If Taylor Swift Can’t Beat Spotify, Then Neither Can You…


Taylor Swift is the only artist that went platinum in 2014.  She’s the most powerful and influential musician on the planet right now, and the best thing that ever happened to artists fighting for fair compensation and better treatment in the digital era.

But she also lost, decisively, in her battle against Spotify.

Immediately after Taylor Swift removed her entire catalog from Spotify in early November, two things happened:

(1) Spotify embarked on its greatest surge in users and subscribers, ever.

(2) YouTube enjoyed a massive spillover effect from millions of people who still wanted to stream Taylor Swift’s album.  And YouTube pays much less than Spotify.

Analysts like Mark Mulligan argue that deep discounts are what spurred Spotify’s subscriber surge in the past two months.  But the attention of hundreds of millions of people suddenly paying attention to the Taylor Swift debate, and this ‘Spotify’ thing, didn’t hurt either.

In the end, the public didn’t really understand the complicated compensation issues.  But they easily understood this cool Spotify thing.  The result was this:


The only thing more powerful than Taylor Swift taking on Spotify would be twenty Taylor Swifts taking on Spotify.  In other words, a wide-scale boycott from the most powerful, influential artists in the world, with a content pullout that would cripple Spotify’s service.  But that’s extremely unlikely to happen, thanks to very secure contracts between Spotify and the big three major labels, who control the catalogs of these so-called ‘powerful’ artists.

Collectively, they decide what appears on Spotify, they decide when it appears on Spotify, they decide who gets paid what, or if artists get paid at all.  Taylor Swift was just an inconvenience.

Don’t get it confused: the majors, Spotify, and others like Pandora aren’t nice people, and they aren’t looking out for artists.  But they are extremely powerful people who are making a lot of money off of streaming and reaching tens of millions of users, with or without your participation.  The best you can do is window your releases on streaming platforms, and that’s typically only something artists with extremely loyal followings or superstar-level profiles can achieve.

For the rest of us, a Spotify pullout means you don’t exist to millions of potential fans.  Sitting it out only makes the situation worse, and reduces the already-slim chances of making money through some other endeavor, like touring or patronage.  You might as well join ’em.

You’ll still get screwed on your streaming royalties, and you’ll still struggle.  But at least you’ll still be alive.  And that’s the music business in 2015.



Image by Morgan, licensed and modified under Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic (CC by 2.0).

60 Responses

  1. fact your checks

    jason aldean, ariana grande and sam smith would like to have a word with you about that first sentence.

    • Clay Mills

      You happen to be wrong.. you can’t survive playing spotify’s game if you are the songwriter of those songs being played. 80 percent of songwriters have lost their jobs since spotify and pandora were launched. They are legally stealing because songwriters are told what royalties they get by the government and can’t negotiate.

      • GGG

        Not that your point is wrong, but if it wasn’t for statutory rates songwriters would probably be paid even less.

      • JAIO

        80 percent of songwriters have lost their jobs since spotify and pandora were launched.

        cite source please

      • Clem Kadiddlehopper

        The government decides? Are you kidding??? ……..the government has absolutely nothing to do with deciding what an artist gets paid or not. The music industry itself along with a bunch of useless artists unions, quacks, managers, agents and other assorted Carpetbaggers and Con Artists is who decides what they get paid.

        It’s a crooked business…… as crooked as Gambling, Wall Street Con Jobs, Drugs, or any other type criminally controlled enterprise. Maybe even worse than any other part of the Entertainment Industry Trades. But musicians do it to themselves, because they are the ones that let the fat cat suits in the music industry get their way. They really need to fire every single one of their so called managers, agents, union leaders, and other assorted coat tail hangers on and make a new union of all Musicians for Musicians.

        Because none of them are doing their jobs and it’s the most illegally double siding business on the planet. Even double dipping Lawyers are not as bad of a problem. But they are at least smart enough to keep what they do behind closed doors. Like the Music Industry itself does. If more musicians spent more time actually managing their own business and stopped signing on for pennies on Crooked Deals, they could indeed do more than survive.

