1310417175248700262

Last weekend, Taylor Swift went to social media to announce she would withhold her frighteningly popular album, 1989, from the new Apple streaming service as artists were not planned to be compensated during the company’s free 3-month trial period.  Within hours, the tech giants folded, agreeing to pay artists during the free trial period after all.  This made Swift the hero of the day looking out for not only her own interests (un-like those Tidal jerks, eh?), but for the smaller artists on indie labels (like XL and Matador) who were also holding out.  As of today, Taylor has announced she will stream the coveted 1989 on the service “and happily so”.

I have two thoughts:

1) Bra-vo!  Taylor Swift is, yet again, the “right type” of young lady to be a role-model to scores of teens across the country.  She plays guitar (moderately well), writes her own tunes (with help), pays her taxes (presumably) and stands up for artists everywhere big and small.  Right on!  I’m not a personal fan of her music, but I’ll defend to the death her right to make it (plus the kids these days seem to dig it).  Always happy to see money go to musicians.

2) (Much more likely) Apple makes tons of money.  Taylor Swift makes tons of money.  Apple played chicken with the indie labels and lost.  Taylor Swift got a sweet deal to look like she convinced them to do what they were already planning on doing anyways.  The bad press would have soured the big release anyways and, now, Apple can graciously accept defeat…then turn around and make tons of money off the person who “defeated them.  Defeated all the way to the bank.  Two entities made each other richer.  Fair enough.

Written by Alt360º Blogger – Jason Polakowski

10527297_689964818160_5368309987681962003_n-263x350