UPDATED: Billy Bragg’s Criticism of Taylor Swift’s Spotify Decision
UPDATE: BILLY BRAGG HAS APOLOGIZED. SEE BELOW.
Yes, Billy Bragg is is the super cool British songwriting icon with a sharp wit and a penchant for social justice that many know and love, and Taylor Swift is the American pop princess with shallow radio singles selling out stadiums and amassing more money than God in a bid for nothing short of world domination. But the shade Billy threw Taylor over her decision to pull her music from Spotify, though conveying some logic and insight, is riddled with spite, and rooted in a wild-ass conspiracy theory with absolutely no factual basis.
In short, Billy Bragg accuses Taylor Swift of pulling her music from Soptify in favor of Google and YouTube’s new Music Key streaming service as a means of making money on an undisclosed endorsement deal, thereby discrediting all of her rhetoric about standing up for the value of art and the fair compensation of songwriters. Bragg says Taylor “sold her soul” to Google.
“But she should just be honest with her fans and say ‘sorry, but Sergey Brin gave me a huge amount of money to be the headline name on the marquee for the launch of You Tube Music Key and so I’ve sold my soul to Google’,” Billy Bragg says (read full statement below). “Google are going after Spotify and Taylor Swift has just chosen sides. That’s her prerogative as a savvy businesswoman but please don’t try to sell this corporate power play to us as some sort of altruistic gesture in solidarity with struggling music makers.”
Bragg’s accusation is that Taylor Swift has become the poster girl for YouTube’s Music Key, but no such relationship exists. A detailed combing of the entirety of Music Key’s internet properties, advertising, verbiage, images, or any other media finds not a single mention of Taylor Swift whatsoever, let alone a “headline name on a marquee” as asserted by Bragg. There’s no “Subscribe to the service Taylor Swift is still on.” There’s no pictures of Taylor Swift. Nothing. At all.
Furthermore a spokesperson for Taylor Swift has confirmed, “Taylor Swift has had absolutely no discussion or agreement of any kind with Google’s new music streaming service.”
Something else not taken into account by Billy Bragg is that Taylor Swift’s music also remains on Beats streaming service and other streaming services beyond Google and YouTube’s Music Key. If her intent was to undermine other streamers in favor of Google, why wouldn’t she pull her music from all streaming services?
The fact that Taylor Swift only pulled her music from Spotify and not other streamers has been one of the most under-reported and important notes to her Spotify decision, and Saving Country Music has been attempting to reinforce that point ever since Taylor’s Spotify decision was made. For most artists, the default in their distribution deals is for their music to appear on music streamers unless it is explicitly stated for it not to. For Taylor’s music to not appear on Google’s streaming services, she may have to serve these companies with takedown notices, meaning just because her music appears on a service doesn’t mean she explicitly decided to have it there. Taylor Swift may not even know that her music is being made available on these new streamers, or it may have to do more with the payouts Spotify gives to artists compared to other services.
Something else Billy Bragg asserts is, “You might ask yourself why Google are setting up a commercial streaming service that will ultimately have to compete with their own You Tube behemoth? My hunch is that they are following a ‘Starbucks strategy’: it doesn’t matter if your own coffee shops on every corner are competing with one another, so long as they ultimately put all of your rivals out of business.”
It is somewhat curious why Google needs to have two streaming options under their umbrella, and Bragg may have a point. But industry analysts have believed that Google’s split of their streaming services is because Google Play is meant more for use on mobile devices such as phones, while YouTube’s Music Key is more about integrating music streaming into the already-established YouTube format, which has become one of the leading places to stream music especially for PC use. There may be some overlap in the two services, but they don’t necessarily compete with each other.
Audiophiles, Billy Bragg fans, and people generally distrusting of big music stars and corporations will herald Billy Bragg as a hero for exposing Taylor Swift’s evil plan that attempts to placate music makers while in truth she is undermining them. And yes, there is no doubt that there is a financial motivation to Swift pulling her music from Spotify that music be weighed against her altruistic assertions. But in a word, Billy Bragg’s conspiracy theory is bullshit.
Billy Bragg’s full message:
What a shame that Taylor Swift’s principled stand against those who would give her music away for free has turned out to be nothing more than a corporate power play. On pulling her music from Spotify recently, she made a big issue of the fact that the majority of the streaming service’s users listen to her tracks for nothing rather than signing up to the subscription service.
“I don’t agree with perpetuating the perception that music has no value and should be free” she said in a statement to Yahoo last week.
