Via Tumblr, Taylor Swift has penned an open letter to Apple regarding Apple Music’s three month trial period. Here it is, verbatim:
To Apple, Love Taylor
I write this to explain why I’ll be holding back my album, 1989, from the new streaming service, Apple Music. I feel this deserves an explanation because Apple has been and will continue to be one of my best partners in selling music and creating ways for me to connect with my fans. I respect the company and the truly ingenious minds that have created a legacy based on innovation and pushing the right boundaries.
I’m sure you are aware that Apple Music will be offering a free 3 month trial to anyone who signs up for the service. I’m not sure you know that Apple Music will not be paying writers, producers, or artists for those three months. I find it to be shocking, disappointing, and completely unlike this historically progressive and generous company.
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.
These are not the complaints of a spoiled, petulant child. These are the echoed sentiments of every artist, writer and producer in my social circles who are afraid to speak up publicly because we admire and respect Apple so much. We simply do not respect this particular call.
I realize that Apple is working towards a goal of paid streaming. I think that is beautiful progress. We know how astronomically successful Apple has been and we know that this incredible company has the money to pay artists, writers and producers for the 3 month trial period… even if it is free for the fans trying it out.
Three months is a long time to go unpaid, and it is unfair to ask anyone to work for nothing. I say this with love, reverence, and admiration for everything else Apple has done. I hope that soon I can join them in the progression towards a streaming model that seems fair to those who create this music. I think this could be the platform that gets it right.
But I say to Apple with all due respect, it’s not too late to change this policy and change the minds of those in the music industry who will be deeply and gravely affected by this. We don’t ask you for free iPhones. Please don’t ask us to provide you with our music for no compensation.
Taylor
Apple has responded via Twitter:
#AppleMusic will pay artist for streaming, even during customer’s free trial period
— Eddy Cue (@cue) June 22, 2015
We hear you @taylorswift13 and indie artists. Love, Apple
— Eddy Cue (@cue) June 22, 2015
Swift responded:
https://twitter.com/taylorswift13/status/612841136311390209
MacDailyNews Take: If this “conflict and resolution” was set up by Apple and Big Machine Records’ respective PR departments in order to gin up publicity for Apple Music’s launch (a little “manufactured controversy” never hurt anyone): Kudos! Excellent job to everyone involved!
This does seem a bit Iovinish: We’ll get the biggest name in pop music to “object” and then we’ll “come around” and provide a feel good story that satisfies everyone just before launch. It’ll be great! Cute Taylor Swift takes on Apple all by herself and “wins” and Apple is a great company that listens! It’s a win-win for everyone.
For example, see Bloomberg’s coverage: Taylor Swift wins streaming battle as Apple backs down on royalty payments.
After all, the music industry, from whence Jimmy Iovine sprang, is all about promotion and Apple has enough money to run these services at a billion-dollar loss for several hundred years (no exaggeration) so it’s pretty inconceivable that the actual proposal would be to not compensate the artists during the three-month trial period. The fact is that every major and most minor music label had already signed on the dotted line before this “controversy” erupted.
So, will Apple Music now have Swift’s “1989” tracks among the its catalog of over 30 million songs? Exclusively, of course? Or, is that the cherry on top, the “news” that comes even closer to, or just after, Apple Music’s June 30th launch in order to guarantee another round of free publicity for the service (and Swift)? If so, kudos for that flourish, too!