Taylor Swift Still Refusing to Release on Spotify…

1989, Taylor Swift’s latest album, was officially released today.  It’s not available on Spotify.

Here’s what it looks like on the iTunes Store.

 

taylorswiftitunes

tayloritunes2

 

Written while listening to deadmau5.

 

63 Responses

    • james

      Awesome Taylor Swift is standing up and saying fuck you to Spotify.

      Other artists should wake up and follow… then you would see growth in the music biz come back.

      Reply
      • There is something...

        Yeah sure… You’ll see growth in torrent site come back. What’s the point of having your album not available on Spotify but on all pirate site around the world ?

        Reply
        • james

          because having your music on streaming kills hardcore buyers. it’s a fact. look at itunes getting killed.

          Reply
          • Anonymous

            And removing it is going to bring them back? That ship has sailed.

          • Anonymous

            “removing it is going to bring them back?”

            Yes, windowing sends fans directly to iTunes — we’ve seen it again and again. It just works…

          • Anonymous

            “having your music on streaming kills hardcore buyers”

            Yup, that’s why everybody’s windowing now — it’s not even worth discussing anymore.

            But again, the new YouTube will change everything (it does not allow windowing).

          • There is something...

            Who is “everybody” ? Do you have stats ? A couple major artists doesn’t mean “everybody”. Among the artists I listen to, nobody does this.

          • Anonymous

            “Who is “everybody””

            Those who literally keep iTunes alive (Beyoncé, Adele, Coldplay, Black Keys, Daft Punk, Taylor Swift, etc.).

            And it sounds like you’re not yet familiar with windowing, so please allow me to repeat my little crash course in the concept:

            Most acts sell most of their music during the first weeks and months after release.

            Now, if you give your songs away during this critical period, you will suffer a certain amount of cannibalization (people don’t buy your music because they can get it for free without breaking any laws). Nobody knows the exact ratio, but you would lose money even if it were as low as 1 to 100 (it takes 100-140 Spotify streams to balance the loss of 1 sold song). And nobody claims the ratio is that low.

            So a lot of smart people thought about this for a while and the smartest among them — people like the artists mentioned above, and their teams — realized that windowing was the way to go:

            Windowing comes in all shapes and sizes, but it generally means that you keep your property away from Spotify, or similar services, during the most critical period in the lifespan of a record — and that you make it available on these services as soon as sales begin to drop.

            That’s how artists make money today.

          • There is something...

            The more I see your stupid posts, the more I look forward to the day iTunes sales drop to almost 0 and Apple switch to streaming only, together with YouTube. Then you can stick your stupid windowing theory deep in a place of your anatomy that never sees the sun… Have a nice day !

          • Anonymous

            “I look forward to the day iTunes sales drop to almost 0”

            Meanwhile, in the real world: Seems like Ms. Swift is going platinum. 🙂

          • doktor audio

            ok well explained. as a music fan with no money, what I would do next is wait until the window closes and then listen to the free streams. Say I fell for the window on some occasions and bought a couple of albums only to find out that weeks later I could listen to them for free. I’d feel like a patsy having spent money on music that will be available for free soon.

            So in my opinion windowing would only work until people find out about it and just wait for the probably more important streaming release. Considering the amount of music being put out every week, why would I need to listen to Taylor’s new album right now – even if I was a fan of her? Hardcore fanship is not defined by being the first to download a copy. Release, a term from back in time when music came only to record stores and we had to literally go there to check it out, has been stripped to the bone already. Hell, I don’t even see a point why artists would cling on the whole album-ing concept. I’d happily be proven wrong, so bring it on you anonymouses, but my bet stands that windowing is just a 2014 thing. Nothing for the books.

          • Anonymous

            “why would I need to listen to Taylor’s new album right now”

            Trust me: You would, if you were a fan.

            And that goes for pop in general — it’s like sex, a wave of exploding excitement: You just know you want it, and you want it now!

          • Dave

            Really she doesn’t have enough money from music that she has to be greedy and doesn’t give back to her fans a little. No matter good her music is she just lost a fan here and I don’t use Spotify I buy the music I like but she won’t get anymore purchases from me for being so greedy.

