It’s Contagious: Taylor Swift Is Withholding Her Latest Release from Spotify…

This is now a recurring trend for superstar artist releases, and a serious problem for streaming services.  Immediately after release, Taylor Swift’s Red is unavailable on Spotify, as well as Rhapsody, Deezer, and other on-demand streaming services.  Separately, iTunes is plucking another plum placement, and offering strong positioning.

The obvious takeaway is that Swift, like deadmau5, Adele, and Coldplay before her, is withholding the release to maximize release revenues.

The holdout looks like it will last for at least several months (Adele, perhaps a parallel in terms of profile, refused to license for nearly 18 months).  Spotify confirmed the absence to Digital Music News this morning, while Rhapsody launched a highly-vocal protest.  Rhapsody senior director of Content Programming Garrett Kamps blogged a tirade about the decision, while rifling through a familiar set of pro-streaming talking points.   “Taylor Swift and her management made a decision not to make her new album available to Rhapsody’s million-plus subscribers for several months,” Kamps flatly shared.

And the talking points?  You’ve heard them before: streaming services pay for a longer period, access is the future, streaming beats piracy, and streaming stimulates other purchases, among others.  “At Rhapsody, we count stuff, and we know we have hundreds of thousands of subscribers who listen to Taylor; we know that many of you are diehard fans who attend concerts, buy T-shirts, all that stuff,” Kamps asserted, while side-stepping the sticky point that Swift is likely to make more overall through this windowing release strategy.

The question is whether it makes sense to draw attention to the missing content.  Rhapsody, normally a low-key service, is even launching a Twitter campaign (#wherestaylor) in a very dubious attempt to exert pressure on Swift and her label, Big Machine Records.  Spotify, as usual, is staying as quiet as possible on the matter.

Meanwhile, iTunes is getting red carpet treatment, while the album has also been uploaded onto Grooveshark.  That was also the case with deadmau5, though label Ultra Records – a Grooveshark partner – subsequently scrubbed the site of the album (in case you thought that wasn’t possible).  It is unclear what moves Big Machine Records will now take regarding the Grooveshark placement.

 

 

92 Responses

        • Visitor
          Visitor

          We’re both right.
          If you make valuable music, then you want to get paid.
          But if you make worthless music, then it’s perfectly natural to give it away.
          So there’ll always be some amount of streaming, but it will only appeal to hobbyists. Especially now that we see all these coordinated international efforts to stop mainstream piracy.
          Diminishing theft + no need for labels + the death of Spotify = A New Golden Era For Music.

          Reply
          • HansH
            HansH

            You don’t get I’m afraid.
            Microsoft’s Freemium streaming service will not only have more music (30 million tracks) but it will be bigger than Spotify in a matter of a year.
            It will make streaming mainstream and it will all start this week. Fasten your seatbelts.
            Now let’s wait and see what Microsoft pays to artists.

          • R.P.
            R.P.

            Spotify will not go away. lol.
            See you back here in two years, then in 5, and then in 10. 🙂

          • Visitor
            Visitor

            That’s what they said about Alta Vista. 🙂
            Spotify’s a complete failure.
            It’s losing money and artists at a faster and faster rate.
            Meanwhile, mainstream piracy is diminishing, thanks to the coordinated international initiatives we witness all over the globe right now.
            This means that the race to the bottom is over. There’s no longer any reason to give your music away anymore.
            How awesome is that!

          • Visitor
            Visitor

            Nope, there’s no catch. Microsoft can’t give away what they don’t own.
            You have to understand that the entire paradigm is changing as we speak:
            Artists don’t *need* to work for free anymore.

          • Casey
            Casey

            You do realize streaming is the future? The cloud model has been pushed so hard that the ball is not going to stop rolling for artists. The idea of streaming data and accessing data from the cloud is the way the entire digital entertainment industry is headed. Video games have gone from physical to download and now to being pulled off the cloud. Actual video is getting rolled out in streaming services not only from Netflix and Hulu, but now from Verizon, Comcast, and others. Music is going to go along with the others, whether artists like it or not. If it isn’t Spotify, it willl be someone else. And artists will get paid similar to what they are paid now, because that is how the economics work. Consumers have spoken and made it clear they are embrassing the streaming world. Consumers are the ones who decide. They have the money.

            One of the only reasons we are not streaming everything right now is because of a very important bottleneck. The slow internet connections. But that is changing and services like Google Fiber allow us to stream and access… everything.

