Taylor Swift’s Next Release Will Not be Available on Spotify

Taylor Swift Has 'Beef' With Spotify.
  • Save

Taylor Swift has had some nasty words for Spotify in 2015, calling the platform a “start-up with no cash flow,” and a company that “reacted to criticism like a corporate machine.”  More importantly, she’s refused to give Spotify access to her coveted, high-selling albums, instead handing exclusives to the recently-launched Apple Music.  “Apple treated me like I was a voice of a creative community that they actually cared about,” Swift remarked.

Now, Swift’s Spotify boycott continues: according to details announced over the weekend, Swift’s upcoming concert film for ‘1989’ will be exclusively available on Apple Music (and not available on Spotify).  The video release includes a full concert filmed at ANZ Stadium in Sydney, plus lots of behind-the-scenes footage and special guest appearances.  It will be directed by Jonas Akerlund, whose extensive credits include Madonna, Lady Gaga, and U2.

All of that will be available for Swift fans starting December 20th, with access limited to paying Apple Music subscribers (or, those still on a three-month, limited trial).

The question is whether any of this matters for Spotify.  Importantly for Spotify, Taylor Swift’s high-profile holdouts have actually helped, thanks to an avalanche of media awareness and free publicity. And ss 2016 rolls in, Spotify is about to cross the 100 million user mark, a streaming population that cannot be ignored.

But that calculation could be changing with Adele and Coldplay, superstars that may have been encouraged by Swift’s stance.  Just recently, Spotify announced that it would allow certain artists to limit their material to paying-only subscribers, a step that CEO Daniel Ek has privately detested.

Perhaps Spotify could solve its ‘Swift problem’ with its tiered offering, the details of which remain foggy.

Top image by pelican@flickr, licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic (CC by 2.0).

28 Responses

  1. Anonymous

    ““start-up with no cash flow,” and a company that “reacted to criticism like a corporate machine.”

    Wicked burns Tay Tay.

    • Exclusively At Apple and Infringing on YouTube!

      YouTube has a real problem on their hands and a catch 22.

      If the Taylor Swift album shows up on the platform via User Pirated Content aka UPC ™ then they demonstrate they can’t stop infringement and their tools are bonk.

      If they can stop it from being uploaded and distributed without a license then they prove that they can do it for everyone, but chose not too.

      • Remi Swierczek

        I like your LOGIC!
        Let’s OBSERVE what Google MONK will do!

  2. Name2

    Good. I pay Spotify $14.95 a month, and now I know not a penny will go to one of the whiniest, can’t-singiest, biggest one-percenters in the business just so I “could” watch something I have no interest in.

  3. Me

    Not giving a concert film to a service that doesn’t stream video content? Yeah, that’ll teach em!

  4. MarkH

    “Swift’s upcoming concert film for ‘1989’ will be exclusively available on Apple Music”

    And Youtube,…and a hundred torrent sites, and ….

    • Literally Can't Even

      Your analysis is interesting, except that it is TOTALLY wrong. You can control YouTube if you have the means: where’s Adele’s album? NOT on YouTube. Go check. I’ll wait.

  5. GGG

    Are we going to again pretend that Apple isn’t paying her a big chunk of change up front?

  6. j.twist

    No cash flow my ass. She was making 500k plus from that shit. That’s more money than I’ve seen in my life.

  7. Tim F.

    Why is it that whenever the article is about how horrible Spotify is, you mention that they only have 20 million paying users but when it’s an article about how horrible Apple is (or how it’s ineffectual no matter what unique features or offerings they provide), you mention that Spotify has a 100 million free users?

    That’s a rhetorical question, btw.

    • Paul Resnikoff

      If you’re going to attack me, at least get your facts straight. This article, for example, says 100 million users, without designating whether those users are free, paid, or whatever. Spotify doesn’t have ‘100 million free users,’ nor did I report that.

      • Tim F.

        In what way is being a little loose with 100 million total users versus free users (everyone reading this understands what I’m saying) attacking you?

  8. superduper

    “Apple treated me like I was a voice of a creative community that they actually cared about”
    Really…that’s odd.

    Btw has anybody heard about what Apple Music royalties are like?

  9. Tim F.

    And now we have an article saying that Rhapsody has 3.5 million users after 15 years but has very weak financials and likely not nearly that many active users but somehow they are still relevant…

    • Name2

      There are hundreds of tracks in my Rhapsody library that I can’t get from either Tidal or Spotify, and I’ve been trying to shed Rhapsody for some 2 years now.

      Can I breathlessly label them *exclusives*?

    • Anonymous

      Tbh I don’t really like Spotify or Apple because you still have to pay for both but Taylor Swift is baeeee!!!