      • FarePlay

        The most repugnant excuse for Spotify is that it’s an anecdote for piracy. Given those involved with Spotify at a high level have backgrounds in piracy and that the very devaluation of music is a result of piracy enabling Spotify and now everyone to get music cheap from the labels It is positively awesome that Taylor Swift is saying, you add no value to my work.

        As far as Grooveshark goes, once the Safe Harbor is drained, Groveshark and other predators will finally have to finally fight for survival.

        Reply
        • Anonymous

          Do tweens pirate or is it just a folks with penises thing? b/c this chick’s audience is mostly 10-14 year old girls.

          Reply
        • Anonymous

          “It is positively awesome that Taylor Swift is saying, you add no value to my work.”

          Yes, we should thank her (at least by buying her record) — she was one of the first to popularize windowing!

          Thanks to her, people know they can’t rely on Spotify for new songs.

          And the numbers prove that fans don’t go to piracy sites instead — hundreds of thousands go straight to iTunes!

          So Mr. Ek and all the pirates were dead wrong! 🙂

          Reply
          • There is+something...

            Numbers ? What numbers ? You can’t compare any number because nobody know. To be able to compare, you would need to have the same album from the same artists released two different way (one time with windowing, one time without windowing) to make a comparison. And that’s of course impossible to do. So we can only build theories, with nobody being able to prove it’s right or wrong.

          • FarePlay

            Ah, the vicious, name calling, young punk that keeps following me around like a piece of dog shit on the bottom of my shoe. Feel like responding? Good.

            1. Do you have a paid subscription to Spotify?

            2. Are you paid by Spotify?

            3. Do you post here under other aliases?

            4. Do you support online piracy and are you aware that Daniel Ek worked in a senior position at a company whose primary clients were infringing sites?

            5. Do you know what ageism is and that it is considered a form of racism?

            6. Can you provide any “data” that proves Spotify significantly benefits songwriters in anyway or that Spotify increases t-shirt sales or touring revenue for bands or solo artists?

          • There is something...

            Slow day dude ? Retirement can boring sometimes… Go back making some music ! If you didn’t notice, I was replying to Mr. Anonymous…

          • Anonymous

            “I was replying to Mr. Anonymous”

            FarePlay pretty much sums it up — I have nothing to add.

          • danwriter

            “5. Do you know what ageism is and that it is considered a form of racism?”

            Where did that come from?

        • Versus

          Exactly right.

          And that was always Spotify’s own justification for its own pay-outs: “Anything we pay you is more than free/stolen/pirated”. A disgusting and unethical argument. That’s how exploitation always justifies itself..

          Reply
          • Anonymous

            I guess it would’ve been better if they said ” we pay you what is required under the law.” It’s still not enough of course. It never is and never will be.

      • Bianca

        Seriously? She should wake up and be thankful that she makes millions of dollars everyday from loyal fans and just be happy to be making music people love. Real artists make music for the love of it not for money.

        Reply
      • Joe

        I actually looked for Taylor Swift on Spotify and since I couldn’t find her there I downloaded the torrent. Refusing to give into Spotify will only hurt the artist.

        Reply
    • David

      Which is just another reason why Grooveshark is fucked, and its principals will end up in federal prison for criminal copyright infringement. If there isn’t already a federal grand jury on the case, the FBI are sleeping on the job.

      Reply
    • Paul Resnikoff
      Paul Resnikoff

      Funny, I’m not seeing the complete album on either YouTube or Grooveshark. Maybe they’re heavily policing and demanding pulldowns. (Or, maybe I’m not searching smartly enough.)

      Reply
      • Anonymous

        “Maybe they’re heavily policing and demanding pulldowns”

        That’s windowing 101…

        Reply
          • Anonymous

            “You need a lot of resources to pull that off”

            That’s simply not correct anymore — there are lots of very cheap and reliable services anybody can use:

            Try:

            toppletrack.com/artists

            nukepiracy.com

            muso.com/anti-piracy/services/music

          • lane

            Paul, not really hard to police and not that expensive for a huge artist like this. There are many anti-piracy firms for $5k or so a month who do a great job. Not 100% effect but pretty close.

            Taylor Swift and Big Machine are doing the right thing. They will crush it this week.

            P.S. — If you think Spotify is killing piracy, you don’t know the numbers. Piracy is actually bigger now than ever.