These worthy sentiments have been somewhat undermined by Swift making her new album and back catalogue available on Google’s new Music Key streaming service”¦..which also offers listeners a free service alongside a premium subscription tier.
Given that this year is the first to fail to produce a new million selling album, I can understand Taylor Swift wanting to maximise her opportunities with the new record and it worked: she shifted 1.28m copies of 1989 in the first week of sale.
But she should just be honest with her fans and say “sorry, but Sergey Brin gave me a huge amount of money to be the headline name on the marquee for the launch of You Tube Music Key and so I’ve sold my soul to Google”.
If Ms Swift was truly concerned about perpetuating the perception that music has no value and should be free, she should be removing her material from You Tube, not cosying up to it. The de facto biggest streaming service in the world, with all the content available free, You Tube is the greatest threat to any commercially based streaming service.
You might ask yourself why Google are setting up a commercial streaming service that will ultimately have to compete with their own You Tube behemoth? My hunch is that they are following a ‘Starbucks strategy’: it doesn’t matter if your own coffee shops on every corner are competing with one another, so long as they ultimately put all of your rivals out of business.
Google are going after Spotify and Taylor Swift has just chosen sides. That’s her prerogative as a savvy businesswoman but please don’t try to sell this corporate power play to us as some sort of altruistic gesture in solidarity with struggling music makers.
UPDATE (11-20): Billy Bragg has apologized, read full statement below.
I want to apologise to Taylor Swift for accusing her of selling her soul to Google. I have learned that her music will not now be available on the new YouTube Music Key service, which launched this week. This is despite a number of credible sources stating in the last seven days that it would be including yesterday’s CMU newsletter.
My criticism was based on the fact that Swift’s back catalogue was the central feature of a demonstration of the Music Key services given to journalists in London last week, as outlined in the article below. In response to specific questions about Swift’s music, journalists were assured that her back catalogue would be available on the service, including the free tier. This fact was reported in the Observer article that I linked to on my first post on this subject.
Learning that Google were using Swift to promote Music Key gave me the impression that her music was going to be front and centre of their launch, the implication being that her Spotify boycott was a corporate power play, rather than an attempt by an artist to make the point that music has value.
I now realise that I was mistaken in this assumption and wish to apologise to Ms Swift for questioning her motives.
The fact that our music is widely available for free on the internet is a problem that all artists struggle with. While so much material is instantly accessible on YouTube, subscription streaming services will always find it a challenge to build enough users to make music viable for artists, who at the moment seem to be at the end of the queue for remuneration.
The time will surely come when content creators have to band together to challenge deals done between rights holders and service providers, details of which are kept from artists and their representatives. If Ms Swift is going to lead that fight for transparency, she will have my full support.
I would like to add that I will be boycotting the first media outlet to use the headline ‘Bragg makes Swift apology’
READ – Man Against Machine: Garth Brooks Calls YouTube “The Devil”
November 18, 2014 @ 4:30 pm
Billy Bragg is an admitted socialist, and hasn’t been relevant since Mermaid Avenue. Who cares what he says.
November 19, 2014 @ 5:15 am
I care. And I’d take an “admitted socialist” over an “admitted teabagger” (like Charlie Daniels et al) any day.
November 19, 2014 @ 7:23 am
Calling Billy Bragg a socialist greatly oversimplifies his politics. He is certainly a leftist, but that’s not the same thing as being a socialist.
Calling Charlie Daniels a “teabagger” is insulting and ignorant. It’s nothing more than a crude variation of Godwin’s Law.
November 19, 2014 @ 7:43 am
the point is, what does a socialist know about something that was clearly a capitalistic decision…and I’ll take Charlie Daniels or Hank Jr. by my side in a dark ally over Billy Bragg any day of the week.
November 18, 2014 @ 4:31 pm
Perhaps Billy Bragg’s knows something you don’t? Billy Bragg. What would be his incentive or motive for writing what he did? I ‘m not sure what is up here but I can’t imagine Bragg just woke up one morning & decided to pick on Taylor Swift.
November 18, 2014 @ 5:02 pm
Like what? Billy Bragg is connected into the Google net and knows about the inner workings of the company?
“Sergey Brin gave me a huge amount of money to be the headline name on the marquee for the launch of You Tube Music Key.”
Okay, so where is Taylor Swift’s name or likeness on a “marquee” anywhere? Show me. Post the picture. Post the link. Where is it? Anything. Any single piece of YouTube Music Key imagery or written matter that has any affiliation with Taylor Swift either included or implied. Show it to me and I’ll eat my hat.