        Where now all the music industries suits and zombies are stuffing their hard earned dollars in their greedy pockets. Just like old time movie industry and Wall Street Con Artists now…. spending more of their clients’s money than their own earned income. aka….. Other People’s Money (OPM) the drug of choice for Crooks the World Over!!! …….if musicians actually want to earn more on their music, they need to take back ownership from the majors and publishers in perhaps the still crookedest business on the planet. Music Entertainment!

  2. Anonymous

    Hm… Ms. Swift’s Spotify boycott seems to work pretty well for her, no? 🙂

    • Anonymous

      Did it? She was already predicted to go plat with or without Spotify. Just like any album she has ever released. We have no proof that it hurt of helped Taylor Swift at all. The only thing we do know is that she is missing out on millions of $’s from Spotify royalties.

      • Anonymous

        Oh bull pucky. She might have been expected to go platinum but not blow the rest of the world away with 4x that. 4 million worldwide. Nobody else even comes close to being able to sniff that number.

        And her record wasn’t on YouTube. The moment a song got put on there, her org immediately had it pulled.

        Taylor won. Every round of this fight. Bravo.

        • GGG

          She certainly won, and good for her and her team. But I think a lot of people’s problem with this whole narrative is her success wasn’t remotely JUST because she kept her music off Spotify. If it had been done silently with no press, she would not have sold 4M copies. Or if she had taken her music off months earlier. And her team was smart. They absolutely knew the positive reaction they’d get from her fans, so they waited to pull out.

          She sold so many 1) because she’s a huge pop star and has tons of fans, 2) because she has insane, adoring fans and 3) because HER narrative was “support artists (me) and buy music” right as her album was released. If you’ve seen anything about Swift’s relationship with her fans, it’s incredible, and I give her the utmost respect. And in turn, her fans get more and more obsessive. If TS made a video saying “send me $100 cash and I’ll mail you back a signed picture” she’d probably make a million dollars the first day. Hell, she could probably just say “mail me $20 and I’ll think about you for 5 seconds” and she’d make thousands of dollars.

          So she basically made it a her against the man thing, and her fans of course would go out of their way to show their support for her. Which is great, I’m not saying any of this as a negative thing. Just that it’s her level of stardom and how pop start fandom works. If, say, Arcade Fire did the exact same thing next album, they probably wouldn’t see anywhere close to the rise in sales. It’d be substantial, sure, but nowhere near what it did for TS.

  3. Irving Mindreader

    Spotify has a first class ticket on a high speed train, in mid-derailment off a financial cliff.

    Here’s the whole business case, in a nutshell :

    The number of consumers who are or might be willing to pay for (streamed, passive, audio-only music media) is declining, but those who ‘might pay’ still outnumber those who ‘are paying’.

    Spotify’s challenge is to capture and convert as much of that declining audience segment before the (willing investor) music stops.

    The multibillion dollar bet is, if they can quickly reach a tipping point of enough paid users before the addressable audience changes its mind, the train will crash gently enough for eeked profits and thus public markets to be won over.

    Then, parachutes.

    It is the textbook case of a pump and dump racing to beat inevitable collapse.

    Fuck the whole debate over product features and royalties. It’s important but superfluous until and unless the core market problem is addressed — streamed, passive, audio-only music media sucks as a value proposition.

    Fix that, or ignore it at your peril.

    • Bandit

      I admit that I had to look up “pump and dump.” Great term and accurate description of what’s going on.

      Also, it refers to mom’s who prefer breastfeeding their infants but also like to party

    • Anonymous

      “The number of consumers who are or might be willing to pay for (streamed, passive, audio-only music media) is declining, but those who ‘might pay’ still outnumber those who ‘are paying’.”

      And you have proof of this decline… where?

