Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 25
Like Tree11Likes

Thread: Sony May Pull Songs From Free-Music Services After Taylor Swift Disses Spotify

  1. #1
    Huge Carrie Follower carriesfan123's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    823
    Concert Stars

    Sony May Pull Songs From Free-Music Services After Taylor Swift Disses Spotify

    Taylor Swift strikes again.

    Sony Music Entertainment artists including One Direction, Pitbull, Calvin Harris and Carrie Underwood could be dropping out of free-music streaming queues, in the wake of Swift’s company pulling her entire catalog from Spotify.

    The decision by Swift’s Big Machine Records to yank the pop star’s music from Spotify has prompted Sony Music Entertainment to reconsider whether it will continue to license songs for free, ad-supported music services, according to Kevin Kelleher, EVP and CFO of Sony Music.

    After Swift spurned Spotify, “a lot of conversation has taken place over the last week in the light of that,” said Kelleher, speaking at Sony’s investor relations day Tuesday, as reported by the Wall Street Journal.
    “The key question is, are the free, ad-supported services taking away from how quickly and to what extent we can grow those paid services?” Kelleher said. “What it all really comes down to is how much value are the music company and the artist getting from the different consumption methods.”

    At the same time, Sony is “very encouraged” by the rise subscription-based streaming services, Kelleher added. Last week, Google announced YouTube Music Key, which will offer more than 30 million songs — including Taylor Swift tunes — for an intro price of $7.99 per month (versus a regular $9.99 monthly).

    Sony said it expects revenue for the music group to be $4.8 billion to $5.2 billion for the 2017-18 fiscal year. That would be flat or up to 8 percent growth compared with $4.8 billion projected for the 12 months ending in March 2015.

    Earlier this month, Taylor Swift’s songs were removed from Spotify a week after the release of her album “1989.” Her company said the artist has earned less than $500,000 from U.S. streaming-music services this year, responding to a claim by Spotify CEO Daniel Ek that Swift could have pulled in $6 million if her music had remained on the service.

    Sony May Pull Songs From Free-Music Services After Taylor Swift Disses Spotify | Variety

  • #2
    Insane Carrie Fan utlovescarrie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Livin the life one Carrie song at a time
    Posts
    3,415
    Concert Stars
    They can do whatever they want but I'm not going to pay to listen to music. I will buy the songs I like or just watch them on youtube.

  • #3
    Carrie Guru
    maddkat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Louisville
    Posts
    23,588
    Concert Stars
    greedy , they need to just let it be

    people listen to their music for free,people like their music, people go see them in concert paying extreme prices, artists makes a bundle
    carriefan0825 likes this.

  • #4
    Huge Carrie Follower cmuf2011's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    953
    This doesn't affect me, i downloaded spotify but uninstall it when i couldn't get any of the songs to play.

  • #5
    sco
    sco is offline
    Insane Carrie Fan
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    texas
    Posts
    3,104
    Quote Originally Posted by maddkat View Post
    greedy , they need to just let it be

    people listen to their music for free,people like their music, people go see them in concert paying extreme prices, artists makes a bundle
    I disagree. Only the top artists fill arenas and make major money from touring, plus the record labels don't make money from tours. The bottom line is people have a right to be paid for their work, that includes the artists, the songwriters, and yes the record labels. If I watch a movie online or listen to a song online (at least legally) then I either pay a subscription fee or the service gets revenue from advertising. It's only fair that the people producing the product get fair value for their work. We as consumers should not expect music to be free of charge and free of advertising or we will make it impossible for new artists to make a living.
    JB172 and PRGuy79 like this.

  • #6
    Carrie Guru
    maddkat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Louisville
    Posts
    23,588
    Concert Stars
    ^ radio is free

    those poor,poor labels.I feel so sorry for them.Not
    So you think youtube should be subscription too?

    I still say it's greed.They make so much money from the consumer why do they need to take more.
    carriefan0825 likes this.

  • #7
    sco
    sco is offline
    Insane Carrie Fan
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    texas
    Posts
    3,104
    Quote Originally Posted by maddkat View Post
    ^ radio is free

    those poor,poor labels.I feel so sorry for them.Not
    So you think youtube should be subscription too?

    I still say it's greed.They make so much money from the consumer why do they need to take more.
    True, radio is free but the stations pay royalty fees just like TV stations pay royalty fees. Yes I do think YouTube should pay the artists and the labels for their work. I don't know who is right because I don't have enough information but the issue appears to be that the labels think Spotify is taking in advertising revenue and not sharing it fairly with the people actually creating the product. The bottom line is
    Spotify is running a business and the labels can choose whether to do business with them or not. If the labels think their product is worth more they have every right to try to sell it for more through a subscription service. Personally I would probably pay a fee to avoid the advertising or if the artists I like are no longer available on a free service. Call it greed if you like but I call it business. ( To your other point, I don't necessarily feel sorry for the labels but I certainly do feel sorry for up and coming artists and the public that is missing out on great music if people find it difficult to make a living producing music that isn't necessarily arena friendly.).