I don’t think Bragg is “picking” on Taylor Swift. I think he’s waging class warfare with conspiracy. That’s the great thing about conspiracy theory. You don’t have to prove anything, you just have to create doubt.
I don;t have a beef with Billy Bragg. I have a lot of respect for him as an artist. But what he said here was irresponsible.
November 18, 2014 @ 4:34 pm
Huh. As long as we’re making shit up…I wonder how much Billy Colostomy Bagg got paid by Spotify to make his great and profound, although mostly just unsolicited, statement?
November 18, 2014 @ 4:54 pm
Trigger, did you read the Bloomsberg Businessweek article on this issue? Taylor Swift is on the cover and the entire article covers how Swift and Scott Borchetta decided to end their alliance with Spotify. Sure seems like it was all about the money even with their claims about making sort of statement or taking some altruistic position.
November 18, 2014 @ 5:17 pm
Yes, I was interviewed and quoted in the story (though very briefly).
http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-11-12/taylor-swift-and-big-machine-are-the-music-industry
““I call Scott Borchetta the antichrist of country music,” says Kyle Coroneos, editor of the Saving Country Music website. Borchetta says he”™s simply letting his artists follow their own muses. When Florida Georgia Line released its second album, Anything Goes, in early October, it debuted at No.”‰1 on the Billboard Top 200. (“Well played, Satan,” wrote one disgruntled YouTube commenter.)”
The thing is, I have no doubt that Taylor Swift pulling her music is motivated by money. But that doesn’t mean there’s also not an underlying moral issue here. It also doesn’t mean that she’s made some secret deal with Google. There’s absolutely no foundation for that irresponsible charge from Bragg.
I would love to side with Bragg here. Saying he’s uncovered a secret deal is a much more sexy story. But the fact is that it’s just not true.
November 18, 2014 @ 6:21 pm
Well, with a response like that now ya know why they picked you to comment.
November 18, 2014 @ 7:05 pm
It is about money and there is nothing wrong with that – Taylor’s a songwriter. I believe her motive is altruistic. A lot of people are implying that this is about the fans getting the short end of the stick. That’s bull. It’s about Spotify having a bad business model. They need to work it out and stop trying to rile up the fans with their the artists are greedy shit.
These are comments from a recent Billboard article”
“My song ‘Livin’ on a Prayer,’ which I co-wrote with Jon Bon Jovi and Richie Sambora, got six and a half million plays in the first quarter of 2012 and we had to split a check for $110,” producer Desmond Child said. “That’s just enough for a big pizza a piece.” He went on to throw his support behind Fair Trade Music, which labels songs and albums that have been paid for fairly from beginning to end.
Sting declared the old model of songwriter’s licenses to be “dead and gone” and added that the new model hasn’t been settled upon in a way that could satisfy listeners and artists. “I think Taylor raised the argument in the public eye, so I back her on that,” he said. “Her making that statement brings people into the debate, and I think that’s important.
“I’m kind of open to the change,” he said of his own stance on it. “It’s gonna change. You have to be open.”
Bill Withers, the voice of hits like “Lean on Me” and “Ain’t No Sunshine,” took a self-deprecatingly humorous approach to the debate. “Everybody’s going to have to figure it out,” he said. “Fortunately, I’m at the age to where I’ll probably pass away before it gets too complicated.” He laughed. “But it’s a complicated thing. It’s new. Whenever something’s new, nobody knows what to do with it.” He said that he accompanied a group from ASCAP to Washington, D.C. to discuss the issue with congressmen but was greeted by “some aid that hasn’t shaven yet.”
November 18, 2014 @ 5:34 pm
Hi Trigger. I thought you might be interested…you are also quoted in this editorial anc interview by Wonderland mag; of all things a kind of fashion mag.
I wonder how much aware of you Taylor is?
http://www.wonderlandmagazine.com/2014/11/cover-story-taylor-swift/
November 18, 2014 @ 5:54 pm
Nice. The one with pictures of Taylor Swift where Taylor Swift doesn’t look like Taylor Swift. I hope I also made it into the print version. Thanks for the heads up.
Have no idea if she knows about me, but I definitely have a long-standing, complicated perspective on her career that her move to pop appears to have affected very little. She’s the queen bee in all of music right now, and her actions are sending out massive reverberations that affect every artist and deserve to be discussed.
