Taylor Swift to keep new album off Apple Music, other streaming services for one week
Taylor Swift's new album "Reputation" will reportedly be held off of streaming services for at least a week -- including even Apple Music, with which the pop singer has developed close business ties.
Services are still talking with Swift's associates to determine when they'll be able to host the album, according to Bloomberg sources. The streaming blackout won't affect the iTunes Store, where "Reputation" should be ready to download on Nov. 10.
Swift has been a frequent critic of streaming services, arguing that they devalue both her music and other artists. She famously wrote an open letter complaining about plans to skip royalties during three-month Apple Music trials -- Apple quickly relented under pressure.
For a long time Apple Music became the only way to stream the album "1989," or simply more than a handful of Swift songs. The situation only reversed course in June this year.
Apple meanwhile used Swift in marketing, and offered up an exclusive concert video.
Swift's popularity has allowed her more control over terms than most artists. Independent musicians may sometimes be more likely to benefit from services such as Apple Music and Spotify, since they provide badly-needed exposure.
Services are still talking with Swift's associates to determine when they'll be able to host the album, according to Bloomberg sources. The streaming blackout won't affect the iTunes Store, where "Reputation" should be ready to download on Nov. 10.
Swift has been a frequent critic of streaming services, arguing that they devalue both her music and other artists. She famously wrote an open letter complaining about plans to skip royalties during three-month Apple Music trials -- Apple quickly relented under pressure.
For a long time Apple Music became the only way to stream the album "1989," or simply more than a handful of Swift songs. The situation only reversed course in June this year.
Apple meanwhile used Swift in marketing, and offered up an exclusive concert video.
Swift's popularity has allowed her more control over terms than most artists. Independent musicians may sometimes be more likely to benefit from services such as Apple Music and Spotify, since they provide badly-needed exposure.
Comments
Thank You.
(Despite all the snark that will inevitably show up here).
As for that whole Apple paying no royalties for 3 months thing, that is until Taylor Swift "changed their mind", clearly this was engineered for the launch of Apple Music. Not only was it a perfect media trap with two high profile brands having a public spat, but if Apple went straight to market offering to foot the bill for the 3 months trials, then the Spotify's of the world would have complained about it being anti-competitive.
Snort!
(There, that snarky enough?)
Indeed much is lost in what you describe, but music was always a consumable item. I think perhaps what has changed is the choices people now have, and that their tastes for the little things you describe has been dulled. There is more music available for less cost that there was when the album ruled the roost. I specifically remember paying about $8 for an album in about 1976. Commodity? Yep.
Maybe this will include a song about Hiddleston. Much of the snark that will show up here has been earned by Swift.
Personally, I have nothing against pop and fluff and like a fair amount of it. I just don't care for Swift one bit (npi) as I think she's a shallow manipulative person who see's herself wronged and a victim of others at every turn. She doesn't do revenge porn (which might redeem her somewhat) but if 'wronged' she does a song about it. That I don't care about her pop and fluff is merely coincidental. She does have a good singing voice.
Maybe she'll grow up. Maybe she'll become some crazy-ass super diva who's life will spin out of control. Who knows.