          • Central Scrutinizer
            Central Scrutinizer

            Google fiber is great…. if you live in Kansas city.
            Kidding aside, I agree that THE biggest roadblock to streaming is lack of competition in the final mile to peoples homes.
            Many of the EU countries that express satisfaction with digital streaming services have download speeds many times faster than here in the US.
            Right now google is one of the few companies with enough money to risk getting into the trenches with the cable providers.

      • HansH
        HansH

        Spotify is popular in Sweden and Netherlands because they are headquartered in Sweden and incorporated in Netherlands.
        Huh? Spotify is incorporated in several European countries and the US as well. Here is the list http://www.spotify.com/us/about-us/contact/
        I don’t think patriotism is a factor, well maybe in Sweden but certainly not in the Netherlands;)
        They may be popular in some other European countries by paying those independent artists a larger rate at the expense of too many others.
        Where on earth did you learn that?

        Reply
        • Cowboy Perspective
          Cowboy Perspective

          Swede – what? That’s the size of Florida. Netherla – what? Maybe Kentucky.
          If your gonna make a comparison, please make one that makes sense to BIG America.

          Reply
          • Eeerhh ...?
            Eeerhh ...?

            You mean big, FAT, useless, uneducated, corporate run, brainwashed, privatized, jobless America. I think like all obese slow learners you will just have to trail after the rest of the sivilized world. Maybe you will catch up with us at some point, but things are not looking good right now.

          • Umm...
            Umm...

            If you’re going to tell people they’re not civilised (UK English) civilized (US English), at least learn how to spell it.
            Regardless of the s or z in the middle, it starts with a ‘C’.

            Oh and I’m English, so I’m not trying to defend the US, I just think its silly to call them uneducated but not be able to spell the words you’re using. Who’s the ‘slow learner’ now?

        • Yves Villeneuve
          Yves Villeneuve

          My mistake. Spotify Technology (the parent company) is incorporated in the country, Luxembourg. I made the amendment in the blog but doesn’t change any of the facts listed there.

          There is no transparency in how much percentage of revenues that artists make from subscription companies. Common sense dictates that aggregators(distributors) get different deals and don’t share this information with their independent artists to avoid migrations to aggregators with better deals. It is a reason why aggregators with bad deals will do business with those service providers desiring their catalog.

          Follow the Spotify buzz: more buzz equal better payout deals at the expense of too many others globally. Spotify uses this misaligned buzz to grow its business. Independent Swedish artists are likely the highest paid independent artists in the Spotify catalog, as a percentage of revenues (total revenues / total streams X %) .

          Reply
          • HansH
            HansH

            Not true Yves. Swedish artists get the same rate per stream, about $0.005 on average.

      • steve
        steve

        I’m sorry, but I’m not going to trust the blog of someone who is still using MySpace to be have a lot of insight on what the future of the Internet will be.

        Reply
    • Spotify = Netflix
      Spotify = Netflix

      Doesn’t everyone get it?
      Spotify charges just $15/month. For that you deserve catalog music, NOT new releases. Even some of the catalog might opt-out.

      Spotify = Netflix

      This isn’t bad or good. It just IS.

      Why do we accept this in movies but not in music? Its the same thing. Want the latest releases? Go buy the album or go to the theatre (or concert, or iTunes). Pay $20+ for it. Want a low cost, on-demand option for large amounts of less-fresh entertainment? Subscribe to netflix or Spotify. Its that simple. People have been deluding themselves about ‘deserving’ all the latest music by paying a subscription fee to Spotify. For $15 you DONT GET THE LATEST – you get the catalog, AFTER its been charged a higher price point due to demand.

      The issue here is that Spotify believed that they could defy logic and ROI. But nobody can. Get over it. Expect that new releases from high-demand artists are not going to be on Spotify or others for a while after the release. Its common sense for them.
      And if Apple gets into the mix, lookout! They will take a big loss to be able to buy the new releases and give them to you so long as you own an Apple device. This is what is coming. Stop fooling yourself! … and stop complaining.

      This is business, and to expect otherwise is to set yourself up for disappointment.

      Reply
      • HansH
        HansH

        Hey it’s $10 a month and I do think you should get the latest releases. for that. Those paying $10 a month for music need to pampered.
        If you want to window a release, fine with me. But why not do it like this:
        Make the release a Premium exclusive for a few months.Show the album to Free users together with an option to buy the album for $5 or upgrade to Premium.