November 18, 2014 @ 5:36 pm
He’s a commie fuck. They have a tendency of making acqusations (aka lying) if it will further the cause.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and all.
November 18, 2014 @ 5:43 pm
“He’s a commie fuck? as you said “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and all.”
November 18, 2014 @ 7:09 pm
A good article on the streaming debate is here:
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/11/24/revenue-streams
towards the bottom, Rosanne Cash weighs in.
We need to find a way to protect the creators.
November 18, 2014 @ 7:21 pm
Good article.
November 18, 2014 @ 8:48 pm
I wonder if BB got his info from this article, which asserts Swift is in bed with Google. Who knows if there’s any truth to it
http://m.ibtimes.com/taylor-swift-youtube-music-key-there-room-yet-another-streaming-service-1722675…
November 18, 2014 @ 9:27 pm
Nowhere in that article did it say that Taylor Swift was “in bed” with Google. It says she has incentive to allow her music through the streaming service because she already is using their video platform, as are most artists.
In Billy Bragg’s statement, he actually linked to this article:
http://www.theguardian.com/music/2014/nov/15/taylor-swift-music-spotify
So if there’s one that inspired his angst, it would probably be that one.
November 18, 2014 @ 10:13 pm
Billy Bragg isn’t even close. i have no direct proof, but i’m almost for certain this whole leaving Spotify hoopla was career advice from Bob Log III, the producer from her unreleased record that she made between albums four and five. if anybody was really paying attention, it’s totally obvious.
November 18, 2014 @ 10:33 pm
Tin foil hats will be available in the merch section of Billys website I hear.
November 18, 2014 @ 10:56 pm
They don’t necessarily count as “marquee mentions,” but Taylor’s name has been outright identified in two Variety pieces about the YouTube service.
And the first one directly credits a YouTube rep with confirming it.
http://variety.com/2014/digital/news/youtube-launches-music-key-subscription-service-with-more-than-30-million-songs-1201354498/
http://variety.com/2014/digital/news/sony-music-may-pull-songs-from-free-music-services-after-taylor-swift-disses-spotify-1201359194/
That’s not the same as saying she took a huge deal to *leave* Spotify in favor of exclusivity with YouTube, but it does directly refute the notion that she hasn’t been officially advertised for the service (or that she hasn’t had any talks, as her rep allegedly said)
November 19, 2014 @ 4:29 am
If Britain ever sees a real reactionary backlash (and they need it desperately,) I hope Billy Bragg is the first person who disappears.
November 19, 2014 @ 6:24 am
Whoa! What’s with all the hate in Savingcountrymusicland for Billy Bragg? No need to crucify the man. (I’m referring to various comments, not Trigger’s article.)
I suppose that Woody Guthrie and Pete Seeger were commies and subversives too.
I’ve always had a lot of respect for Billy Bragg. I’m old enough to remember when he first appeared in the 80s. MTV, synthesizers, and Durand Duran. And here comes this working class guy with a cheap guitar and an unapologetic Northern accent who sung about real things.
I’ll tell you one thing you will never hear Mr. Bragg singing about tailgates, sprayed on jeans and beer. Well maybe beer.
Now in the case at hand I do agree that Bragg seems to be way off base. so color me disappointed all around.
November 19, 2014 @ 7:04 am
“The biggest tragedy in the 20th Century was the collapse of the Soviet Union”…Billy Bragg. Bragg is a smart dude, but he’s given to make some foolish statements all the time in defense of collectivism.
November 19, 2014 @ 11:25 am
When did he make that statement? Can you provide a link? I found this article where he addresses the collapse of the Soviet Union and how one affect it had on British domestic politics was that it made it “bland.” Nothing remotely close to “greatest tragedy,” though.
http://thequietus.com/articles/05773-where-are-all-the-protest-singers-billy-bragg-nina-simone-dorian-lynskey-33-revolutions-per-minute-a-history-of-protest-songs-review
November 19, 2014 @ 12:17 pm
I remember reading it in Melody Maker at the UGA library over 20 years ago. That comment always stuck with me. The Soviet Union truly was “The Evil Empire”, responsible for the deaths of millions of its own citizens and the forced enslavement of its own people to the Communist Party. Being a naïve 20 year old, I thought everyone would be on board with this evil system collapsing, but not Billy, apparently. It really opened my eyes to just how silly some of these leftist living in their comfort in the Western World can be.
