The controversy surrounding Apple Music’s launch thanks to Taylor Swift made for an excellent way to drum up some extra attention for the service’s debut late last month. First, Swift, who was already vocal in the past regarding streaming services, penned a blog post knocking down Apple’s decision to offer a free, three-month trial without paying artists for streams during that period. Apple responded to Taylor’s decision to hold back her music from the service and it was thought the blog post eventually inspired Apple to reverse its decision. Swift responded to Apple’s decision positively and announced her latest record would be available on the service, all in the days leading up to the Apple Music launch on June 30.
Today we get a bit of insight into what was going on behind the scenes via a Fortune interview with CEO of Taylor’s label, Big Machine Label Group, Scott Borchetta. The record exec notes that he was already in the middle of negotiations with Apple regarding the terms of the three-month trial when Swift published her blog post without letting her label know beforehand. In the end, Apple was able to gain added attention over its music service launch with Swift’s album featured on day one.
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.
“Artist Friendly, Artist First” isn’t Jimmy’s philosophy because if it was, they would’ve never had to fight about these royalties to begin with. I’m a musician, and I’m usually “All Apple, All the Time” but let’s not all just forget that they originally tried to get away with this.
I’m in the same camp as you. I have been digging the Apple iTunes/Apple Music thing and I am in my own boycott from buying content right now and some are for personal reasons. It’s a shame. I always thought it was a mistake to buy Beats and this and the other lawsuits (Bose and Monster) against Beats are glowing reasons why they shouldn’t have bought Beats.
I personally don’t need a streaming service at this time and if I did, I would want Lossless. :-)
Oh brother… you would want LOSSLESS, eh?? Well gee, then I guess you’re THE ONLY PERSON ON THE PLANET that can tell the difference. You might want to call NASA!
*facepalm*
I read that she is a very intelligent person, doing the last two years of college in one. Yet this sounds like a stupid move of her, to blog about this without getting info from her label exec.
Thoughts?
Well, I don’t think she gives a flying fig if she ruffles some exec’s feathers. Whatever she did worked and i’m sure she might check ahead first in the future. While I don’t buy her music, what she said is the right thing and Jimmy (being the negotiator for Apple) sounds like an idiot. he should know better. Just because Apple wants to give a 3 month free trial doesn’t mean the artists have to go along with it. Would you want the company you work for offering customers a 3 month free trial to a service and you have to take a 3 month pay cut as a result? Didn’t think so. No one would. Do you think that Apple doesn’t pay their iTunes (Apple Music) staff for 3 months to help lower their overhead costs? Why take it out on the artists/musicians? doesn’t seem fair. Do you think Jimmy Iovine, Cue, etc. are taking a 3 month pay cut? NOPE.
I agree with you that the artist should always be paid, but the company/employee comparison is flawed. In your comparison is no middle man: the record companies. Artist’s aren’t employed by Apple. And they aren’t employed by the record companies. As far as I understand this, record labels pay about 10 to 50% of what they get from streaming to the artists, while the majority of the artists don’t have deals that lucrative. Not every artist is Taylor Swift.
Having said that I think Apple did the right move, because they can afford it, but it’s not just Apple’s responsibility to take care of the artist’s steady income. It’s also, or even more so, the responsibility of the record companies. It’s them that negotiate with Apple.