        Reply
      • hippydog
        hippydog

        I would expect that to change in the future..
        As spotify (or streaming services) start to take over the place of radio (Like Itunes did for the distributors), more artists will start to use it as a promo service..
        it simply doesnt have that power right now..

        Reply
      • Rusty H
        Rusty H

        Agreed, there should be some tiers in Spotify. And I suspect that will happen in the near future… pay $25 a month and get access to the latest “big hits”. I hope they do that. Because that will mean more exposure for the long tail by the masses who don’t want to pay the top tier.
        Just like Netflix has caused an explosion of viewing of older TV shows, streaming service listeners will start exploring older materiel they never heard before. It’s still fresh and new if you’ve never heard it (or anything like it) before!

        Reply
    • Visitor
      Visitor

      Taylor is doing it right – Windowing makes sense and it’s her right to do so, just like Edelle… streaming may or may not make sense…

      oh, and why is spotify so big in sweden? well, maybe because it was subsidised by the major wireless carriers there as a premium value add?

      What if AT&T or Verizon did the same in the USA? But… they’d have to pay for it…

      Reply
  1. Spotifried
    Spotifried

    It’s contagious: Another post from Paul about Spotify.
    There’s so much other stuff going on right now…..why keep harping on this? I find myself visiting here less than more because of it.

    Reply
  2. mattshiv
    mattshiv

    The album seems to ONLY be available from iTunes (for $14.99 no less). It is not yet on Amazon MP3 or Google Play to purchase either. Seems to be a big push for iTunes and physical on this one.

    Reply
    • Visitor
      Visitor

      Beats me why anyone would use Google Play. And Amazon’s pricing policy is weird and unpredictable.
      Apple/iTunes is the most reliable player and they deserve our support, IMO.

      Reply
      • Angry Russian citizen
        Angry Russian citizen

        “How people want their music is endlessly baffling to me. I’m not a ‘formatist’. I remember when cassettes came into demand. When ‘Repeater’ came out, I think we sold more cassettes than we did vinyl. I’ve always believed that if people want cassettes, we’ll make cassettes. When CDs came along, we made CDs. We’re never cutting edge, we always let it go for a while and see what the people want. When downloads had been around for a few years, and the bands said “We want downloads”, we did downloads. Our basic premise is that we’ll make it available, but there always has to be an option- an alternative, another way of doing it.”
        Ian MacKaye

        Reply
  3. Casey
    Casey

    This isn’t really new. Taylor has been withholding her songs from Spotify for some time.

    Taylor Swift has grown anti-fan as of lately. She has absolutely no shortage of money and no reason to believe this album won’t go multi-platinum. There is no valid reason to withhold. The fan that buys legal access to music is the one who gets hurt by this.

    Reply
  4. Troll
    Troll

    What these artists and labels seem to forget is that you now have a bunch of fans/(streaming services users) just hopping on over to sites like GrooveShark, BitTorrent, YouTube, etc. and where BigMachine gets *nothing* from these users.
    Apparently my $10/mo. is so useless to Taylor Swift that she would rather give her content away.
    Greed is one thing, but this is just wrong.

    Reply
    • Sean Beavan
      Sean Beavan

      I subscibe to Netflicks. I don’t get mad at content providers for witholding a product while they run it in theaters or on television and are able to recoup costs and hopefully make a profit. This process enables the artists and technicians involved to make a living and produce more content for your enterainment. It cost Taylor swift over 400,000 to make her record and she will spend over 400,000 to market it ( just industry averages for high profile artists) She would never recoup if she had to rely only on the pennies received from streaming sites. Also remember she personally only makes about 14 cents per record and 20% goes to her manager, 5% goes to her lawyer, 5% goes to her business manager and she pays 38% in federal taxes (unlike Mitt Romney)

      Reply
      • Casey
        Casey

        $800k for an album compared to $100-300 million for a movie. Big difference. That’s why movies are released the way they are. The money has to be made. Taylor could cover her costs in streaming without a problem.

        Reply
        • Big Swifty
          Big Swifty

          The scale is different but the idea is the same.
          Yes, movie production and distribution costs much more but are you suggesting that the accountants at Taylor Swift’s recording/distributing co. aren’t making the same decisions?
          Do you think that these accountants haven’t looked at ALL the possible revenue gains and losses and decided that holding back from spotify is a net gain for there bottom line?

