tech

Sony takes hard look at streaming after Taylor Swift snub

11 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© 2014 AFP

©2019 GPlusMedia Inc.

11 Comments
Login to comment

As someone who was a recording artist, oh, many years ago when studios routinely ripped artists off, pay the musicians what they deserve. No pay no music. Where's your entertainment business going to be then? The world is no longer a place where musicians will take the screwing because they have no choice if they want their music out there. I have great respect for Sony, actually. I hope they can come up with a solution that's fair to everyone concerned.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The problem is streaming shouldn't be "here is the entire album for free"... it should be more like traditional radio with the same rules applied where you can only play a song X amount of times in a day, basically if you randomize it but define the genre for the radio station everyone wins

2 ( +2 / -0 )

here is an idea. Stop letting a dinosaur run your company when yous main focus group is 60 years younger than your entire think tank staff. Artists that offer digital downloads for a few dollars, RadioHead and Trent Reznor/Nine Inch Nails come to mind, are making TONS of money. Seriously look at the people who turning the music industry on its head. A 19 year old KID started napster and music was never the same again, for better or for worse. A bunch of 70 year old dudes are not going to be the ones to figure out the next magic formula.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

Her company admitted they "only" got paid $500,000.00 for her songs from Spotify. How greedy are you when you've sold the largest number of albums in 12 years. She bitches about Spotify then turns around and lets her song be played on the new Google music which has a free option.

Sounds more like she was promised "more" from Google then Spotify.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

oh this is the can of worms that has been waiting to be opened for way too long, publishing houses and royalties.

many people do not realize that an artist is way far down the line in the payment scheme as all royalties must be paid to the royalty house- of which all the publishers are part of.

all the royalty house schemes were set up in the days of vinyl and radio, and work hand in hand with the outdated record contract scheme that is in place today - so imagine the wait and the final amount all the artists get.

you would think electronic downloads or streaming with ad revenue would speed up processing time and cut out the middle man- think again- they are still paying out the full amount just as if CDs are being pressed and paper adverts are being sent out with newspapers.

but of course no one wants to really talk about it..

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I have no sympathy for artists. they make millions of dollars live a lifestyle dreamed about by millions. Like hockey players football baseball ect.. grown adults getting paid millions of dollars to chase a piece of rubber on ice, field, court... garbage men should be paid that or kfc customer service representatives in Harlem, those are the real heroes.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

I have no sympathy for artists. they make millions of dollars live a lifestyle dreamed about by millions.

Only the ones that make it big. They are only a tiny, tiny percentage of artists, most of who often spend years in the industry never making more than the bare minimum to stay alive.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

A business like Taylor Swift can afford to use it's product to make an impact. Majority of artists can't. They have to take what's given to them to survive. Thanks to Taylor Swift for taking the financial blow for all the little guys. Hope other mega stars will do the same.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

where isn't Sony a loser in every industry it's in?

1 ( +2 / -1 )

where isn't Sony a loser in every industry it's in?

Making movies, there movies generally make a profit.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Her company admitted they "only" got paid $500,000.00 for her songs from Spotify. How greedy are you when you've sold the largest number of albums in 12 years. She bitches about Spotify then turns around and lets her song be played on the new Google music which has a free option.

Sounds more like she was promised "more" from Google then Spotify.

Google Play has a 30-day fee TRIAL, after which you have to pay $9.95/month. That's very different from a free "option".

From another article where they are interviewing Scott Borchetta, the head of the record label (Big Machine) that publishes Taylor Swift's albums:

Big Machine is rewarding fans that pay for music. As he explained in a radio interview with Nikki Sixx on Nov. 7, letting people listen to Swift's music for free would be "completely disrespectful" to fans that paid for her music. So Big Machine draws a line between services that offer free, ad-supported listening and those that offer only paid subscriptions. "Now if you are a premium subscriber to Beats or Rdio or any of the other services that don't offer just a free-only, then you will find her catalog," said Borchetta.

http://www.billboard.com/articles/news/6312452/taylor-swift-spotify-earnings-scott-borchetta

AND of course there's still the issue of Spotify only paying the record label, not the artist.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites