Skip to main content

Apple Music will stream Taylor Swift’s back catalog, but not her album ‘1989’

There has been a lot of speculation regarding what artists will be available on Apple Music. Earlier this week, it was reported that artists signed to indie labels, like Adele and the Arctic Monkeys, had still not signed on to appear on the service. BuzzFeed now reports that Taylor Swift’s hit album ‘1989’ will not be available on Apple Music either. This doesn’t come as a huge surprise, though, seeing that ‘1989’ is currently not available from any existing streaming services like Beats and Spotify.

BuzzFeed says that both Apple and Taylor Swift’s label Big Machine Records confirmed that ‘1989’ will not be available and that Swift has no plans to make it available via any services in the near future.

Swift’s back catalog, however, will be available on Apple Music, similar to what is currently available on Beats and Tidal. The artist infamously pulled all of her content from rival service Spotify last year, saying that the service’s free tier devalued music and noting that music should be consumed as albums.

Earlier this month, we highlighted the fact that Apple Music was not going to stream the entire iTunes library of content due to label negotiations and withholdings. The Beatles was one notable exception at the time and now Swift’s ‘1989’ joins the British band.

Apple and Taylor Swift’s relationship has been good in the past, with the artist making her ‘1989’ bonus tracks available on iTunes after an exclusivity period with Target. Many saw this as the artist being willing to cooperate with Apple, but apparently that’s not as true as many would have hoped.

FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.

You’re reading 9to5Mac — experts who break news about Apple and its surrounding ecosystem, day after day. Be sure to check out our homepage for all the latest news, and follow 9to5Mac on Twitter, Facebook, and LinkedIn to stay in the loop. Don’t know where to start? Check out our exclusive stories, reviews, how-tos, and subscribe to our YouTube channel

Comments

  1. NQZ (@surgesoda) - 9 years ago

    I hate to say so what, but apparently a lot of people like her music for some reason.

    • friarnurgle - 9 years ago

      I honestly couldn’t pick her song out if it was playing on the radio.

      • NQZ (@surgesoda) - 9 years ago

        Me either…I don’t get what makes her a good singer / artist / whatever, I’ve listened to her songs, they’re bland and predictable with a typical overproduced poppy plugin heavy sound that the pop world has played out SINCE 1989…

  2. oreomuncher - 9 years ago

    I’m guessing AC/DC will be exempt from Apple Music too. Ugh the more I hear about this service the more I don’t want to pay the already elevated UK price.

  3. crateish (@crateish) - 9 years ago

    Fine. I’ll just torrent it. No, wait… I won’t even do that.

  4. Beginning to wonder what bands apple will have that other streaming services don’t, wonder if they’ll have Metallica, as things stand spotify have exclusive rights streaming wise

  5. spiralynth - 9 years ago

    Tool—quite possibly the greatest band to grace the “precision progressive art-metal” genre (and simply one of the greatest bands/artists of all time, in any genre—has never allowed any of its music to be legally sold in any digital format, whether in single song or whole album style. This is a group of artists (and I didn’t use that word lightly) that has flatly shunned every tried and true marketing method for success in the entertainment industry, whether it be frequent appearances, interviews, magazine covers or other commercially viable mass-market avenues, yet it has still found immense success and immense wealth.

    Their material is rare (4 albums in 22 years), their methods odd, their music unconventional, their live performances transformational audio-visual feasts and their message and nature extremely mysterious. Yet they’re such astute businessmen that they not only own their own masters and have total creative crontrol of their paths, they also likely own their label as well (nobody outside the band really knows for sure, because they simply don’t talk).

    I admire Taylor Swift for trying to be a mini-Tool with her career. Sales of her ‘1989’ album are off the charts as a result, and her fame has never been bigger. I’d like to see her opening for Tool on their next tour (heh).

    • standardpull - 9 years ago

      Sorry, but to compare the ideals and motivations of Tool to Taylor Swift is ridiculous. Swift is a money making machine, with an unthinkable number of marketing and co-branding deals that likely approaches hundreds of millions of dollars per year. Tool, in contrast, is more about the art and it by no means the money mill that Taylor Swift, Inc, has become.

      As a huge for-profit enterprise, it isn’t surprising that Swift, Inc and Apple have not come to agreement – Swift very likely makes more money through marketing deals than music sales. Apple is likely unwilling to pay, say, $10 million for ability to sell the full Swift catalog when they can only bring in perhaps $8 million in Swift-related sales. That’s a $2 million LOSS.

      So please, never, ever begin to imagine that Swift’s motivation is similar to that of Tool. It does a tremendous dis-service to Tool, their art, and their ideals.

    • NQZ (@surgesoda) - 9 years ago

      Totally different fanbase and totally different artists; Tool were lucky enough to become successful back in the day where having a hit album made them a shitload of money. They say they never wanted it, and maybe that’s true, but I don’t see Maynard giving all that money back any time soon and closing down his vineyard (apparently he is into wine making these days and that’s about it…)…they’re rolling in it, they have nothing to want for; they already made their money. They tour when they want and record when they want; being successful early on gave them that privilege.