          Reply
          • Troll
            Troll

            Actually no, I don’t think accountants look at all the possible revenue streams (especially when it comes to taking into account Grooveshark vs. Spotify vs. Rdio, etc.).
            Adults also happen to listen to music on YouTube and Grooveshark. And guess what, the generation that grew up using BitTorrent is now at the age where they would otherwise start buying albums for kids. You must be astounded!
            If songwriters and labels alike are going to attack piracy, they ought to reconsider withholding their content from paid streaming services.
            Just sayin’.

          • Big Swifty
            Big Swifty

            Nice condescending attitude. Your mom must be so proud!
            And yes I still find it hard to believe that among all the lawyers, marketing people and accountants at Taylor Swist’s record label no one analyzed the numbers before deciding to withhold from streaming.
            That’s just my opinion I don’t have their contact info to ask directly, do you?

          • Casey
            Casey

            I think they do not care if streaming would make them millions. I think they want to attempt to double-dip and make customers pay for the album up front and hit them up again when they release it to streaming companies. Most customers would never see it happening. I don’t think that is right.

          • Big Swifty
            Big Swifty

            I agree recording companies have had a long history of enjoying sales of re-releases and multiple formats.
            Hoowever, will they make up lost revenue because the people who purchase the apple download will also pay again when it is finally released on spotify?
            They are counting on customers being so stupid as to pay for the download and then pay to hear it streamed?
            Does spotify collect revenue from songs they grab from your collection?
            If so, then that is a good reason not to subscribe or to cancel subscription to spotify.
            If not, how will the label make up the revenue for Tylor Swift recordings via streaming?

          • No such thing as double dippin
            No such thing as double dippin

            You buy the music, take and listen to it anywhere you want.

            For whatever reason you want spotify, you pay for it, I’m sure it’s not JUST to get swift’s new record, oh right, because its not on there

        • Visitor
          Visitor

          Sean’s comment is true and valid from the consumer’s viewpoint.
          Your reply is from the distributors viewpoint.
          Are consumers really angry when they pay to see a movie at the the theater and the same movie shows up on cable payper view 2-3 months later at a lower price or even later on a premium subscription movie channel (HBO, Starz etc.) or much much later if ever on broadcast television?

          Reply
    • Seriously?
      Seriously?

      I guess those fans that are hopping to streaming services are not the ones that helped her sell 1.2 million her first week and almost 3 million to date??

      I’m pretty sure that 3mil SOLD pays waaaaay better than 3mil streamed ($39)

      ill take sales any day.

      Reply
  5. Billy
    Billy

    “The obvious takeaway is that Swift […] is withholding the release to maximize release revenues.”… And encourage piracy…

    Reply
    • Casey
      Casey

      Encourage piracy is an understatement. Most teens who buy Spotify or Rhapsody are not going to go to itunes and buy her songs. They are going to fire up torrents or youtube downloaders.

      People are not made of money these days, especially teens when it comes to music. They will pay for a concert. They will buy an album if they have a good reason to own it. But they will not pay for Spotify and iTunes downloads.
      Taylor is attempting to double-dip here. Get people to buy her music outright, then get them to pay her down the road with streams for the exact same product (her music). That’s not right.

      Reply
      • Big Swifty
        Big Swifty

        What percentage of customers at spotify and rhapsody are teenagers?
        I suspect the decision to withhold from spotify is based on adult consumers purchasing decisions.
        Also, I think it was mentioned here or somewhere else that spotify doesn’t allow new releases for paid subscribers only, it’s all or nothing for now. This might be a factor in the decision to not release new on spotify.

        Reply
        • Casey
          Casey

          For Spotify, probably half. Maybe more. Spotify is very popular with teens due to Facebook.

          Rhapsody is paid only. The decision to deny Rhapsofy along with Spotify makes me think the free version had little to do with it.

          Reply
          • Big Swifty
            Big Swifty

            Maybe I am missing something here. I obviously don’t know how they distribute the revenue they collect
            Do streaming services distribute revenue to copyright holders if they grab the content from your collection that you have already paid for? Do they just grab the playlists from customers and not the content?
            If so then wouldn’t that be a problem for the streaming business model?
            Are the teen spotify consumers from facebook paid subscribers or free/ad based? because it is my understanding that the free stream is a money loser.