November 20, 2014 @ 8:10 am
My understanding of Billy Bragg’s politics is that similar to Steve Earle, he’s far left in the Western sense, but not anti-democratic (small d) and not even completely anti-capitalistic. If he really said something as crazy as you claim, then I personally need more than your 20 year old memory as proof.
I saw him live once about 12 years or so ago. He was part of a lineup that included Steve Earle, Mike Mills of R.E.M., Jill Sobule (?), one of the Chambers Brothers and some others and it was part of a tour supporting “independence in the media” or something like that. As part of a little speech protesting the upcoming Iraq war, he went on this pro-American riff that pleasantly surprised me a little. Something about how the same country that had the vision to do great things like rebuilding Western Europe after WWII through the Marshall Plan could be a force for good again. Well, that’s how I remember it, anyway.
November 19, 2014 @ 7:38 am
I don’t really care. His stuff with Wilco is awesome.
November 19, 2014 @ 7:45 am
More like consPIRACY… amirite?!
November 19, 2014 @ 9:18 am
“I don”™t agree with perpetuating the perception that music has no value and should be free” she said in a statement to Yahoo last week.
This jumped out at me as I hadn’t seen this specific quote before. If her concern is that people are listening for free I have to assume that she has plans to pull her songs from the radio, as well.
I don’t buy Billy Bragg’s conspiracy theory, but I have to wonder why she’s concerned with whether or not end users are paying for the service rather than the fact that the service is paying the royalties? I’m not a Spotify user, but if I understand it correctly non-paying users are subject to ads which are thrown into the kitty. So they’re getting paid for these folks listening, it’s just coming from advertising revenues rather than user fees. In other words, just like radio.
Think about a bar that plays music; whether it hosts live bands, has a jukebox, or just keeps a radio playing that the customers can hear, it has to pay licensing fees. Does it really matter whether or not the bar patrons pay a cover charge to come in and listen? I wouldn’t think so as long as the fees are paid by the bar owner.
I get where Garth is coming from with his statements, although I don’t take it at face value because I believe he has an ulterior motive. But Taylor’s statement leads me to believe that she really doesn’t get exactly what’s going on and makes me wonder if she’s just going along with what someone on the business end of her empire has come up with.
Again, I don’t buy Bragg’s broad conspiracy theory, but this may be a little more financially motivated than it appears to be on the surface.
November 19, 2014 @ 11:59 am
There is a massive difference between streaming and radio. Streaming is on-demand, radio isn’t. Radio is a vehicle to promote music and music sales, while streaming is meant to supplant physical music sales with a new technology. Yes, free music exists even in the traditional music marketplace, and yes, Taylor Swift is undoubtedly motivated by money. But I don’t know that any of this erodes her underlying point.
Where were all the people saying Rosanne Cash should just be happy with the money she has just like people are saying about Brooks and Swift when she was testifying in front of Congress about all of this?
November 19, 2014 @ 12:46 pm
I was referring specifically to her comment, not the overall situation. If she really thinks people should pay to listen to music it should be universal.
Also, according to the article she originally was willing to leave her music on Spotify if it could be restricted to paying members and withheld from free users. While this would increase her revenue per play, it would decrease the total revenue. So I really don’t get the point.
I get that streaming is on-demand where radio is not. But that actually works to the advantage of the better writers (or, more specifically, to those whose songs are cut by the most popular artists) as they are paid per play rather than per station, per quarter.
And the excerpt I pulled from the article seems to indicate that Spotify really doesn’t have much impact, if any, on album sales, as does the point I made about Rosanne’s latest album selling more units while being on Spotify than her last pre-Spotify albums. Maybe it’s a better album, but how would anyone know if they didn’t get to listen to it? And it’s not being played on the radio, so where are you going to go to hear it?
Look, I don’t care whether Taylor, Garth, or anybody else chooses to use Spotify or any other service. But as far as I’m concerned it’s just a business decision, there’s nothing noble about it. And while I get the frustration over the low payouts, I have yet to see evidence that these low payouts come at the expense of other payouts elsewhere such as album sales. And I continue to maintain that the presence of these big names on streaming services can only help the lesser-known writers get discovered.
November 19, 2014 @ 9:46 am
Taylor is obviously a Capitalist artist (like Garth Brooks), while he supports the blue collar and working crowds and he isn’t normally one to make uninformed accusations or attack other artists. But, I don’t know what the purpose of his rant was. I don’t think Taylor had any noble intentions with her actions, but I don’t expect pop stars to worry too much about morality, so I wouldn’t have given her actions with Spotify any second thoughts. The rich will always line their own pockets (look at the overpriced joke that is GhostTunes), but that doesn’t mean that consumers have to blindly do whatever they want.
