Taylor Swift tailors her music to a wealthy crowd
After almost a three year protest, Taylor Swift is returning her music to Spotify.
This is interesting for a few reasons. From one viewpoint, Swift can be seen as some sort of heroic musical icon because she is standing up for musicians who get treated unfairly by these music streaming services. Instead, people could say she is genuinely demanding fair pay for artists in exchange for her market-share of loyal listeners.
If you think about it, if several big-name artists were to pull their music from popular streaming services under the pretenses that they would return their music as soon as these services renegotiate their contracts to reflect a fair amount of compensation for artists, it might actually count for something. However, this is just not a likely option. In fact, it didn’t happen.
Reflecting on how streaming services have changed the landscape for artists
There are definitely pros and cons to the politics involved with popular streaming services. For one, more artists stand a chance to get exposure if they play their cards right, since anyone can upload their music to popular streaming services like Soundcloud. Another thing to consider though is the fact that now that consumers are able to stream massive amounts of music in a world where they are always connected, there doesn’t seem to be a sense of urgency behind purchasing physical copies of an artist’s music other than to acquire it as a collector’s item.
Physical copies aren’t for listening
Believe it or not, regardless of the impracticality of purchasing expensive physical copies of outdated accessories, cassette tapes are becoming a popular purchase option. Some artists are foregoing the vinyl and publishing their work for sale on CD and cassette. Some are releasing their work on all three. That’s an entirely different topic that we won’t cover at the moment.
On the flip side of this, let’s consider, Taylor Swift is insanely rich. It’s easy for her PR reps to urge her to claim she has done something somewhat altruistic because millions of people already love her and everything she does. In reality, it seemed more like a way for her to flex her power as an influencer.
Many sources are saying that they believe it to be a jab at her rival, Katy Perry. Some also say that it’s a jab at Apple for refusing to pay royalties to artists during the month that subscribers are able to listen to their music for free.
What about brand new artists?
If you ask me, I just think it’s funny that if all art had to be paid for, a lot of musicians would never have gotten their start. As I recall, Taylor Swift did have a Myspace page years ago. So what about all of the free music on Myspace and Soundcloud? Maybe what she meant to say was that “rich” artists’ music should cost more money because since they are wealthy they have better talents and their art is more valuable. You know this is the case, because money and fame equates success and importance.
Swift is an excellent businesswoman
It’s kind of funny too, even though she is a huge influencer, if she really wanted to do something altruistic she’d probably organize it a little better rather than just alter a situation that fits her agenda, to look like something that benefits several people. That’s an intelligent business move. That’s about it. Taylor Swift is talented and influential, but I personally can’t get into her “art,” so to me, it has no value. In fact, I couldn’t name even one song she has written. I think she’s either an excellent business woman or just confused.