The pop star’s decision to remove all music from Spotify is sparking controversy over motives.
On Monday, November 3rd, a week after her release of her fifth album, 1989, music superstar Taylor Swift pulled her entire catalog of music off of Spotify—the online streaming service where over 16 million fans have listened to Swift’s songs within the past month. In response to Taylor’s bold move, Spotify wrote a blog post begging her to “…stay, stay, stay. It’s a love story, baby, just say, yes.” Subsequently, an op-ed piece published in July by the Wall Street Journal written by the artist herself was titled: “For Taylor Swift, the Future of Music is a Love Story.” In her piece, she argues that making songs free risks jeopardizing all that music stands for:
“Music is art, and art is important and rare. Important, rare things are valuable. Valuable things should be paid for. It’s my opinion that music should not be free … I hope [individuals artists] don’t underestimate themselves or undervalue their art.” That is, Taylor wants fair compensation for “the amount of heart and soul [she] has bled into [her] work.”
According to “Spotify Artists,” artists earn between $0.006 and $0.0084 per play. Still, artists as successful as Swift could potentially earn millions based on this model. In “New Songs, Old Tricks: Taylor Swift Quits Spotify and Beyoncé Breaks Out a Box Set,” Alex Frank reflects the outrage of Swift’s fan base, who have labeled her as greedy.
“What about how Swift’s latest, 1989, is breaking all those records? It’s selling at a rate of 1.3 million copies in a week… why would she need to sell even more? The answer is that this isn’t about just one album. Though 1989 has performed well, it is the first album of the entire year to go platinum, and, according to Forbes Magazine, quite possibly the last.”
And it very well could be the last. There is a reason 1989 is the only album to go platinum this year—very few people buy music anymore. Sales have declined not only when it comes to CDs and records but digital downloads as well. This chart demonstrates the clear decrease in album downloads within the past year.
While some believe Taylor seeks to unfairly earn as much money as she can from sales of her album, others admire her strength and resolve for taking a stand against the decreasing worth of music. In an interview in Wired magazine, Aloe Blacc supports Tyalor’s decision. He protests:
“By law, we have to let any business use our songs that asks, so long as they agree to pay a rate that, more often than not, was not set in a free market. We don’t have a choice. As such, we have no power to protect the value of the music we create. The abhorrently low rates songwriters are paid by streaming services—enabled by outdated federal regulations—are yet another indication our work is being devalued in today’s marketplace.”
Even though Taylor took extreme measures against online streaming, her underlying argument is sound. In this day and age, very few people buy CDs or purchase digital albums. The Recording Industry Association of America stated that, “Today, 21% of revenue comes from streaming models, and almost two-thirds of total revenue comes from digitally distributed formats.” I know that the streaming business has its many advantages to us consumers, but artist’s work deserves to be valued. Making music is an artist’s job, and their pay should reflect their dedication. After all, music plays a very important role in my life, as well as in the lives of many others.
Taylor successfully caught the world’s attention, but I predict this is only a temporary fix to a deeper issue about the declining future of the music industry.
Related articles: 9 Reasons We Can’t Wait for Taylor Swift’s New Album, Taylor Swift’s Best Looks (And the ‘1989’ Tracks That Match Them!)