Why Taylor Swift is Right and Why She is Wrong, But Why I Agree With Her

So, while not a whole lot of hoo-hah has been made about this, Taylor Swift made a move a few Thursdays ago that made a lot of people scratch their heads, a lot of people lash out at her and quite a few simply shrug and not care in a different way than they didn’t care before.  I went through all three stages, but also had another stage – I started to agree with her, in principle.  I don’t really agree with how she’s gone about it, but, let’s look at this, shall we…

Taylor has had Spotify – the cpu hogging music streaming app that supports about every platform out there – remove her entire back catalog from their rotation.  That’s a big deal because it’s a lot like calling every radio station in *the world* and telling them not to play your music, anymore.  Her quote on why, “And I'm not willing to contribute my life's work to an experiment that I don't feel fairly compensates the writers, producers, artists, and creators of this music. And I just don't agree with perpetuating the perception that music has no value and should be free.”

My first take on this is that she was NOT a child of the early 80s.  My first copy of Metallica’s “Master of Puppets” was a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy that a friend handed me saying, “You HAVE to listen to this band, man!”  So, I got arguably Metallica’s best album for free, right?  Wrong-o!  What I got was a tape that had to be turned up to the full extent of the tape deck in order to get volume that was audible with, literally, no fidelity…and a burning desire for more Metallica!  That week, I purchased what are now kind of collector’s items but were all I could afford at the time, the “Whiplash – Remix EP” and “Creeping Death” picture disc with the original “Garage Days Revisited” on the b-side.  So, yeah, *records.*  At any rate – this “free” MoP tape of horrifying fidelity spawned a purchase rate that, over the past three decades has made Metallica, from just me, close to $500, give or take, in albums sales, concert tickets, and t-shirt sales.

I use this as an example because what Spotify is trying to do is be a sort of half-crazed fan that allows you to try new music based on what you say you like – like the guy with the crappy tape saying “You have to try this!” only through things like “Phil, 9 Suggestions For You” emails that tend to include bands I would never seek out on my own.  So, with that in mind, I find it hard to fathom why anyone wouldn’t want “free publicity,” except that’s the rub, isn’t it?  It’s a pittance these artists are paid every time a song of theirs is played on Spotify.  I had a brief discussion with an artist about this and the sad truth is that an artist gets between $0.001 and $0.005 and said artist must also work through a third-party aggregator which then siphons off profits from this paltry number.  For example, if you have a song that people LOVE and play 1,000 times, today, you will make between $1 and $5.  If you’re working with an aggregator that takes the minimum I’ve seen, you’re looking at 9% or $0.09 taken from what you make for this song off of Spotify, therefore, only leaving you with $0.91 of your own, and that’s if the company takes only the minimum I’ve seen – it could be as much as 30%, which would leave you with $0.70.

So, while this information might be dated, it’s OK for our purposes and that’s because, for what it’s worth, Taylor isn’t having any and I kind of agree.  I don’t like Spotify, really, and have sort of a contrarian relationship with it.  So, when I get a suggested band, my usual first though is, “won’t be listening to them, thanks.”  I know…bad Phil.  Still, if you’re an artist who has paid a LOT of money to record an album and are looking to recoup costs, services like Spotify are not really the way to go, I would think, especially in a world where initial sales are big indicators as to whether your record company will decide to deal with you for a next album.

Some of this is probably also coming on the heels of the U2 hit/miss release of their new album for free to the world via iTunes – whether you wanted it or not.  Personally, I was irritated on two levels by this.  The first is that it’s exceedingly presumptuous.  Music is a personal thing.  Me, I don’t like people screwing with my music collection or putting something in there that I’m not able to remove.  As a side note, I found it sad that Apple had to create a tutorial on how to remove U2 from your iTunes collection…  Secondly, I find it devaluing what U2 did, musically.  I haven’t listened to the album, so I can’t say whether it’s the best album in decades or drek, but what I can say is that it’s like telling the rest of the world one of two things: 1) “We’re so bloody rich, we don’t need the money, so have this album,” or 2) “We’re not sure this is going to sell, so, here, take it and please see us on tour where we actually make money.”

So, my takeaway is this – Taylor Swift was saying to the world, I value my music more than $0.001 to $0.005 a play and I have enough faith in my music that if my fans really want it, they will buy it.  I am OK with that.  I’m also OK with bucking the idea of the half-crazed tape trader that is Spotify.  Honestly, as someone who grew up on metal, it’s never been about the radio airplay, but always about the word of mouth.  Now, Taylor doesn’t have to worry about airplay; you almost can’t take a trip down the FM dial, let alone XM/Sirius spectrum, without tripping over one of her songs, but that exposure is worth more than a penny, here, or a dollar, there.  The hard truth is that it’s about building enough of a fanbase to come out to a concert which is, really, what ends up paying the bills.  I guess what I’m trying to say is that while there’s something to the “any exposure is good exposure” mentality of Spotify, there’s also the idea that your music that you’ve poured your heart and soul into is worth more than what Spotify has valued it.  That’s on Spotify.  That’s on the consumerist mentality.

After pondering on this awhile – and starting off kind of disagreeing with her – I actually have to side with Taylor on this.  The sad part of it is, if an artist who you know makes more than $1 to $5 a day on songs is getting uppity about the artists getting what they deserve via these services, you know that there are hundreds if not thousands of other artists out there who, while needing the pittance they’re getting from Spotify, wish they could do the exact same thing.