  • #8
    Carrie Guru
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    South Florida
    Posts
    17,945
    Concert Stars
    Quote Originally Posted by sco View Post
    I disagree. Only the top artists fill arenas and make major money from touring, plus the record labels don't make money from tours. The bottom line is people have a right to be paid for their work, that includes the artists, the songwriters, and yes the record labels. If I watch a movie online or listen to a song online (at least legally) then I either pay a subscription fee or the service gets revenue from advertising. It's only fair that the people producing the product get fair value for their work. We as consumers should not expect music to be free of charge and free of advertising or we will make it impossible for new artists to make a living.
    I am with you, if any artist or label wants to pull their music off of sites like Spotify it is their right to do so.

  • #9
    Carrie Guru
    maddkat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Louisville
    Posts
    23,588
    Concert Stars
    But do you think following the spotify logic that youtube should become a subscription service

    if youtube becomes subscription then those up and coming artist who use youtube to get their product out to the world are screwed.They would be the ones being hurt while big artist reap in the dough.

    Most people are not going to pay a subscription price.Zero way I would pay to listen to music I can hear for free on radio.Thats bad business on a personal level.


    funny about the labels thinking the money isn't being shared fairly. I believe right now there's a law suit against Sony for not giving the artist what they're owed. maybe thats the problem here - spotify is owning up and the labels are keeping the lions share instead of passing it along to the artist.


    and of course any artist can pull their music if they want.I don't thinks thats an issue.I just think they're being greedy.
    carriefan0825 likes this.

  • #10
    Obsessed Chart Watcher cary78663's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Illinois
    Posts
    24,230
    Quote Originally Posted by sco View Post
    True, radio is free but the stations pay royalty fees just like TV stations pay royalty fees. Yes I do think YouTube should pay the artists and the labels for their work. I don't know who is right because I don't have enough information but the issue appears to be that the labels think Spotify is taking in advertising revenue and not sharing it fairly with the people actually creating the product. The bottom line is
    Spotify is running a business and the labels can choose whether to do business with them or not. If the labels think their product is worth more they have every right to try to sell it for more through a subscription service. Personally I would probably pay a fee to avoid the advertising or if the artists I like are no longer available on a free service. Call it greed if you like but I call it business. ( To your other point, I don't necessarily feel sorry for the labels but I certainly do feel sorry for up and coming artists and the public that is missing out on great music if people find it difficult to make a living producing music that isn't necessarily arena friendly.).
    YouTube does pay royalties. Whether those royalties are fair or not, I cannot say.

  • #11
    Junior Carrie Follower
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    227
    What do you guys think people did before things like Spotify or YouTube? Oh yeah paid for music. Everyone complains about album sells declining and now single sells but then turn around and complain about having to pay for music? Doesn't make sense to me. I think they should pull it. We don't know but that could have been the difference of BA going 2x platinum. Yeah artist make a lot of money but they work for it. What if someone took money from you for your work because "you made too much." You wouldn't like it. I say pull it.
    Claire2004 and JB172 like this.

  • #12
    Carrie Guru
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    South Florida
    Posts
    17,945
    Concert Stars
    Quote Originally Posted by bubbasumner View Post
    What do you guys think people did before things like Spotify or YouTube? Oh yeah paid for music. Everyone complains about album sells declining and now single sells but then turn around and complain about having to pay for music? Doesn't make sense to me. I think they should pull it. We don't know but that could have been the difference of BA going 2x platinum. Yeah artist make a lot of money but they work for it. What if someone took money from you for your work because "you made too much." You wouldn't like it. I say pull it.
    Albums not selling is more to do with the digital era and people having the ability to buy singles without having to buy the whole album but I wouldn't have any issue at all if artist/labels yanked their material off sites like Spotify or You Tube.

    I use You Tube to listen to certain artist albums to decide if I want to buy them or not but if the artist and/or label wanted that to stop it would be their right to do it.

  • #13
    Obsessed Chart Watcher cary78663's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Illinois
    Posts
    24,230
    Quote Originally Posted by maddkat View Post
    But do you think following the spotify logic that youtube should become a subscription service

    if youtube becomes subscription then those up and coming artist who use youtube to get their product out to the world are screwed.They would be the ones being hurt while big artist reap in the dough.

    Most people are not going to pay a subscription price.Zero way I would pay to listen to music I can hear for free on radio.Thats bad business on a personal level.


    funny about the labels thinking the money isn't being shared fairly. I believe right now there's a law suit against Sony for not giving the artist what they're owed. maybe thats the problem here - spotify is owning up and the labels are keeping the lions share instead of passing it along to the artist.


    and of course any artist can pull their music if they want.I don't thinks thats an issue.I just think they're being greedy.
    You cannot really compare YouTube to radio because radio is audio only and YouTube is video. And it does not have to be subscription only for YouTube. There could be a free viewing level which includes unlimited viewing of non-copyrighted material plus limited viewing of copyrighted material. Subscription would cover viewing copyrighted material beyond the limited free level or viewing without ads.
    rainbow1 and Callie like this.

