credibility when talking about "working to support themselves".
Taylor knows this, which is why she carefully added the phrase "These are not the complaints of a spoiled, petulant child". Sorry, they are. Nobody is going to take you seriously just like nobody took all the artists at Tidal seriously when a group of people worth billions are whining about not making enough money.
^ That's a whole lot of entitlement that you've imagined a large group of people having. Not wanting to provide your product for free is not the same as "expecting to make a living off of it". Many musicians never hit the big time, but manage to do alright.
Also, since when did 25 year old know it all Taylor Swift become an expert in the electronic music streaming industry? I mean she can do as she pleases w/her creations, but she is also sounding myopic.
Artists want to be paid for their music. I see nothing wrong with that. If Apple want to give a free trial, then Apple should should bear the cost.
I personally think Apple will recognize this as an error in judgement on their part, putting money before what's right. IMO they'll come around and change this before the service rolls out.
Artists want to be paid for their music. I see nothing wrong with that. If Apple want to give a free trial, then Apple should should bear the cost.
If anybody doesn't want to participate, no one from Apple will be standing in their way. The artists makes nothing, loses nothing except 3 months of exposure that, at least according to the bad Apple bunch, hasn't any value anyway.
Seems like it is exactly as it should be.
Another of the bigger paid subscription music streamers is offering two months free to try but still paying royalties to the artist/producer/publisher during that period AFAIK. It would be odd that they would be more respectful of the artist's work than Apple who has a long public perception of being friends with the music industry.
I personally think Apple will recognize this as an error in judgement on their part, putting money before what's right. IMO they'll come around and change this before the service rolls out.
It's not an error in judgement on Apple's part. It's Apple's business model.
A very successful business model as everyone is aware of. Nothing for Apple to change. Let the Artist's opt out or find other streaming outlets that are more willing to pay them for a free customer trial.
ALL the others pay them during a free customer trial AFAIK.
Irrelevant.
I could just as easily argue that those others are doing it wrong.
You could just as easily argue those other services are more fair to the artists. Or more respectful. Or not as wealthy. There's lots of arguments you could make, and probably would IMHO if it were anyone else you were commenting on.
Nice concern trolling.
As a small business person, I would expect that when I partner with somebody, I should share the same risk/reward.
If artists aren't able act in a business like manner, and make business judgements, then I wouldn't expect them to be able to understand the rewards of a free trial. I would not to have them participate at all, rather than pay out of pocket for them based on some arbitrary and unearned respect.
I stopped selling to Walmart because of things like that. It was a one-way street with one of us benefiting far more than the other one. I'll let you guess which one was getting richer and which one was getting the scraps, enough to get by I suppose.
As another small business person when one of my customers decides to promote their business and runs a half-off or $20 off or whatever sale I don't expect to be asked to drop my product price accordingly nor would I. You do? Be honest.
I machine stuff.
I've been working with the same person for near 20 years, a Phd in RF Design. His father was one of my Mechanical Engineering Professors/ and Department Chairmen.
Early on, I made a conscious decision to machine and design the mechanicals for his prototypes for free; risk reward sharing and all that. I even gave him extremely low pricing so that he could be competitive. We still do that today, but early on, it made a huge difference in his and my survival. Now his business is about 95% of my income, and frankly, I'm working 16-18 hrs/day to keep up with his current workload. I'm running parts now on a couple of machines in between my comments. It isn't important whether you believe that or not.
It's obvious that your business model differs from mine and Apple's.
That would be 7 days a week, BTW.
If he were the richest company in the industry when he came to your originally would you given him extremely low pricing, taking the profit hit yourself so that he could make more money? It would not have been necessary to his survival in that case. While that might be your business model it certainly isn't the rich customer's. He's the one getting the better end of the deal if you do that.
You're hardly offering a comparable case. Apple is hurting for nothing. Both you and your customer apparently were.