She sells incredible amounts of her music, so she would naturally have nothing to gain from Spotify. I find it highly unlikely that free streaming would make a dent in her dollars, but Spotify is a fantastic promotional tool for independent bands who don’t have piles of cash to waste on radio promo, magazine ads and other silly in-your-face stuff. I do understand that there are issues with their royalty payments, which are insulting, but I don’t think this momentary slip in Bragg’s judgement should even be newsworthy. He is a folk artist who does way too much positive work that would never get acknowledged here and Swift made a conscious choice to step away from the country scene, so why are we even reading about this here?
November 19, 2014 @ 11:55 am
Dusty,
I agree with some of what you’ve said here, but a few things are incorrect.
First, Saving Country Music has been a proponent of Billy Bragg’s music in the past. No, I haven’t run a full fledged feature on him, mainly because he’s not a country artist, though I wouldn’t rule out doing one in the future. But I have mentioned him in passing in a positive light in the past.
“he isn”™t normally one to make uninformed accusations or attack other artists.”
But he did here, and it was unfortunate.
“but I don”™t think this momentary slip in Bragg”™s judgement should even be newsworthy.”
The reason I decided to run this story is because of the multitude of news outlets that had taken Billy Bragg’s words and ran with them without doing the most basic of fact checking about their validity. Very few stories, if any, were saying how what he said was patently false, and only a couple ran what Swift’s publicist had to say about the matter. I read this story, and had a very real visceral reaction that resulted in this piece. The reason I was initially attracted to the headline was hoping Bragg had something insightful to say based in truth. It doesn’t mean that I now look at Billy Bragg and his music differently. Yes, we all make mistakes and we shouldn’t make too much of this. But as a journalist it is my duty to make sure the information out there is right, and I didn’t feel it was fair to Ms. Swift to have a lie about her relationship with Google perpetuated.
November 19, 2014 @ 1:12 pm
You’re right Trigger. It’s so hard to find journalistic integrity (especially in the US) these days, I missed it! 🙂 Thanks for clearing some of that up.
November 19, 2014 @ 1:28 pm
But TS isn’t a country artist either (anymore)… BB might not have proof but I think his instincts are close to the mark here. On another note, I will be glad when SCM fully cuts the chord with TS articles. It’s a little jilted ex boy friend stalky.
November 19, 2014 @ 3:03 pm
I’m not going to shrink in the face of big topics simply because broaching them means mentioning the names of polarizing artists. This is not an article about Taylor Swift or Billy Bragg. It is an article about the Spotify issue that played out between these two names. And just because neither of them are country artists doesn’t mean this Spotify issue doesn’t have a wide sweeping impact on both country artists, and country fans. Same goes for the Garth Brooks/YouTube issue from this week. When I posted that story on Facebook, and campaign brewed to delete me because of “all the Garth Brooks stories I’ve been running.” These are issues-based articles, not ringing endorsements for the names that happen to be involved in them.
The sad part about this particular story is that hundreds of thousands of people will read Billy Bragg’s initial dispatch or the parrots in the media that posted it without a bit of critical oversight, and many people will believe that Taylor Swift truly struck a financial deal with Google to be on the “marquee” (even though she isn’t). So this is my little way to get the truth out there, if someone happens to want to find it.
I know there’s this idea that I’m either obsessed with Taylor Swift, or protective of her or something. But this is exactly what happened two years ago when she released an album and was in the headlines with Billboard’s rules changes at the same time. That makes it look like I’m doubling up on my Taylor Swift coverage when in truth I’m just covering the relevant topics of the day. Same thing happened when Eric Church released an album. When was the last time I ran and Eric Church article? Taylor Swift and the way music is distributed are the two biggest issues in music right now. And I’m going to cover them because I feel they’re important. Be damned how popular it is, or how much shit I get for it.
All that said, I’m always mindful of what readers want to see, and try not to cover certain artists unless I feel it is critically relevant or important.
November 20, 2014 @ 8:16 am
Still the only blog I read everyday.
November 19, 2014 @ 10:30 am
There sure are a lot of dumb and ignorant opinions on Billy and his motives in this thread. Good to see some true colors.