      • krokodil
        krokodil

        So fucking what if they don’t have money Casey? boohoohoo – even if you’re standing in line at the soupkitchen you don’t get your entertainment for free unless you can pay for the bulk of it.
        typical of the chldish, entitled generation, parasites r us

        Reply
  6. Why?
    Why?

    Why?
    Because she can.
    There are millions are screaming tweens with their parent’s Itunes accounts and Credit Cards swarming to fill their phones, computers and ipods with this.
    She’ll be fine guys.

    And so will you.

    Reply
  7. bruce
    bruce

    I pre-ordered the CD from the official Taylor Swift store three weeks ago for my daughter who is an uber Taylor Swift fan. Pre-orders typically arrive the day the album drops. But not this one – they shipped it via UPS ground the day the album dropped. My daughter is bummed out, so now I have to go buy a copy of the CD at the store. I hate the fact that they get credit for sales of two copies of the album! They probably did this on purpose because they know that most of their fans are younged kids who will complain to their parents who, like me, will then go to the store and buy a copy because they don’t want to wait an extra week. Having this album is social currency among young girls, and as a music fan I get the desire to get your hands on an album the day it drops. This is really lame management by the Taylor Swift camp. BOO!

    Reply
    • Visitor
      Visitor

      You should copy and paste this comment into an email to her official store and any of her other social media.
      or better yet if your daughter has twitter or facebook or her own email have her send it
      It might not accomplish anything but at least it might get the message out.

      Reply
    • really
      really

      you really had no choice but to go to a store and buy a duplicate piece of plastic, just to appease your teenage child? i see a reality tv show in your future – less like “The Kardashians” and more like “Cops” LOL.

      Reply
    • Josh
      Josh

      From my understanding, it doesn’t lose money from sales – if you want the entire album, you are going to buy the album regardless of its presence on Spotify (or other streaming networks). The people planning in listening on just Spotify (not album as well) would most likely pirate the song before paying for it. I’m not sure the stats, but the additional profit from the streaming users who would instead buy individually on iTunes or the like might not be worth the negative publicity (from the fact they withhold it), the lost publicity (from the users who won’t hear the song on Spotify), and the profits, albeit minimal, that they make from the streamers who are instead now going to pirate.

      Reply
  8. brandonchamberlain
    brandonchamberlain

    One thing everyone is forgetting is that iTunes pushes these actions to offer larger placements. She had an entire takeover of the music homepage with all of her albums – they aren’t going to give Big Machine that spotlight look if she has it available in Amazon and Spotify.
    It’s idiotic to avoid streaming – but it’s also smart and will likely work to their advantage in this case.
    Swift didn’t opp out of Spotify. The team negotiated a larger iTunes push for an exclusive first look.

    Reply
    • Visitor
      Visitor

      Yeah, none of these artists are boycotting Spotify, they are just windowing releases. It’s kind of scummy, but hey, $$$$$$$ talks.

      Reply
    • hippydog
      hippydog

      @ brandonchamberlain
      that would make sense..
      Win-win for both Apple and Taylor..
      Didnt she even do an apple commercial once? so a ‘deal’ between the two would not be surprising..

      Reply
  9. Jaded Industry Dude
    Jaded Industry Dude

    What’s so funny to me is that everyone in this thread knows better than one of the highest grossing artists of all time.

    Laughable, really. Let an artist do whatever they want. Wah wah waaaaah.

    Reply
  10. Numfar
    Numfar

    I googled my way on to this forum because I was confused about something. Why do I have access to Taylor Swifts Red album (on Spotify) on my phone, but not on my computer? All my searches the “Taylor Swift Red” were in vain. My conclusion now is that Spotify published it for a short time, and I was lucky enough to d/l it to my phone. My phone is in set to offline mode, and I wont be going online for the rest of the month 🙂 🙂
    In case people are curious, its the 16 track album I’ve got access to for the moment. The deluxe one 22? track one was not available as far as I know.
    My gripe would be about the lack of information regarding upcoming releases. I don’t really have a problem either way about the windowing issue, but I’d like to know in advance if the album is going to be available or not, so I can make a decision.

    Reply
  11. Visitor
    Visitor

    How do you figure that she is going to make more? Again, I now spend $120 a year on music–more than ever before in my life. I don’t buy individual tracks anymore. Managing files is a waste of team when streaming is so much more convenient.
    She is getting nothing from me and people like me right now. It’s totally delusional to think that an album purchase will happen because of these tactics. It’s just leaving money on the table. Oh well.

