Anyone who has ever tried to listen to "Blank Space" on streaming service Spotify can guess how Taylor Swift feels about streaming.
The 25-year-old megastar's music is nowhere to be found on the service after Swift had a showdown with Spotify and other streaming services not paying artist royalties or paying at a low rate and arguably, she won. Swift fans were unphased that they couldn't get her latest album, "1989," on streaming the album's sales broke records when it was released in 2014.
This weekend, Swift exercised her power again, by first yanking "1989" from Apple's newly announced streaming service and then writing a Tumblr post outlining her reasons.
"This is not about me," Swift wrote on Tumblr. "I say to Apple with all due respect, its 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 dont ask you for free iPhones. Please dont ask us to provide you with our music for no compensation."
Swift spoke and within a day Apple listened announcing that it planned to pay royalties in order to appease Swift and the artists she championed when she withheld her album a week away from Apple's global launch of its streaming service June 30.
"When news of the financial aspects of Apple deal originally broke, American Association of Independent Music, an influential trade organization of independent record labels, advised their members to hold off on licensing their music to the service," Kevin Truong wrote for the Christian Science Monitor. "But it was only after Swifts letter went viral that Apples policy on the matter changed."
Other artists applauded Swift's statement on Twitter, calling her stance advocacy not for herself, but for new and emerging artists in a changing industry.
"If more artists insisted on being paid for their work, new bands might have a chance," Kiss frontman Gene Simmons tweeted.
The 25-year-old megastar's music is nowhere to be found on the service after Swift had a showdown with Spotify and other streaming services not paying artist royalties or paying at a low rate and arguably, she won. Swift fans were unphased that they couldn't get her latest album, "1989," on streaming the album's sales broke records when it was released in 2014.
This weekend, Swift exercised her power again, by first yanking "1989" from Apple's newly announced streaming service and then writing a Tumblr post outlining her reasons.
"This is not about me," Swift wrote on Tumblr. "I say to Apple with all due respect, its 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 dont ask you for free iPhones. Please dont ask us to provide you with our music for no compensation."
Swift spoke and within a day Apple listened announcing that it planned to pay royalties in order to appease Swift and the artists she championed when she withheld her album a week away from Apple's global launch of its streaming service June 30.
"When news of the financial aspects of Apple deal originally broke, American Association of Independent Music, an influential trade organization of independent record labels, advised their members to hold off on licensing their music to the service," Kevin Truong wrote for the Christian Science Monitor. "But it was only after Swifts letter went viral that Apples policy on the matter changed."
Other artists applauded Swift's statement on Twitter, calling her stance advocacy not for herself, but for new and emerging artists in a changing industry.
"If more artists insisted on being paid for their work, new bands might have a chance," Kiss frontman Gene Simmons tweeted.