    • Paul Resnikoff
      Paul Resnikoff

      Spotify’s financial fundamentals are awful. But it’s IPO and Wall Street prospects are very much alive. It doesn’t matter if it’s a long-term business success.

      • Irving Mindreader

        “It doesn’t matter if it’s a long-term business success.”

        On the contrary, it matters greatly to the employees, artists, and rightsholders who depend on its economic viability.

        • Paul Resnikoff
          Paul Resnikoff

          That depends on who you are.

          If you’re Daniel Ek, Sean Fanning, or a licensing major label, you don’t really care if this dies three years after the IPO. That’s because you’ve made hundreds of millions, even billions on the public offering.

          If you’re someone with a vested interest in growing a broader, paying music ecosystem, it does matter. If you’re an artist signed to a major, you probably care as well.

          Personally, I’m not sure Spotify is a long-term play, though it could mint a few billionaires in an IPO. But streaming, via YouTube or another set of players, will resume regardless.

          • Irving Mindreader

            Paul, you and I are making the same case insofar as Spotify being a pump and dump play. Prima facie.

            My commentary on this thread in general is that these debate(s) often circle the wrong issues. Ms Swift doesn’t matter in the big picture, and neither do royalty structures, or label equity stakes.

            All that matters is moving the audience en masse to a model they will pay for, enthusiastically. Otherwise we’re scribing footnotes to future generations about yet-another way how we fucked it all up.

          • Anonymous

            what isnt a pump and dump play these days? Look at how most women and girls are treated these days, especially by the music biz, just hump and boot out the door like the pieces of meat they are… Next!

          • Liza Dawn

            Oh really? You have lots to say. Why don’t you stick your name up there with your comment?

          • FarePlay

            Not so fast Irving. Very quickly you’re going to see more and more artists pulling their music, some or all, from these services. And Ms Swift has made it very clear to other major artists that windowing new releases is the way to go. Spotify will only be able to overcome this by spending serious money to get these new major release, which will only contribute to their negative cash flow.

            The interactive music streaming model has a flaw. It can’t monetize all these individual spins, the bigger they get the more they lose. It’s a monumental lose, lose for all involved. Keep in mind these guys, who started Spotify, knew very little about the music business and we are all paying for it now.

            There’s no learning curve when you jump into the top of the market with investors throwing money at your dream, err, nightmare.

          • Irving Mindreader

            You think windowing is the future, and the flaw of interactive radio is a failure to monetize individual spins.

            I’m not sure we’re having the same conversation…but hey…it’s a free world, right up until the apocalypse.

            As for the founders of Spotify not knowing the music business, you might be overlooking one Sean Parker. There’s a fly in their ointment, but it ain’t naivete.

          • Anonymous

            this Irving chap sounds like he has a clue on a few things, good on ya!

          • @mattadownes

            There is zero proof that artists will pull their music off Spotify or ANY streaming services. The public has and always will have control over how they will consume their music. Artists only have one choice about how this shakes down and thats how many albums/singles they wish to release.

          • FarePlay

            It’s not will. They already are pulling their music off Spotify.

  4. Anonymous

    A massive boycott of Spotify would have no different results than Taylor Swift’s label pulling her catalog: huge press stories about Spotify, and the demand shifts to Youtube which pays far, far less per stream than Spotify. Why would you think it would be any different?

  5. KO Roberts

    I hate to disagree but if you look at the users they were all nearly free. Many were gifts and highly discounted. Let’s talk again in 30-60 days to see what happens. The jury is still out.

  6. Anonymous

    If Taylor is considered the most powerful and influential musician or artist in the world, then we certainly have lost the plot as a race and a society… Its just this bubble of connected people trying to own and dominate the world and the markets and the media and the minds, discrediting anyone else who hasnt taken a knee to their little posse or gang or crew, happened for ever and which is why people still get condemned for lashings in certain regimes, the lashings i get are done in a way they hope no one can see or knows about, however many are aware and understand the nature of our societies.

