Ondrej Holzman One of the big attractions of the new music streaming service Apple Music, which will launch on June 30, was supposed to be exclusive artists that cannot be found in the competition. It is not yet clear how many such names Apple will have in its repertoire, but we already know one thing: even the otherwise very successful executives of the Californian company did not manage to completely convince Taylor Swift for streaming.
The 25-year-old singer is known for her measured approach to streaming services and even had all her work removed from Spotify in November last year. Taylor Swift commented that the free version of the service devalues her artwork.
However, Taylor Swift had relatively positive relations with Apple, and since the expected Apple Music service will not have a free version (except for the initial three-month trial period), it was expected that the winner of seven Grammy awards would be Apple's trump card to attract customers. But in the end, even with Apple, Taylor Swift will not completely jump on the streaming wave.
One of the most popular singers today has decided not to release her latest album '1989' for streaming. For BuzzFeed to they confirmed representatives of the singer from Big Machine Records as well as Apple. In Apple Music, we only find Taylor Swift's previous albums also available, for example, on rival Tidal.
Her decision not to provide the album 1989 to any streaming service in the near future certainly does not have to regret the country-pop singer. The fifth studio album released last October is still a huge hit. In its first week, Taylor Swift sold more albums than anyone since 2002, eventually making "1989" the best-selling album of 2014 in the United States, with 4,6 million copies sold.
When Apple Music launches on June 30, it's still unclear which artists will and won't be on board. Especially apparently Apple is still negotiating with independent musicians and some refuse to join because of the three-month trial period when Apple Music will be free.
Thanks to Apple, I stopped pirating music, I deleted everything and I bought what I wanted from iTunes, or transferred from the original origo CDs. I wonder how many people need a constant stream of music, I mean all that music on iTunes. I have a few albums, including a few playlists that I sync to my iPod and iPhone. And that's enough. Somehow I don't see the need to pay monthly... I don't pay I have nothing. My model will still be buying one album/selection of tracks rather than paying for something I won't keep. But I understand that the model can suit someone.
I have a lot of stuff that I also listen to from iTunes, but I quite like discovering new music, which I think Apple Music will be good at. In addition, I like having everything I'm in the mood for on my phone. I really can't fit all my music into a 16Gb iPhone. However, this way only the top stuff will be offline and I'll leave the rest to the stream. Regarding payment, I think it's also a good way to teach people who haven't paid for music to cheat.
So you don't have the money for a 64GB iPhone, but throwing €10 a month into the air, hey? :D
I share exactly the same opinion as m2
I also stopped "pirating" music as he writes and I practically buy everything. After all, only €6-10 for an album once every six months is not much.
I have a list of about 600-700 selected songs in Google Play, which I continuously add. I'm not saying that I listen to them all, but when there is a small party and I play it through a wireless speaker, everyone chooses it. If I had to buy everything, it would be quite expensive. This is how it costs me 150,-
"No argument against taste". I buy music mainly for myself and not to play at a party. So, as a normal person, I can fit into 300-400 songs at most. By the way, do you know it's illegal :D?
... here in Slovakia, you would get a hefty fine for that. The SOI would thicken :-))
If you enjoy listening to the same songs over and over again, I understand that a streaming service doesn't make sense for you. For example, I listen to new music all the time and return to the older ones only for a few "exceptional" performers, because I simply listen to the rest quickly. And I can't even listen to the few favorite albums all the time.
I will explain my example. I mostly listen to podcasts and DIradio, where I have already filtered out my favorite artists or genres of music. And when I like a song or an artist, I check him out on iTunes, I play samples of songs in his album. If there are good things, I will buy the album (I will support his creation), if there are one or two good songs in the album, I will not buy the album and listen to the artist all the time from podcasts that are legally and free to download offline. So it's not like you say that I hear the same thing over and over again. I also listen to news, but for free and only pay for what I like.
Music trends change quickly. In addition, each album has some highlight track and the others are average or below average. And why buy the whole album for €10 if I like one or two songs? And if you like 2+ songs every month, it's better to pay for spotif along with something else than to pay 5x5€ for each song separately.
Well, if I like them, I'll buy them, it seems to me that you'll pay for them several times :-)
it's more about the fact that I can play anything and I don't have to decide whether I have it or not - I just pay a monthly fee and listen to what I really like, what I like, as many times as I want... if I had to listen to every song, what I heard that I had to buy it first on spotify, so it would sound incomparably more... of course, for those who have a few favorite albums/authors and listen to them over and over, it's better to buy it and be quiet
They're just trying to get some free publicity before releasing a new album
Who is it?
Advertise yourself :-)
I watched a couple of video clips on YouTube and even if it was free, I wouldn't download it :-)
Fortunately, these disco models walk around me. With this musical "art" no one will get rich anyway, so hopefully more such pseudo-artists will reach people as little as possible, because this is really a tragedy.)
The very fact that the person in question is currently popular is the reason why they would want her. I find it funny, I could understand it with the Beatles or other "good wine", I have to laugh like that.