  • #14
    Junior Carrie Follower
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    227
    Quote Originally Posted by JB172 View Post
    Albums not selling is more to do with the digital era and people having the ability to buy singles without having to buy the whole album but I wouldn't have any issue at all if artist/labels yanked their material off sites like Spotify or You Tube.

    I use You Tube to listen to certain artist albums to decide if I want to buy them or not but if the artist and/or label wanted that to stop it would be their right to do it.
    That's true but like I said digital single sells are declining as well, while streaming is rising. I know the digital era brought the initial decline but albums aren't selling as well as they were even one year ago. Streaming is a contributing factor to the idea of an album slowly deteriorating is all I'm saying.

    Separate point not pertaining to the above post: Why should music be free but something like movies are not? What's the difference? Are the actors, directors, and anyone else involved greedy, too?
    rainbow1 likes this.

  • #15
    Carrie Guru
    Kizmet311's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Carrie Land
    Posts
    12,461
    Concert Stars
    Listening to an artist's latest single on the radio (that they have chosen to release to radio) is a big difference than listening to their entire album for free and that is what Spotify does for free on a computer. I get a few ads on my kindle and my iPhone when I used Spotify, plus Spotify on my iPhone will play other songs of the artist that aren't on the album I want to listen to. If I paid the $10 per month, my understanding is I can listen to every album without interruption and without "other" songs by the artist popping in, whether at home on my computer or in the car through the iPhone app. When you are listening to the radio, whether it be regular radio or Pandora or iTunes radio, etc, you don't get to pick the next song that plays. It is not the same as listening to entire albums at your whim. So, while I do love listening to albums for free on Spotify, I am the one reaping the reward, not the artist, because I am getting it for free with just a few ads here and there. I don't know if other streaming services are the same as Spotify, but to me, it certainly seems like the artists could suffer if the agreements between the record companies and the streaming service are not fair. I mean, why buy the album when you can stream it online for free?

  • #16
    sco
    sco is offline
    Insane Carrie Fan
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    texas
    Posts
    3,104
    Quote Originally Posted by bubbasumner View Post
    Streaming is a contributing factor to the idea of an album slowly deteriorating is all I'm saying.

    Separate point not pertaining to the above post: Why should music be free but something like movies are not? What's the difference? Are the actors, directors, and anyone else involved greedy, too?
    Both of these are good points. My fear is that artists will stop making albums and only focus on singles that are radio friendly and arena concert friendly. If that happens it will be a real shame. Most fans agree that much of Carrie's greatest work are songs that were never released to radio or maybe even played in concert.

  • #17
    Ultimate Carrie Fan jptexas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    9,483
    Concert Stars
    If artists release only singles, they would have to literally fly up the charts in like 5 weeks, then release the next one. If they decide to tour, you better have more than the two singles you've recently released. That's why albums are still the way to go. You can perform different songs for your fans, unless you're going to do an hour of cover songs besides your two single hits.

  • #18
    Junior Carrie Follower Callie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    Midwest
    Posts
    157
    I for one don't go to concerts, would never pay to use youtube, vevo, spotify or any other high tech online center to hear music. I have a radio (3) and a tv (4 of those-3 too many). I can wait to hear it on the radio or I'll support the artist in a very direct path, buy the cd. There comes a point when your paying for too many things and your no longer working for the right the right reasons. I'd rather go on vacation with my pennies earned. I've never downloaded an itune whatever that is and certainly have no paying subscriptions to anything of the such. I'm not missing anything in my opinion. BUT, I do have all of Carrie's cd's!!

  • #19
    Junior Carrie Follower Callie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    Midwest
    Posts
    157
    very true about the video aspect but that is what cmt and gac are for. One just needs to be patient.

  • #20
    Junior Carrie Follower
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    227
    Quote Originally Posted by jptexas View Post
    If artists release only singles, they would have to literally fly up the charts in like 5 weeks, then release the next one. If they decide to tour, you better have more than the two singles you've recently released. That's why albums are still the way to go. You can perform different songs for your fans, unless you're going to do an hour of cover songs besides your two single hits.
    You can't make a new album or go on tour if you get dropped from your record label after your previous album barely sold anything. I love albums and hope they don't get lost along with tapes, records, etc. I really mean physical cd's when I say the album is deteriorating. I could see labels having artist release albums digitally and only focusing on the singles that they chose to release. I really hope that doesn't happen. People spend so much money on coffee, beer, cigarettes, etc. daily but aren't willing to pay for music. It's sad.


  •  
    Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

    Similar Threads

    1. Replies: 6
      Last Post: 09-10-2014, 10:07 AM
    2. Taylor Swift vs. Carrie Underwood at 2012 Billboard Music Awards
      By dreamer11 in forum Carrie Underwood Sightings
      Replies: 6
      Last Post: 09-02-2013, 10:07 PM
    3. Poll: Can Taylor Swift Topple Carrie Underwood at CMT Music Awards?
      By carriefann in forum Carrie Underwood Times
      Replies: 24
      Last Post: 06-21-2011, 06:36 PM
    4. Replies: 30
      Last Post: 06-08-2011, 04:39 PM

    Posting Permissions

    • You may not post new threads
    • You may not post replies
    • You may not post attachments
    • You may not edit your posts
    •