    • Anonymous

      Yaaaar pre-release leak, haaaar. It seems like there be yaaaar haaaar in the poppet’s production chain, matey.

      Reply
  1. GGG

    Cool, well, the next 3 listed albums are all on Spotify.

    So again, yes, if you’re a huge pop star you should window and you’ll make boatloads more money. I think we’re pretty much all in agreement there.

    Would have been a much more interesting story if you tallied a bunch of albums to see how many are off and how many are on.

    Reply
  2. Andre

    Good for her. Not her fault streaming services haven’t crossed the tipping point where windowing doesn’t make economic sense.

    Reply
    • Anonymous

      But that’s just for losers like you. 🙂

      Hundreds of thousands fans are paying for her hard work as we speak…

      Reply
        • Anonymous

          Not just more coke and hookers. Many of those who pirate have content collections even the richest persons in the country wouldn’t spend for. We are talking about tens of millions of dollars of music, movies, software, games, etc. In a sense they are richer then most of the 1%, at least in one category of wealth.

          Reply
          • PiratesWinLOL

            That would be very, very few. Harddrives and gigabytes are not free and organizing a libery like that would take forever. Why would anyone do that when you can just stream for free and have everything done for you? MP3Skull, GrooveShark, YouTube, Spotify.. It is not like there is any lack of free options. The same is the case with movies. Pirating games and software can make sense for now, but in a few years they’ll be streamed too.

  3. Joker

    ITunes revenue down 14% due to downloads fading faster than most admit. Apple moving to streaming that customers want via Beats.
    Beats, Spotify et al in the streaming sphere will grow so those who have their heads in the sand – and a number seem to – had better wake up and smell the coffee.

    Reply
    • PiratesWinLOL

      Yeah, soon there will be nothing relevant to window to and that’ll be the end of this little silly thing.

      Reply
        • PiratesWinLOL

          Of course not 🙂 What I mean is MP3 downloads which consumers clearly reject. There will only be streaming left in a few years, and then this silly little thing about windowing will be a forgotten thing of the past.

          Reply
  4. Anonymous

    lol she’s only made like $300k from “Shake It Off” on Spotify, why doesn’t Spotify pay anything to artists

    Reply
    • PiratesWinLOL

      Now that is what I call a starving artist! Who can blame her now, for being greedy and desperately wanting to squeeze every single dollar out of her fans?

      Reply
      • BDD06

        I don’t think it’s a matter of squeezing every dollar out of her fans. She is entitled to earn money for her creation if she wants. It belongs to her (and her record label). she can give it away for free if she chooses, whether that be in the way Radiohead did or by making it available for streaming but she/label have decided that if someone wants to listen to her work that she has spent months and months working on, they are going to have to pay $20 bucks to do so.
        I don’t think that’s a unfair request. We are just so used to getting stuff for free that we get pissed off when asked to pay no matter how reasonable that request is.

        Reply
      • Ta-Da

        Shut up, turd. Who’s paying for your internet? You spend too much time stealing and conning your way through life.

        Reply
  5. Anonymous

    It’s a step in the right direction. If enough artists would follow suit, streaming companies will feel the heat in which some will work out a play to pay the artists.

    Reply
  6. Anonymous

    This is hilarious. To those who have such strong opinions about streaming music and how ‘unethical’ Spotify is…Do you live in today’s society? Out of all of the f**ked up things that go on, Spotify qualifies as even ONE of the things you’ve decided to take a stand against and call out? HILARIOUS. Let me fill you in on how a typical listener reacts to Spotify- it’s a great, convenient way to find music. If an artist isn’t on Spotify, I don’t steal their music- if I want it badly enough, I buy it- if I don’t, I don’t. In Taylor’s case- I opted not to buy it. I’ve heard so much hub-bub about how she’s ripping off Lana Del Rey I wanted to see if there was anything to it. There’s not an ethical tug of war going on inside my head. I don’t need lessons on how the music industry works- and if you do, or you care as much as a lot of these people, then you need to get a life. Honestly, there’s a whole world out there full of actual problems and debates that matter. Stop being so mean to each other over how Taylor Swift or any artist releases her/his/their music. I assure you they (and you) will be fine. Also, I’d hope the FBI has better things to do (I think we all should).

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Verify Your Humanity *