  6. I’m not a fan of her music, but I am a fan of her business sense. She’s a smart business woman. If she hadn’t made the decision she did, her latest album wouldn’t have hit the record level it did. Can’t blame a girl for knowing how to maximize profits. It’s hard to sell lemonade when the neighbors are giving it away for free.

    ps. And if you don’t think she in charge of her career, look it up. She calls all the shots. From making an album to planning the tour, she’s in charge.

    • irelandjnr - 9 years ago

      Now I know too much about her. Couldn’t care what she’s in charge of.

    • standardpull - 9 years ago

      Does she call the shots? You bet. She listens to the business people and lawyers she has hired. That’s smart.

  7. AeronPeryton - 9 years ago

    This is where Apple Music has an advantage. Unless something changed, you will still be able to BUY 1989 on iTunes. And if you make a playlist on Apple Music for Taylor Swift or Pop Hits or whatever, songs from 1989 will show up in that playlist.

    Having my local catalog seamlessly compliment a streaming library is something I have wanted for years. And you know that even if Apple doesn’t have the rights to stream this or that, they’ve still got the song data entered into their algorithm (and in this case, are hiring people to curate that like and want to listen to the music even if they don’t have it on their end).

  8. guacho8 - 9 years ago

    is this album really that good??

  9. DJ (@djoyce92) - 9 years ago

    This article is very stupid. Why do people think that Apple Music will work any differently from any other streaming service. The artists/music labels will always have a say of when they want to put their new music on a streaming service. Very rarely for big artists do they release the digital download and the availability to stream on the same day. Apple Music will be no different. And to someone’s question concerning if this album was that good. No, no it isn’t by any means.

    • It is a different situation though, Taylor Swift’s back catalog is not available on Spotify but it is on Apple music. All streaming services have limitations on the amount of content they have available, but what is starting to emerge is a market in which individual services leverage their relationships and business deals with artists to get exclusive content. This is one of the main pushes Tidal is trying to make, and Apple music appears to be following suite. Personally, I’m really not excited for this, if my streaming service of choice doesn’t have all (or at least the vast majority of) the music I want to listen to, what’s the point of even using this model of music distribution?

  10. charismatron - 9 years ago

    Taylor Swift is, as Tim Cook might say, “whip smart”.

    While not everyone appreciates her music (I do), she is in control of every element of her career. Not only that, but she plays the media game incredibly well. I wouldn’t rank her among the greatest artists ever or anything, but her music is great and she knows precisely where she wants to take her career.

    Imagine being in a position to “not need” Apple or Spotify, be in total control of your career, and enjoying so much success that you could do pretty much whatever you wanted–before the age of 30. Yah, not much to criticize.

  11. Uhu (@official_uhu) - 9 years ago

    the question is: is this really that big of a deal? i mean the whole “this and that band is not on apple music”-thing, cuz you can also listen to your music from itunes match, all in one app, which is a big plus for apple music isn’t it?

  12. Savsuper⌘ (@Savsuper) - 9 years ago

    I think a lot of artists and labels are going to release their music after the 3 months try.

  13. thejuanald - 9 years ago

    Swift gets to say what’s on apple music and what’s not, but indie artists are forced into it if they want to be on iTunes. Indie artists have gotten threatened that if they don’t want to be in apple music, apple will pull their music from iTunes.

  14. mytawalbeh - 9 years ago

    I Like her music, I think it’s good that she pulled her music out from Spotify,,
    1989 amazing but finally will be streamed anyway.

  15. Jake Becker - 9 years ago

    I don’t know how to handle this news. I think my life might be over.

  16. friarnurgle - 9 years ago

    What’s the difference from having your music available on a streaming service and having it on traditional over the air radio? One is ad supported and the other is supported by ads or subscription fees. Is there really a big difference between what the artist sees from either service?

  17. patstar5 - 9 years ago

    I wish they would of made itunes for Android. I am not paying $10 a month for something when I can just buy the songs and be done with it.
    If they do I have 3 month free trial I will probably try it out, I did the same with google play music.

  18. Dan Guisinger - 9 years ago

    Oh well? All she can ever do is write music about wanting to jump 16 yr old boys… can’t wait for her to be 60 and still pumping out the same song in its 10,000th variation…. it will be pretty creepy. She should learn to broaden her horizons in her song writing, she’s not in high school anymore

  19. Ashley Nicole - 9 years ago

    Who gives a shit?

  20. If the only reason you make music is to get paid, you are NOT an artist… Artists make art because they love beauty. Business people make products for sale.

  21. Despite what a lot of people say here, Taylor Swift is one of the VERY few musical artists that could dictate terms like this, given the success of her album and her visibility in the music industry.

  22. Diego Est - 9 years ago

    who cares if her music stream on apple music, i think she’s so conceited and her music is so bored.. :S

Author

Avatar for Chance Miller Chance Miller

Chance is an editor for the entire 9to5 network and covers the latest Apple news for 9to5Mac.

Tips, questions, typos to chance@9to5mac.com