November 19, 2014 @ 11:37 am
I for one have respect for Billy Bragg as an artist, and his right to share his opinions even when I don’t agree with them. However in this instance he walked right into his critic’s arms. If he wants to float the idea out there that Taylor Swift’s primary motivation for leaving Spotify is money and not art, I totally respect that. But lying about some financial relationship with Google just erodes this viewpoint, it doesn’t validate it.
November 19, 2014 @ 11:49 am
But does anyone know that her leaving isn’t about a financial relationship with google?
Has TS or anyone on her label ever done anything for the sake of Art and not money?
BB might not have all the facts straight but he called bullshit bullshit and someone like him has no motivation to do so other than the truth. He’s not looking for attention or sales or anything.
November 19, 2014 @ 9:52 pm
Sure he is. He’s got a constituency to pander to just like Swift.
“But does anyone know that her leaving isn”™t about a financial relationship with google?”
Yes, I do. And we all do if we pay attention to the facts. If she does have a financial relationship with Google, prove it. With proof. Facts—anything that in any way refutes both Taylor’s and Google’s insistence that there is no relationship, AND the fact that Swift is NOT on any marquee or being named anywhere as part of Music Key.
This is why conspiracy theories are bullshit. All you have to do is create doubt, and then somehow the burden of proof gets foisted on the other party. If I had said what Bragg had said on Saving Country Music, I would be sitting in a bloodbath right now, getting hacked apart by my own readers. Or at least I would hope I would be. Because to make an accusation like he made, you need at least something you can forward as proof.
November 19, 2014 @ 10:14 pm
You do realize that BB & TS don’t share the same profession. Your proof that TS left Spotify for non-money reasons are a press release. That’s weak. This article is weak. The way you turned Jason Isbell’s joke about the voice into something serious is weak. Your matt woods health report was weak.
November 20, 2014 @ 12:03 am
“Your proof that TS left Spotify for non-money reasons are a press release.”
Never said Taylor Swift left Spotify for non-money reasons. Ever. In fact I’ve stated the contrary so many times I can’t count. Here I’ll say it again.
Taylor Swift left Spotify for money reasons.
That still won’t put her name or visage on a Music Key marquee.
“The way you turned Jason Isbell”™s joke about the voice into something serious is weak.”
Huh?
“Your matt woods health report was weak.”
Well now you’re just revealing yourself as an asshole.
All this, yet you’re still here. I must be doing something right.
This is the moment you run to Facebook to tell all your friends you’re not ever coming to my site again.
November 19, 2014 @ 5:34 pm
I don’t understand the hostility towards Bragg’s political allegiance on here at all. Maybe because I wasn’t brought up in America and brainwashed to believe through McCarthyism that all Socialists or Communists are the anti-Christ and can’t have a logical argument on Capitalist principles and big business…
I agree with Trigger that I don’t think he has uncovered some massive conspiracy, but he’s more qualified than most in the music industry to make his opinion heard on this matter.
November 19, 2014 @ 10:15 pm
the hostility towards BB is because there are some ignorant, hatefully people on this blog.
November 19, 2014 @ 6:58 pm
A nuanced view from a journalist critic:
http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/music/la-et-ms-spotify-notebook-20141116-column.html#page=1
November 19, 2014 @ 9:20 pm
Trigger what do you think of this statistic and comment from
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/11/24/revenue-streams
“Swift”™s impressive first-week sales of “1989,” which were just under 1.3 million albums, making her the year”™s top seller, are still well short of the all-time first-week high, 2.4 million, set by ”™N Sync, in 2000. And the sixty-nine-per-cent drop-off in “1989” ”™s second-week sales suggests that Swift”™s seventy-one million Facebook fans didn”™t rush out and buy the album when they couldn”™t get it on Spotify. They just streamed whatever was available on YouTube, which pays artists even less than Spotify does, or on other sites. Or they set sail for the Pirate Bay, where the album was also No. 1.”
I’ve talked to A LOT of young people (I tutor) and they actually prefer YouTube as there music source over even Spotify or Pandora. And the quick dive in sales isn’t that surprising it. Do kids even have CD players anymore. I wonder who actually bought the album? Was it adult who listen to their kids music?
November 19, 2014 @ 9:45 pm
Alright, there’s so much skewed about that logic from the New Yorker, I’m not sure even where to begin.
So are they REALLY saying the sales for ‘1989″ weren’t impressive because N’Sync did better fourteen years ago when virtually everyone was still buying albums, and because not all of her ‘fans’ on Facebook bought a copy? That’s bullshit. ‘1989’ had the best sales week for any album in the last dozen years … in an environment where nobody is buying albums. How in the world can you scoff at that as a sales accomplishment?
