swift 2

Apple was unable to secure the streaming rights for Taylor Swift’s ‘1989’ album, BuzzFeed reports. The outlet says both Swift’s label and Apple have confirmed the story, meaning the massively popular album won’t be available on Apple Music at launch.

Apparently Apple Music will feature Swift’s back catalogue, however, which includes 4 other highly sought-after records. But those can already be found on other subscription services such as Rdio and Tidal, so they won’t serve as a differentiating feature.

A lot of folks will write this off as “pfft, it’s just one album,” but it’s way more than that. 1989 was the best-selling album of 2014, and has been thus far for 2015. It’s also the album in which Swift just kicked off a massive worldwide tour under to promote.

This could end up being a big deal for Apple, who is already fairly late to a budding streaming market. Imagine how many thousands of fans are going to leave Swift’s many concerts and search for the songs that she played, and not find them on Apple Music.

Of course, they won’t be able to find them on any service—no one has secured the rights to stream 1989. Swift has publicly criticized streaming services for “devaluing the art form,” and in November of last year she opted to remove all of her music from Spotify.

Apple introduced Music on June 8, and plans to launch it at the end of the month. It’ll come with a free 3-month trial, and then cost $9.99 per month ($14.99 for family plans). It hopes that curation and discovery features will set it apart from the competition.

Source: BuzzFeed

  • Sigfredo Martinez

    Don’t like her.

    • MKB4k

      yep can’t sing good

    • Jackson Grong

      ah, even better, that album is shit anyways.

  • omgitsobaid

    I’ve already bought her Album on iTunes so No Worries 🙂

  • illy

    Not even Apple is able to get her. Smart move. Her sales wouldn’t be as massive as they are if she chose to give the rights away.

    I still don’t get

    • George

      She wouldn’t have a career if her daddy didn’t buy her one.

      • Nino

        Neither would you, kid.

      • George

        Um I did? My parents didn’t pay 200mill to start my life.

      • Nino

        200 million? Good job pulling that figure out of your ass. Please educate yourself on how she because famous instead of spewing nonsense.

      • Blip dude

        And you may need to educate a little more too. What the hell makes you think everyone has parents who are lucky enough to be able to pay for their kids college tuition?? I pay my own tuition the same way I paid for my iOS devices. . . Working for it!!!

      • illy

        so? it still doesnt change the fact that it IS a smart move

  • Kominimatchen

    Shes an wanna be Rihanna with no talent and she is “dead” in her appar
    ence… Cant understand her success at all… Compared to Rihanna , lady gaga , ellie goulding, Madonna , etc .. Shes a dead fish … Forget about her…

    • Nino

      That’s the problem right there. You’re delusional if you think she has no talent, hence you also not understanding why she is famous. It’s not just album sales. Unlike nearly all those you listed, Taylor doesn’t have to take her clothes off to sell records in this day and age. She’s a role model to young girls, unlike Rihanna, who acts like a slut on stage and every song she sings about is about sex anyway. You might not like Taylor, which is perfectly fine, but called her untalented is laughable at best and sad at worst.

      • Matheus Lisboa

        So now having sexual freedom is acting like a slut… Ok

      • Nino

        When your intent for basically taking your clothes off is selling albums then yes, it’s acting like a slut. Sexual freedom has nothing to do with that – it’s capitalism. I said nothing about her personal life.

      • Matheus Lisboa

        I don’t think she needs to take off her clothes to sell albums.. After she did reach the top of the charts with some slow songs, yet if she acts a certain way in her personal life and feels comfortable with it there’s nothing wrong in her showing it as a performer. Or is Madonna also a slut for putting out something like erotica? Also if her albums were meant for little girls than it wouldn’t have the parental advisory, if children listen to it then is on their parents.. Nothing wrong in acting the way she does if her target audience it’s ok to watch it

      • Nino

        Yes, she does. If she started doing what Taylor does (trying to be a role model), no one would buy her records. Her target demographics wants her to take off her clothes, so she does just that.

        As for Madonna, it’s a last ditch attempt to stay relevant and “hip” with the current artists. She knows her time has gone, but she clings on to dear life even after her record-breaking eras.

        You can’t stop kids from listening to any artist. Streaming services and YouTube are everywhere. Parents cannot possibly ban those unless they act like dictators, and that’s not very nice. Parental advisory labels are just a legal way of saying “this is not really for kids”. But much like the forbidden fruit, if you tell kids they can’t listen to someone, that only increases their desire.

      • Matheus Lisboa

        The album I mentioned from Madonna is from the 90’s, don’t know what you’re talking about…
        You can’t possibly blame an artist for the parental advisory not working. You shouldn’t expect everybody to make performances as if they were for kids because one of them should be watching.
        She might not be a role model for children but she inspires a lot of things in people, such as confidence.
        But anyways, I’m not a fan of pop music in general. Just think that anybody can wear any cloathes they want without being called a slut, especially a performer whose target audience is older. Your outfit doesn’t determine your personality

    • Rowan09

      You can’t be serious. She plays instruments and writes songs. Taylor Swift is a very talented individual and down to earth from what I’ve read as well.

