Why Taylor Swift’s Win Over Apple is a Huge Deal
Shutterstock.com
When I heard about Taylor Swift breaking the Internet this weekend with her open letter to Apple over their new streaming music service, I was a bit skeptical of what she had to say: She is, after all, a mega-mogul with a shit ton of cash and an overly sensitive heart.
But then I read her blog post and I quickly changed my mind. Taylor wasn’t speaking on her behalf, but rather on the behalf of the artists who just can’t seem to beat the Goliath, industrialized music industry. One part of her manifesto truly hit home for me:
This is not about me. Thankfully I am on my fifth album and can support myself, my band, crew, and entire management team by playing live shows. This is about the new artist or band that has just released their first single and will not be paid for its success. This is about the young songwriter who just got his or her first cut and thought that the royalties from that would get them out of debt. This is about the producer who works tirelessly to innovate and create, just like the innovators and creators at Apple are pioneering in their field…but will not get paid for a quarter of a year’s worth of plays on his or her songs.
As artists, we need to be having this conversation about how those who create—whether it is music for the ears or words for reading or visual art for viewing—are compensated for their work. The trope of the “starving artist” is still as relevant today as it was hundreds of years ago. I know way too many people who create, who bust their asses to make a living with their art, who simply can’t break it. Ms. Swift is lucky enough that, at her young age, she isn’t amongst those playing the guitar on the corner of Broad and Walnut on a Saturday night, hoping for a handful of change come the end of the evening. Yet, she seems to “get” that notion that creation should equal some sort of compensation.
Where the problem has gotten more complex is how the Internet and other public electronic domains allow for the instantaneous sharing of artistic product. Sure, in some cases, it has made people superstars (I’m looking at you, Rebecca Black), but more times than not, it has allowed for huge cash cows to exploit artistic talent. I’m thinking recently of The Voice UK who was accused of plagiarizing the popular arrangement of Postmodern Jukebox’s “Fancy”… without any shoutout to the original artist.
But there’s quite the silver lining here: Taylor beat Apple. Less than 24 hours after Ms. Swift’s blog hit the interwebs, Apple announced that they’re, indeed, going to pay artists during the tree trial period of its new streaming music service. Ms. Swift’s influence was so great, that Eddy Cue, Apple’s VP of Internet Software and Services, personally contacted her to let her know about the change in policy.
Sure, this wasn’t a “David beats Goliath” situation, given Ms. Swift’s insane power but, in a strange way, it sort of was: Ms. Swift brought an awareness to a huge public awareness to how artists are being constantly ripped off for their work. We may not agree with every Taylor Swift lyric, or like every bit of behavior of the pop star, but she did right here. Perhaps we should let Taylor summarize it in her own words:
https://twitter.com/taylorswift13/status/612841136311390209
