Apple Music signs Taylor Swift to exclusive 1989 World Tour concert video, retail store promotion [

Posted:
in iPod + iTunes + AppleTV edited December 2015
Apple has partnered with Taylor Swift to deliver a concert video of her 1989 World Tour exclusive to Apple Music, as well as an extended holiday season promotion in Apple retail stores and on iTunes gift cards and an appearance on Beats 1 Radio.




Swift is scheduled to appear on Apple's Beats 1 radio program, tomorrow Monday December 14, at 9 AM Pacific Time (12 noon Eastern, 5 PM in the UK), where she will be speaking with DJ Zane Lowe.

Today is Swift's 26th birthday. The singer posted a message to her Tumbr stating, "Thank you so much for all the birthday wishes! I have a little surprise for you. The 1989 World Tour LIVE. Directed by Jonas Akerlund, released on @applemusic December 20, 2015."

The posting links to iTunes, which notes that the tour video, filmed in Sydney, Australia at the ANZ Stadium "in front of 76,000 fans" will be "available exclusively on Apple Music starting December 20."

iTunes Connect provides a preview of the video, which depicts the stadium crowd wearing color coordinated LED-lit wristbands, and the concert itself featuring appearances by Mick Jagger, Selena Gomez, Fetty Wap, Miranda Lambert, Alanis Morissette, Wiz Kalifa, Mary J Blige, John Legend, Justin Timberlake, Beck and St Vincent.

The video invites watchers to subscribe to Apple Music (or join its free 90-day trial) to see the concert video. According to a report by Re/Code, Swift will also be lending Apple the rights to her name and likeness "in promotions at its stores, where it will have big displays as well as Taylor Swift-branded iTunes gift cards for sales [sic]."

Writing for the site, Peter Kafka added, "My understanding is that because the deal is about Swift's concert, not her album, this is a deal between her and Apple directly. Big Machine, the label that owns her stuff, and Universal Music Group, the label that distributes it, aren't in on it."

[Correction: Jake Basden of Big Machine Label Group clarified to AppleInsider that "Taylor Swift records exclusively for Big Machine Records/BMLG under her existing ERA (Exclusive Recording Agreement). Big Machine Records/BMLG is the sole and exclusive owner of all recordings of Taylor's musical performances, whether they are audio only or audiovisual. It has come to our attention that there are stories claiming Taylor's exclusive content agreement with Apple was done without the participation of Big Machine Records/BMLG. That is simply incorrect."]

In June, Swift (along with the labels that own her music) "happily" agreed to make her latest "1989" album available for streaming on Apple Music (as well as in iTunes for sale) after prodding Apple to pay royalties to artists for music tracks streamed during users' free trial periods, a request Apple's iTunes head Eddy Cue quickly jumped to satisfy.

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 12
    SoliSoli Posts: 10,033member
    One could say they use to have bad blood, but now they have mad love.
    jSnivelyiqatedoesquaredthepixeldocnolamacguyIanMC2
  • Reply 2 of 12
    Just shows that letter this past fall was one big stunt.
  • Reply 3 of 12
    icoco3icoco3 Posts: 1,474member
    Taylor who??
    1983
  • Reply 4 of 12
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 13,002member
    26 years too late, no?  D
    edited December 2015
  • Reply 5 of 12
    Despite the hate she's earned here for publicly excoriating Apple previously, she's obviously a massively influential force in pop music.
    thepixeldoc
  • Reply 6 of 12
    thrangthrang Posts: 948member
    Fix the forced iCloud Music Library issue for offline listening of Apple Music and then I'll use it.
  • Reply 7 of 12
    what's this?! the poster girl for artist-rights herself rips off an artist in my town:

    http://www.nola.com/arts/index.ssf/2015/12/taylor_swift_fox_art_ally_burg.html#incart_m-rpt-1

    ...after making her big thing out of paying artists for their work, Swift herself doesnt want to properly license & pay this artist for the work used to promote "1989". hypocrite.
    edited December 2015
  • Reply 8 of 12
    jfc1138jfc1138 Posts: 3,090member
    what's this?! the poster girl for artist-rights herself rips off an artist in my town:

    http://www.nola.com/arts/index.ssf/2015/12/taylor_swift_fox_art_ally_burg.html#incart_m-rpt-1

    ...after making her big thing out of paying artists for their work, Swift herself doesnt want to properly license & pay this artist for the work used to promote "1989". hypocrite.
    A photo of a FAN'S artwork is hardly something to "license".. now once revealed the fan had copied (if true) then taking down the postings of the inappropriately copied material would be polite.


  • Reply 9 of 12
    Soli said:
    One could say they use to have bad blood, but now they have mad love.
    This is so good! It's good to see the 2 best things in the world working together. Taylor Swift and Apple! 
  • Reply 10 of 12
    Does anyone know where the Taylor Swift iTunes Gift Cards are going to be sold? Can I get one at Walmart?
  • Reply 11 of 12
    jfc1138 said:
    A photo of a FAN'S artwork is hardly something to "license".. now once revealed the fan had copied (if true) then taking down the postings of the inappropriately copied material would be polite.
    read the article -- the fan copied the artist's work, stroke for stroke. but it doesnt matter that it was a fan that did the deed -- Swift used it for her commercial 1989 promo material, so its her violation, not the fan's. which is why Swift offered a 4-figure payment (but strangely insisted it be donated to charity rather than used to cover the source artist's expenses as a commercial artist).

    its clearly BS. if i repurposed Swift's music (or cover art) to use for my commercial purposes, id get hit with a big fat lawsuit from her lawyers. after all: "Artists deserve to get PAID for their work" -- right?? or just when it's her?
    edited December 2015
  • Reply 12 of 12
    jfc1138 said:
    A photo of a FAN'S artwork is hardly something to "license".. now once revealed the fan had copied (if true) then taking down the postings of the inappropriately copied material would be polite.
    read the article -- the fan copied the artist's work, stroke for stroke. but it doesnt matter that it was a fan that did the deed -- Swift used it for her commercial 1989 promo material, so its her violation, not the fan's. which is why Swift offered a 4-figure payment (but strangely insisted it be donated to charity rather than used to cover the source artist's expenses as a commercial artist).

    its clearly BS. if i repurposed Swift's music (or cover art) to use for my commercial purposes, id get hit with a big fat lawsuit from her lawyers. after all: "Artists deserve to get PAID for their work" -- right?? or just when it's her?
    If you read the article, and the linked article, you will see that this artists attorneys admit that it was used in error because reposted from someone who did not have rights. You will also see that Swift's attorneys state that there was no condition or donating payment.

    So it gets down to "she said, he said". What makes you believe one side above the other?
Sign In or Register to comment.