      • I hear a lot of stories about her being really rude, but someone being kind or rude doesn’t have anything to do with their talent. Taylor Swift has a ton of talent, and even though I don’t like her as a person, you can’t deny her talent. People with no talent can’t just sell millions of albums.

  • Christopher Williamson

    This is just a fear of technological progress – nothing more.

    People always fear what they do not understand and since she clearly doesn’t understand the revenue model of a streaming service (nor do her labels) they fear it.

    Thankfully this kind of progress has a way of dealing with that which is simply to leave them to die off and new labels and artists take their place and embrace progressive thinking.

    • therealjjohnson

      Maybe you just don’t understand. Do you know why this album specifically isn’t available but her others are? You don’t. You’re making an assumption that the people in charge don’t understand. You argument looks good online but holds no value in relation to this specific article because you have no clue why this specific album is not available.

    • Nino

      Wrong. She’s very smart. If your latest album sold like hotcakes, would you make it streamable for free? I sure wouldn’t.

      • Christopher Williamson

        Do you seriously believe that streaming services do not pay the artists they stream? Are you ‘special’?

      • Nino

        Not when you offer 3 months for free.

      • Matheus Lisboa

        Actually apple won’t pay a dime during three months (which I think is stupid to expect artists to give their songs up for free).. I think they should put a different trial mode during this time, supported by some adds or cut down the period of trial

      • Ángel Javier Esquivel

        Actually, they don’t pay what we deserve. I’m a producer myself, (Look for me on Spotify: The Electroclassic) and what we get for a single stream is not even what you’ll get for working a single second with the minimum rate per hour in Mexico (Aproximately). For a single stream from an original song I get $0.001USD ( $0.00006535947712 MXN ). For us, “indie” (since I produce Dance music) artists, It’s a kick in the ass to give for free our music for 3 months.

  • Faisal

    She wanna reach to Backstreet Boys and Britney Spears level in regards to album sales..

  • SoylentGreen

    The bottom line is the artiste is getting the usual least percentage in the deal.
    the amount of profit made by the streaming service from any given artiste is massively disproportionate to what they want to pay the musicians, without whom there would be no “business model” (some doofus said in comment she don’t understand the business model lols)
    There’s a lot of butt hurt going on down there…

  • Eikast

    Apple will still have the upper hand due to Users being able to stream their library (if I remember correctly Apple Music allows you to stream your own library as well like iTunes match).

  • Benjamin J Schwartz

    This means nothing. Taylor Swift is selling a ton of albums at full price, so she has no reason to cannibalize her sales by allowing the album to be streamed. Makes perfect sense.

    • Dhoklastellar Fafda®™

      Exactly, she does perfectly well selling her songs the good ‘ol way. Strange when people can’t respect the choices of an artist.

  • Simon

    Really!!!! Who gives a rats ass about fake Taylor Swift!

  • Eli Montoya

    People still buy music?

  • Do these artists feel the same way about Google Music having a two month free trial? Are their albums on there during that free trial?

  • Jason Baroni

    So rebel

  • Nino

    Honestly, this is not an issue to me, and it shouldn’t be for the majority of her fans who already bought the album. Apple Music will match it, and it will be available for streaming for you. Same with any other album in your digital iTunes library that AM won’t have available for streaming.

    P.S. I’m not even a huge fan of 1989, truth be told. It’s generic pop and I find anything before Red to be much, much better (Speak Now her pinnacle). But maybe that’s me who doesn’t find much appeal in “shake it off, shake it off” repeated incessantly while her other albums sans Red featured very good lyrical content. This is an album for the masses, which is a shame. I bought it to add to my collection, but it’s not something I’d list in my “favorite albums of the year”.

    • I don’t know why she wouldn’t just put the album up for streaming. I’ve bought the album, and by now, if someone hasn’t already bought the album, they’re probably not ever going to.
      But it really bothers me how she pretends to care so much about her fans, but then makes it where you have to buy the album to listen to it. I know she has to make money, but it still rubs me the wrong way.

      • Itanaman

        If it rubs you the wrong way, buying her stuff is not the way you express that.

  • Matheus Lisboa

    It’s a nice move from her, after all she still makes a lot of money from albums, so why give it away?

  • John Wickham

    Yikes, BuzzFeed is a reliable source of journalism now…

  • dudeimmexican

    One less pop artist, what a relief…..

  • Jordan Stevens

    Good, she needs to disappear into obscurity.

    • This Guy

      They all do. I’m sick of the whole damn business model, personally. If you want to play music…cool, then play it. (same with acting/whatever) Why does it mean you NEED to get tons of money for it? Ugh. All of it. Money. Business. Capitalism. Communism. Ism. this world is a piece of shit anymore..

  • rockdude094

    Did anyone else read the title as Taylor swifts shit album by accident lol

  • Jerry

    And you can easily download the album off soulseek so who loses? She does. The end.