    Follow her twitter feed for a month if you feel im just tossing stones!

    Yes she has a huge following of tweens and teens who could be engaged in a certain way to spark and initiate change, however she only posts about herself and what article is about her and the usual vacant corporate stuff to keep the big wheel a spinnin! Which is fine, i have no problem with her that i know of other then the few problems i have with her which are business related. Shes a spunky young girl with young love who does seem to care about what she is putting out, as safe as it is, and has confidence in herself, and that is something i always admire. But shes just a young selfish narcissistic girl who looks like a model and can half sing a tune, that alone does not make her some astronaut worthy of being placated as much as she is, but thats the game and the way it is. Taking that heat and the job she does is not easy and i respect any of them for being able to do that job, shes had a super successful public run and i commend her on a job well done.

    She is the record industries top gunner right now so talking bad of her gets their endless queue of trolls into action, fighting on her behalf, its a tired and epically flawed long term strategy, but is what it is.

    Im glad she pulled from spotify and im certain many other writers and artists want to do the same, her success should help to keep rattling those cages and stirring up a bit of mutiny on some of those ships, and that is all one can hope for in a situation like this.

    • Bandit

      You follow Taylor Swift’s twitter feed?!?!

      You need to re-think your life’s priorities

      • Anonymous

        Wghoever said I did as such? I check out many peoples Twitter feed, my peers included, but I don’t follow them by pressing a button on Twitter.

        Staying up to date and doing my due dilligense is suddenly a bad thing? Everyuone keeps saying she’s the most powerful and influential people in the industry, one that I’m in and active throughout with multiple horses in the race, and seeing what shehas to say is suddenly a crime? Wowzers….

        How do thou know what my lifes priorities are?

        • Anonymous

          Apologies on the poor spelling and grammar, the smartphone isnt quite as smart as it thinks it is…

        • Bandit

          You implied that if we followed her twitter feed for a month we would agree with your comment. This suggests that you have followed her twitter feed for a month and that is why you have first hand knowledge of the contents and would use such evidence to support your argument.

          p.s. No one said anything about crime. Why are you so defensive?

          • Anonymous

            im defensive because i have to be, because i get absolutely attacked non stop by people… If a country didnt put up a strong defense, any greedy penny ante tom dick and harry would try and conquer it, i have to protect my garden, i have to protect my sanctuary and my well being, this is done by a strong defense and a potent offense. If you engaged me properly i would not have to employ such techniques, but alas, thats just the way it has gone for me, so essentially what you get back from me is what you give me….

            All i said was to follow her twitter feed for a month if you felt i was tossing stones, it didnt imply anything beyond that, after a month you may feel i was incorrect in my statement, all im saying is if she is the most powerful and influential person on the planet right now regarding music, then check out her twitter feed to see what she has to say and what she posts, and then go from there…

            Whether you agree with me or not or believe me or not is besides the point, quite frankly i dont give a damn!

            If out of 7 ought billion people she is the top of the food chain in the music industry, then i would expect her public campaigns to be a little more enlightening and influential then a me me me me me me show with zero substance of anything other then selling cheerios to toddlers…

            Again, i have no real beef with her beyond what her and her posse do to me that is either illegal, unlawful or just morally questionable, and she makes good music for what it is and is good looking and overall puts on a good show for what she does and is working a very difficult job that few are qualified to when it comes down to it, im just saying, lets cut through all the b.s. and call it all for what it is…

            If she is to be listened to as the voice of the industry, then we are in Idiocracy and the industry has zero hope for a prosperous future, period!

            Thanks for your time.

