Taylor Swift 'happily' bringing blockbuster '1989' album to Apple Music

Posted:
in iPod + iTunes + AppleTV edited June 2015
Pop megastar Taylor Swift will allow Apple Music to stream her latest album --?called 1989 --?after the company altered its stance on payments to rights holders during the free trial period, a major coup for the company's new streaming service.




"After the events of this week, I've decided to put 1989 on Apple Music...and happily so," Swift wrote on Twitter. That will make Apple Music the only streaming service to offer the album, which has sold more than 8 million copies worldwide and is certified 5-times platinum in the U.S.

Swift initially refused to make 1989 available on Apple Music in protest of Apple's decision to withhold royalty payments during the service's three-month free trial period. Following an open letter from Swift --?and rejections from several major independent outlets -- Apple reversed course, and will pay lower per-stream royalties during the tryout.

Swift's decision is the second major licensing victory for Apple since its decision to change tack. On Tuesday, the company reached agreements with Merlin and Beggars Group, clearing the way for acts like Adele, FKA Twigs, and M.I.A. to debut alongside Apple Music.

Apple Music is set to launch next Tuesday, with subscriptions priced at $9.99 per month --?or $14.99 per month for families --?after the trial period ends. It will also bring the debut of a free, twenty-four-seven, worldwide streaming radio channel known as Beats 1 helmed by former BBC DJ Zane Lowe that will feature celebrity interviews and shows hosted by Drake, Pharrell, Dr. Dre, and others.
«1345

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 84
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 31,522member
    More headlines will be made.
  • Reply 2 of 84

    But watch Apple get sued in a few months by the DOJ for antitrust violations.

  • Reply 3 of 84
    rogifanrogifan Posts: 10,669member
    More and more I'm coming around to this being one big PR stunt. Swift says it's not an exclusive with Apple Music so we'll see how quickly it comes to Spotify.
  • Reply 4 of 84
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 21,305member
    rogifan wrote: »
    More and more I'm coming around to this being one big PR stunt. Swift says it's not an exclusive with Apple Music so we'll see how quickly it comes to Spotify.
    She's right then, it's not exclusive. There's several other streaming music services where "1989" is available.
  • Reply 5 of 84
    But those are all paid services, right? ? Music will be the only place you can listen to it, for free, for three months.

    More and more this situation is looking like a win. I gotta think T. Swift and Apple were in cahoots on this.
  • Reply 6 of 84
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post



    She's right then, it's not exclusive. There's several other streaming music services where "1989" is available.

     

    Name them please, because I don't think that's correct.

  • Reply 7 of 84
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 21,305member
    bobjohnson wrote: »
    Name them please, because I don't think that's correct.
    Beats Music, Google Play Music, Rhapsody...
  • Reply 8 of 84
    razorpitrazorpit Posts: 1,076member

    Good now I'll finally be able to sleep tonight.  :rolleyes:

  • Reply 9 of 84
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post



    Beats Music, Google Play Music, Rhapsody...



    That's wrong. None of those services have 1989 for streaming (unless you buy it from Google Play Music, but then it's also available to buy and "stream" from iTunes already).

  • Reply 11 of 84

     

    As I said before, you have to buy the album to stream it from Play Music. That is not the same thing.

     

    With regard to the quote, I have no idea what she's talking about, because 1989 is definitely not on Beats Music or Rhapsody. I point you to her own tweet from this morning: 

     

    Quote:


     This is simply the first time it's felt right in my gut to stream my album. Thank you, Apple, for your change of heart.


  • Reply 12 of 84

    That's the link to purchase the album for $12.49...

     

    Streaming and purchasing and then being able to "stream" your purchase are two separate things...

     

    Looking at my Beats Music account, the only albums from Swift that are available are Red, Speak Now, Fearless, and Taylor Swift

     

    So, ? Music will be the only on-demand service to stream 1989.

     

    I don't think Spotify will get it until either they increase their payout or when Taylor Swift releases a new album (which in that case 1989 would be "old")

  • Reply 13 of 84
    rogifanrogifan Posts: 10,669member
    Even if it's not on any other service right now, Swift says it's not an Apple Nusic exclusive so she'll have no choice but to bring it to other services.

    Another reason I'm coming around to this being a PR stunt is other services do pay during free trials so it's not like Apple is doing something nobody else is doing. As far as we know what they're paying during the trial is similar to what Spotify and others pay.
  • Reply 14 of 84
    The tech community who loves to criticize Apple aren't going to care anyway because they didn't listen to her music to begin with. They just fondly remember the 24 hrs when she was their shining celebrity spokesperson against Apple. Now they can go back to ignoring her.
  • Reply 15 of 84
    slurpyslurpy Posts: 5,195member
    Don't give a shit about Taylor Swift. But this no doubt awesome for PR and a good thing for Apple Music.

    And no, I don't believe for a second this whole thing was a coordinated PR stunt, including the open letter. Apple would not participate in such a thing. Logically, Apple contacted her about including 1989 after the change in stance, and she agreed.
  • Reply 16 of 84
    Never seen HG stand corrected when cornered by facts. He'll just scape up some more links.
  • Reply 17 of 84
    maestro64maestro64 Posts: 4,682member
    Just boycott her music so she does not get the fraction of the $0.2 apple plans to pay in the free period.

    This all fell apart for apple when they made the announcement it would be release before having everyone signed up. The music labels knew that apple wanted to make this announcement now and now wait any longer so they were kind of in the driver seat. Some time you just have to walk away and Apple does not seem to be good at this anymore.
  • Reply 18 of 84
    slurpyslurpy Posts: 5,195member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post



    More and more I'm coming around to this being one big PR stunt. Swift says it's not an exclusive with Apple Music so we'll see how quickly it comes to Spotify.

     

    Of course you are. When have you ever given Apple the benefit of the doubt? Almost all your bashing is based on negative and baseless rumors, and stuff you've concluded in your own mind with zero evidence. You really think Apple would green light a negative "open letter" eviscerating itself as part of a PR stunt? There are much less risky ways of accomplishing things. Try to use facts once in a while on which to base your opinions, not "fictional worst case scenarios" you've completely invented. Seriously, you've better off just posting at macrumors (which you do, of course),as that's the go to place for "Apple fans" that actually hate everything about Apple and twist everything in a negative way as possible. 

  • Reply 19 of 84
    lkrupplkrupp Posts: 7,478member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by RalphMouth View Post

     

    But watch Apple get sued in a few months by the DOJ for antitrust violations.




    As sure as death and taxes, especially if the ‘competition’ begins to suffer.

  • Reply 20 of 84
    slurpyslurpy Posts: 5,195member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post



    Even if it's not on any other service right now, Swift says it's not an Apple Nusic exclusive so she'll have no choice but to bring it to other services.



    Another reason I'm coming around to this being a PR stunt is other services do pay during free trials so it's not like Apple is doing something nobody else is doing. As far as we know what they're paying during the trial is similar to what Spotify and others pay.

     

    Yeah, keep moving the goalposts, there you go. You wouldn't want to give Apple any credit or concede that anything is a positive development for Apple Music, so keep changing your argument to prevent that terrifying scenario from happening. The fact is RIGHT NOW that album is streamed nowhere else. Why do all your posts have to be so intellectually dishonest? 

Sign In or Register to comment.