    Reply
    • Visitor
      Visitor

      Most people aren’t bothered that it’s not in Spotify. She isn’t gaining new fans – she is beyond established. People that want to hear her record are not hesitating to spend the $13 with the push of one touch-screen button on their iPhone to instantly have it.
      There is no “managing files” unless you are a DJ. The entire point is that they are on your mobile device, your cloud, and anywhere else.
      I’m on team Spotify all the way – I just get it in this particular case, with a legacy act like this, for lack of better description.

      Reply
  12. ._.
    ._.

    Scott Borchetta / Big Machine Records, do you really know what you’re doing?

    If you’d have released Red on both iTunes AND Spotify, I believe it would’ve broken records.

    I think it would be safe to say the reason Mumford and Sons’ Babel broke records on Spotify is not only because listeners have a premium subscription or wanted to fully “preview” it, but also because purchased the album elsewhere (digital or physical) because they want a copy for the car, stereo system, etc..

    I most likely would have purchased Red on iTunes if it had been made available on Spotify Premium and I’d been able to “preview” it, but definitely won’t be now. I’d be “acquiring” it elsewhere thankyouverymuch.

    What doesn’t make sense is how Red is unavailable on Spotify Premium and yet it’s streaming on Soundcloud for FREE (with a stupid Siri-like intro)…..

    http://soundcloud.com/taylorswiftofficial/sets/red-deluxe-version/

    Reply
  13. David@indigo
    David@indigo

    This is simple. The artist can and will decide. Windowing, no windowing, streaming, where, when etc. That is why the world is so much better for artists and audience than it was before. Things where not better before . They where infinitely worse.
    Three cheers for the internet 🙂

    Reply
  14. TCSI
    TCSI

    It’s sad that Taylor, or her record company, Can do this to honest fans who are paying to listen to her album. None of these streaming sevices are free last I checked. These companies Suck the joy out of looking forward to new albums. They can be sure I won’t be buying It.

    Reply
  15. CrimTV
    CrimTV

    Love Taylor Swift but not happy with her record label. Billboard have announced that she has sold around 262,000 copies already! So even with streaming she would have been very succesful with the album (Spotify songs can’t be imported to iTunes, Ipods or CDs) so people would still buy the albums anyway. I’m gutted!

    Reply
  16. kentsee
    kentsee

    Dear Ms. Swift and your management. Since you won’t let me stream your music off of spotify and make you some money, i’ll just stream your music off of youtube and make you no money.

    Sincerely,

    A Spotify Premium User

    Reply
  17. Julian
    Julian

    We have already seen this cycle play out before. If you stop letting people stream your music then they just go to pirate it. (something that I do not agree with)

    Music companies just need to figure out another way to use streaming music to generate revenue. Perhaps put more emphasis on the live shows so they can sell more tickets to concerts. If people are not streaming you then why would you assume that they will think of you the next time they want to go to a concert.

    Reply
  18. bella
    bella

    i’m so disappointed right now. I really love taylor and i’m so mad that i’m gonna have to buy her album on iTunes instead of just listening to her on spotify.

    Reply
  19. Leroy Brock
    Leroy Brock

    I can totally do without Taylor Swift.
    Forever.

    Perhaps if the big music companies hadn’t steadfastly refused to adapt to changing times for so long and ended up being convicted of price fixing I’d feel differently for them and the artists under umbrellas.

    Reply
  20. hippydog
    hippydog

    I see spotify as just a future form of radio..
    Right now it doesnt have enough power (IE affect sales nor revenue streams of artists) tomake it worthwhile to release on Itunes and stream at the same time..
    Radio is to the medium of promotion and still controls the ‘ends’

    Reply
  21. Someone Cool lol
    Someone Cool lol

    Every argument streaming services make is complete BULLSHIT! That’s their SALES pitch brainwashing method to convince consumers their way is the future. It’s all simply to line their OWN pockets and build billion dollar companies. Hence Pandoras $3B recent evaluation. A total joke to me to think the micro pennies getting paid to songwriters are creating billion dollar companies while songwriters who create your favorite music starve. Sad honestly. Consumers should understand how many families are fed when they PURCHASE music. Just sayin 😉

    Reply
  22. Margerie
    Margerie

    Red is my favorite color. It’s a strong color that no matter what, you will feel the Taste of Windsor. Just watch what fit with this “strong” color pairing.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Verify Your Humanity *