          • Anonymous

            who’s whining???

            write this down and pin it on your wall so the next time your memory fails you you can look up and remind yourself of whats going on here…

            my internet use is that of a stage, this is my show, so if you dont like what the network is currently playing, then change the channel, that simple…

            too many trackers and spies and stalkers and stans and eyes eyes eyes for me to anything but just put on an elaborate crazy show with the internet, period! its all entertainment…

            thing is, i aint looking for direct feedback from anyone but my fans and certainly not in any way but direct and tangibly, to my email or phone me or come see me, but certainly please dont butt your nose into my show and try and jump up on my stage, shut your mouth, put your hands in your lap and enjoy the freaking show!!!!

            on another note, anyone interested in being a part of my show or advertising within it, please let me know, im sure we can work something out…

            thanks for your time and if you like me then thank-you thank-you thank-you, i appreciate it very much and i love you and i do this for you, if you hate me, go impale yourself on a stick and save me atilla hunning… thanks!


    • JAIO

      If Taylor is considered the most powerful and influential musician or artist in the world, then we certainly have lost the plot as a race and a society


      Yes she has a huge following of tweens and teens

      And 35-44 women with kids listening to AC radio.

    • Anonymous

      Why hate on Taylor Swift? The music biz has been profiting by turning people into bumbling idiots since its inception.

  7. Versus

    “But the attention of hundreds of millions of people suddenly paying attention to the Taylor Swift debate, and this ‘Spotify’ thing, didn’t hurt either.”

    Is this speculation, or is there any evidence of causality here? Otherwise, this may just be coincidence.

    • Anonymous

      Anecdotal, I know, but I had a family member in his late 50’s approach me over the holidays and ask “What’s going on with this Taylor Swift / Spotify thing?”

    • H

      well… I wasn’t a spotify member but because I’m don’t like Taylor I became one

  8. Airplay Music

    Streaming is the future no doubt, but the business model sucks. To get more paying subscribers streaming services have to lower the price, To do this streaming services have to lower the costs of music, meaning artists can expect even worse payouts for streaming their music. There will be a limit where a critical mass of artists will boucott streaming services…

  9. small labe1

    I pulled my smallish catalog from spotify a couple of years ago and strategically limited my youtube offerings at the same time. The result was a noticeable bump in revenue and sales pretty consistently ever since. yymv

  10. ANON

    the VEVO rate is higher than the net spotify rate.
    taylor won with 1.43BILLION youtube and VEVO plays [ and over 800 million of those on VEVO for the two singles].
    when fans couldnt find the track on spotify they went to VEVO [ which said it got ten million more uniques via Taylor

  11. Need some research

    Consider this hypothetical… part of the Spotify / Label deal is that Spotify must convert some percentage of users from free to paid every year in order to maintain its highly favorable royalty terms. Lets call it 30%. The deal, however, does not have a specfic dollar amount to qualify as a paid subscription. So Spotify desperate to meet its conversion goals offers an insanely cheap plan for on-demand music. Let’s call it a $0.99 plan for unregistered or free users (The promo was not available to previous or subscribed users). Spotify’s conversion numbers spike and Dan Ek lives to fight another day.

  12. Kyle Williams

    I think the point for Taylor was not to beat Spotify but to make a statement. I respect that totally even if it possibly brought in more Spotify subscribers.

    In the end the mass public expectations of music consumption end up winning out. Those expectations having shifted to being on-demand.

  13. Faza (TCM)

    Two things, Paul.

    One: the title works both ways. The other reading is: “if Spotify doesn’t work for Taylor Swift, it won’t work for you either”.

    The way the money is divvied up under the Spotify model means that your aggregate payout depends on your popularity relative to everyone else. The actual number of streams or fans doesn’t mean a thing. The pool is divided (we presume) equally amongst the total number of streams, which means that you’re very much dealing a sliced pie. The size of your slice depends on the percentage of total spins your material accounted for.

    This skews the game towards the big hitters even more than usual, because there is no additional money coming in when existing subscribers listen to new songs (unlike retail sales, where extra music costs extra bucks). Thus, if one of the biggest artists at present thinks Spotify ain’t worth it, you’d better believe it that it won’t work any better for mid- to small players.