Also, Taylor Swift doesn’t have 71 million Facebook ‘fans’. She has 71 million Facebook “likes,” which as I love to say HAVE NO CASH VALUE. They are completely meaningless as a metric of any kind. Of course the 71 million people who liked her page did not rush out to buy the album, but that is not the case for any artist.
And of course Swift’s album was #1 on Pirate Bay, because it’s the #1 album in the country. That would have been the case even if it was on Spotify. I think everyone has lost their minds with spite against Taylor Swift, and have lost their logic olfactory.
“I”™ve talked to A LOT of young people (I tutor) and they actually prefer YouTube as there music source over even Spotify or Pandora.”
And THAT is why Swift has decided to allow her music to be part of YouTube’s new streaming service, because she sees it as an important social network tool in a way Spotify falls short on. YouTube is the way most young listeners discover music,
Go look at the 1st and 3rd graphs in this study:
https://savingcountrymusic.com/new-study-proves-why-radio-still-matters
YouTube and Spoify are on the exact opposite ends of the spectrum as far as the places people go to discover new music. That study needs to be brought back into the discussion by everyone saying Spotify does great things for helping artists get discovered.
November 19, 2014 @ 10:01 pm
Plus the 69% drop off from first to second weeks is right in the range of all #1 debuting albums if not a little less than most. And the third week drop was even smaller and more impressive.
There can be no honest argument that shortchanges the massive success of this album. From just a numbers perspective this thing has been unbelievably successful.
November 19, 2014 @ 10:03 pm
Yeah and it also left out the little fact that at the time girls bought SIX freaking copies of that N’Sync album for some reason I still haven’t processed.
And thanks for that link I knew it was up someplace but lost my bookmark. I want to use it my own music discussion forums.
I know from the YouTube channels I follow the sidebar ALONE has led me to stuff I would’ve missed otherwise. I have never used Spotify despite everyone around me raving about it.
November 19, 2014 @ 10:05 pm
I don’t have a Spotify subscription. I’m a Rhapsody guy. Secondly, for Billy Bragg to make those accusations with no substantial proof makes him look like a fool indeed. We all know that IF Taylor Swift were to go into business with Google, it would be all over the news. Especially since Taylor Swift can’t hold water, let alone a secret. It would be national news, especially after pulling her dreck (my bad…her catalog of music) from Spotify. Bragg is grasping at straws and trying to stay relevant. That is all…
November 20, 2014 @ 4:10 am
Billy has apologised
I want to apologise to Taylor Swift for accusing her of selling her soul to Google. I have learned that her music will not now be available on the new YouTube Music Key service, which launched this week. This is despite a number of credible sources stating in the last seven days that it would be ”“ including yesterday”™s CMU newsletter.
My criticism was based on the fact that Swift”™s back catalogue was the central feature of a demonstration of the Music Key services given to journalists in London last week, as outlined in the article below. In response to specific questions about Swift”™s music, journalists were assured that her back catalogue would be available on the service, including the free tier. This fact was reported in the Observer article that I linked to on my first post on this subject.
Learning that Google were using Swift to promote Music Key gave me the impression that her music was going to be front and centre of their launch, the implication being that her Spotify boycott was a corporate power play, rather than an attempt by an artist to make the point that music has value.
I now realise that I was mistaken in this assumption and wish to apologise to Ms Swift for questioning her motives.
The fact that our music is widely available for free on the internet is a problem that all artists struggle with. While so much material is instantly accessible on YouTube, subscription streaming services will always find it a challenge to build enough users to make music viable for artists, who at the moment seem to be at the end of the queue for remuneration.
The time will surely come when content creators have to band together to challenge deals done between rights holders and service providers, details of which are kept from artists and their representatives. If Ms Swift is going to lead that fight for transparency, she will have my full support.
I would like to add that I will be boycotting the first media outlet to use the headline ”˜Bragg makes Swift apology”™
November 22, 2014 @ 2:50 am
Ladies and gents,
Billy Bragg is left with egg on his face. This is what happens when you make accusations without any substantial proof to back it up. You look like a simpleton, each and every single time. At least he apologized.
November 22, 2014 @ 2:35 pm
Trigger, do you think Taylor will pull her videos off Youtube in the future? Does she have the option of pulling her songs off Pandora, and if so do you think she will do so? And if she did, do you think the rest of the record industry will follow?