    Two: the you don’t exist to millions of potential fans line is pure unadulterated bullshit and deserves to get called out as such. You don’t exist to them even if you are on Spotify.

    Streaming isn’t radio. Spotify ain’t MTV. It is an on-demand service. That means you aren’t going to get any spins unless people are actively seeking you out. You can stil break tracks by assuring heavy rotation on broadcast radio (or any other non-interactive medium), because you’re essentially shoving the music down people’s throats. Putting the same song up on Soundcloud, YouTube or your own website gets you exactly the same level of exposure to those millions of Spotify fans – none whatsoever, unless they’ve already got a reason to be looking for you (and then YouTube is probably your best bet).

    The most likely scenario behind the huge surge in Spotify subscriptions is indeed the huge price slash ahead of Christmas. Heightened exposure thanks to Taylor Swift did them no harm, but it would be foolish to think that it was a major factor in people deciding to subscribe to Spotify.

    Incidentally, it would be equally foolish to think that fans of your music will stop listening to it if you don’t put it on Spotify. (Hint: if they do, you may wish to reconsider your usage of the word “fan”.)

    I don’t think anybody (Taylor Swift included) has any particular interest in “beating” Spotify. What people are waking up to is that there’s no reason to bend over to them. Taylor Swift fans want Taylor Swift music and if they can’t get it on Spotify, they’ll go where they can. There’s no big mystery here. This applies equally to every single artist on the service, as soon as they give up the misguided thinking behind articles such as these.

    • small labe1

      “Spot”-on, Faza. Spotify depends on artists, NOT the other way around. Absolutely right that Spotify is NOT a discovery service… if an artist is expecting to get “discovered” on Spotify (or any other streaming service) I’ve got some sobering/bad news…

      Poor article Paul, let’s do less of the spotty cheerleading please, unless it’s actually deserved…

      P.S. planning on new posts @ tcm, Faza?

    • GGG

      “Two: the you don’t exist to millions of potential fans line is pure unadulterated bullshit and deserves to get called out as such. You don’t exist to them even if you are on Spotify….you aren’t going to get any spins unless people are actively seeking you out. ”

      Eh…yes and no. Spotify certainly isn’t the only place people can find and listen to music, but I’ve seen plenty of anecdotal evidence that people DO use it as a discovery tool, whether that’s consciously or unconsciously. I know/know of artists that have been put on playlists and that jumped their plays up by the thousands, I know a band that had a song placement on some show and got like 400K plays over the next two weeks on that track alone, plus 6 figures worth of spillover into other tracks. I’ve had acts’ plays jump both when one of our tracks was remixed and when an artist released a remix we did of them. Most of those I guess are ‘actively seeking you out’ which supports your point more, but they weren’t necessarily why people signed onto Spotify per se. The remixes, for example, was people searching for us only after they saw our name attached to someone they knew. And they could immediately jump over to our page, play some tracks, make us some pennies, and maybe be a fan. Not to mention, the first thing I do when I want to hear some new band I read about is jump on Spotify and check them out.

      So again, it’s not the only discovery tool, and maybe even not the best, but I think people tend to really downplay the aspect of being able to easily hear a band’s music once you’ve heard of them. So the actual discovery might not happen on Spotify, but the actual listening will.

      • Anonymous

        i used to travel an hour and half just to have the excitement of checking out the nearest cities record stores, to search through records and buy some randomly, it was exciting to pop the album in and see what cool songs were on them… i’d save up some money and put aside a little fund to search out music to buy, it was awesome.

        now there’s such a deluge of music on so many platforms along with this never ending hammering of people screaming for my attention to listen and buy or like or follow, popular or not, that i have actually lost all interest in searching music out now… this should be an incredible time for searching for music, but its such a mess i’ve lost all desire…. i check the odd thing out here and there but no longer know where or how to find music… where i used to be consumed and excited about finding music and being that guy with a cool collection of music no one else had or knew about, i’m now at the point where i don’t even want to spend a dime on music and certainly have zero interest in anyone trying to shove something in front of me…

        the last thing i want is some band bothering me to check out their music, the last thing i want is anyone marketing their music to me and the constant clamoring for my attention has actually made finding new music something i don’t even want to spend my time on anymore… its crazy…

        i wish there was a platform that was easier to search out some more underground or diy type music but with all the massive amount of crap filtered out…

        the only people i see out there engaged and interested in new music and bands, for the most part, in a pure wanting to hear the music aspect and for no other reason such as crews or agendas, are mostly younger people, tweens and teens, often girls… most other people seem real cynical or else have changed their listening habits to what crew they are in or like or what cause or agenda they want to push and less about what actual music they like…

        its real weird to me, im about the music, all that other stuff is just incredibly mind trippy…

        • GGG

          I hear a lot of sentiments like this and I can both see your point and not see it. Yes, even a record store of random albums was, in theory, curated by someone (though a label could have just thrown extra shit at them, too). So there’s definitely merit to your point there.

          But on the other hand, if driving an hour and a half was perfectly fine for you, why isn’t randomly searching on Spotify (or any other service) fine? I totally understand the overwhelmingness of it all, but it’s not hard to get passed. Go to an artist you like. Click on related artists. Find one you haven’t heard before. There. That was infinitely easier than driving 90 minutes. In the 180 minutes it took you to drive there and back, you can listen to like 40-50 new songs from new artists.

          • Anonymous

            for sure man i totally agree, dont think i h\vent rattled around the same logic in my head, as ive said before, now is better then ever for finding and listening to music, but maybe that has also taken away some of the mystery, some of the romanticism and magic …

            i think for me it has to do with something like the romanticism of vinyl and hifi systems, where its just not the same anymore… for me from where i was living, there was little supply and the demand was high, the lengths i went to to engage with it on such a deep intimate level, left me above the rest, like indiana jones conquest for the holy grail, where now, every last person from just sitting on their butt can do the same thing as i can and the supply far far far outweighs the demand, therefore making it a toss away commodity these days….

            id do the old pretentious all vinyl search thing, but so much of the music i like isnt on vinyl much anyways and the convenience of digital is, well, damn convenient, which is good, but also at some esoteric and translucent like level, subconsciously, it changes how i listen, view and search…

            of course doing it and the business end of things hasnt helped much… same thing happened with magic and card tricks for me, my insatiable desire to peel every layer and do it myself changed how i looked at, felt about and reacted to card tricks from thereon, so similarly the magic is sort of gone for me in that regards…

            i used to use pandora long ago when it was available up here for that reason, but i guess i find my time more valuable now and after years of it am tired of trudging through just massive seas of garbage just to find one tune i like from one artist i like, so its hard to get real amped up by it all anymore… hitting that skip button is just a lot of hard work, need to mind meld that ish…

  14. Rimp

    Who cares about beating Spotify? Give it time and the whole thing will become yesterday’s news. It happens with everything – Napster, MySpace, etc. The music industry needs to focus on what makes it viable and stronger, and less on how to defeat those it feels are enemies.

  15. py

    many streaming services have not realized that subscription is a business model only meant for movie consumption not music consumption. The way people consume music is different from the way they consume movies. thats why Netflix is successful and spotify is not.

  16. Scott

    the only thin Taylor Swift succeeded at here is alienating millions of potential fans. I like her songs ok but I’m not paying more for any of her music. If it’s not on Spotify it doesn’t exist for many music lovers.

  17. Scott

    Plus, she’s not the Beatles, no Beatles on Spotify is a much bigger deal than no Taylor Swift.

  18. Scoty

    Anyone who gives half a turd about TS spends all their money on garbage music and movies anyway (divergent/hunger games/Twilight/avengers) that should go down the drain like the senseless substandard crap that it is.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Verify Your Humanity *