Swift tops tour table

Taylor Swift's 1989 Tour was the biggest of 2015, generating $61.7 million in revenue. Country star Kenny Chesney was second on $38.1m, followed by The Rolling Stones on $37.3m according to Billboard's annual moneymaker rankings. Billy Joel placed fourth with $30.1m following his record Madison Square Garden run, ahead of Grateful Dead/Dead & Company at $22.5m. The Top 10 was completed by U2 ($20.6m), One Direction ($19.6m), Luke Bryan ($17.9m), Jason Aldean ($17.1m) and Shania Twain ($13.8m). Justin Bieber's Purpose tour, meanwhile, is the biggest of 2016 so far, with overall sales topping $40.5m from 29 concerts. 

http://www.billboard.com/biz/articles/news/touring/7357829/which-artists-were-2015s-biggest-earners-on-the-road

Swift tastes the Apple

Apple Music have announced Sunday that a concert film of Taylor Swift’s 1989 world tour will be available exclusively on the company's music streaming service beginning December 20th.  Directed by Jonas Akerlund, The 1989 World Tour LIVE Concert Film will feature Swift’s entire concert at ANZ Stadium in Sydney, Australia, on November 28th. The film will also include never-before-seen footage from backstage and tour rehearsals, and the special guests who appeared on stage with Swift during the tour.

Swift accused of hypocrisy by photographer after Apple dispute ends

Having managed to reverse Apple Music's 'no royalties' policy for the first three month launch period, Taylor Swift has come under fire from freelance photographer Jason Sheldon, who points out that photo waivers for the pop star’s concerts stipulate that a photographer can use their images from the show only once and only within the published report on that performance - meaning that whilst the copyright owner, they can’t sell their images to other editorial outlets, nor can they sell prints of the image in any way - and to add insult to injury - they have to sign over 'publicity' and non commercial right on a royalty free basis to Swift. For the life of copyright. “You say in your letter to Apple that ‘Three months is a long time to go unpaid,'” Sheldon writes. “But you seem happy to restrict us to being paid once, and never being able to earn from our work ever again, while granting you the rights to exploit our work for your benefit for all eternity…”

http://consequenceofsound.net/2015/06/concert-photographer-calls-out-taylor-swift-for-hypocritical-apple-open-letter

And another complaint here, this one signed by another photographer Matthew Parri Thomas after Swift's Hyde Park show http://www.thefourohfive.com/music/article/an-open-letter-to-taylor-swift-from-a-405-photographer-143

Apple reverse 'no royalty' launch policy after Swift pulls out

Apple Music has reversed its (non) payment policy, a day after the singer Taylor Swift said she was refusing to allow the company to stream her album 1989 because the computer and music giant were offering no royalties in a three month launch period free trial period for subscribers. Indepdent record labels and their trade bodies including AIM (UK), A2IM (US), UFPI (France) and VUT (Germany) had already voiced their critcims. Now Apple says it will pay artists for music streamed during trial periods. "We hear you @taylorswift13 and indie artists. Love, Apple," tweeted executive Eddy @Cue. Swift had said the plan was "unfair", arguing Apple had the money to cover the cost and AIM CEO Alison Wenham had written to AIM members to encourage them to "make their own decision" about Apple Music - but criticised the new streaming service for essentially "asking the independent music sector to hedge its risk, to fund their customer acquisition programme and to shoulder the financial burden for their global launch."

http://www.musicweek.com/news/read/german-and-french-organisations-latest-to-criticise-apple-music-terms/062110

And see Eamonn Forde's article in the Guadian here 

Ek talking up Spotify in battle with Swift

Spotify's Daniel Ek has responded to Taylor Swift and other critics in a lengthy blog post reigniting the debate prompted by Swift pulling her catalogue from free (freemium) streaming services. Ek begins by saying 

"Taylor Swift is absolutely right" (referring to remarks the singer made in a Wall Street Journal  and Yahoo interview) adding "Music is art, art has real value, and artists deserve to be paid for it. We started Spotify because we love music and piracy was killing it. So all the talk swirling around lately about how Spotify is making money on the backs of artists upsets me big time". Ek then detailed how the Spotify payment model works and revealed that Spotify has now paid out $2 billion to the music industry since launching in 2008, $1 billion of that in the last year and that Spotify now has 50 million active users, 12.5 million of whom are paying subscribers - an increase of ten million and 2.5 million respectively since the last lot of official figures released back in May of this year. However Ek somewhat failed to address why a relatively small share of these streaming royalties are shared out to artists once the money has left Spotify's bank account, not least as the labels who seem to be keeping the lions share of streaming revenues are key partners in his business, both as content providers and shareholders. 

Ek says "The music industry is changing - and we're proud of our part in that change - but lots of problems that have plagued the industry since its inception continue to exist" ading "As I said, we've already paid more than $2 billion in royalties to the music industry and if that money is not flowing to the creative community in a timely and transparent way, that's a big problem. We will do anything we can to work with the industry to increase transparency, improve speed of payments, and give artists the opportunity to promote themselves and connect with fans - that's our responsibility as a leader in this industry; and it's the right thing to do".

Swift and her label Big Machine has pulled the singer's entire catalogue off Spotify (and others) seemingly because of those platform's freemium tier, which allows users to access music without direct payment. "If this fan went and purchased the record, CD, iTunes, wherever, and then their friends go, 'Why did you pay for it? It's free on Spotify', we're being completely disrespectful to that superfan who wants to invest", said Big Machine's Scott Borchetta last week.

Ek points out that, while consumers can access music at this level for free, the artist does still earn a royalty from each play their music receives a stream and compared that  to terrestrial US radio station where labels and recording artists earn nothing for a play (although songwriter earns a royalty from American radio.). In other countries such as the UK both PPL (for labels and recording artists) and PRS (music publishers and songwriters) collect from radio stations. Undeterred Ek continues  "Here's the overwhelming, undeniable, inescapable bottom line: the vast majority of music listening is unpaid", noting that Spotify's main competitors are radio, YouTube and piracy. "If we want to drive people to pay for music, we have to compete with free to get their attention in the first place". Spotify's free tier is vital to driving people to pay, he continues, saying: "More than 80% of our subscribers started as free users. If you take away only one thing, it should be this: No free, no paid, no $2 billion" - not least with a 14% global decline in download sales so far in 2014. 

Ek also looks as Swift as a case study: "At our current size, payouts for a top artist like Taylor Swift (before she pulled her catalogue) are on track to exceed $6 million a year, and that's only growing - we expect that number to double again in a year". Ek added  "People's listening habits have changed - and they're not going to change back" and "[Swift's] songs are all over services and sites like YouTube and SoundCloud, where people can listen all they want for free. To say nothing of the fans who will just turn back to pirate services like Grooveshark" (the 'pirate' label was subsequently objected to by Grooveshark) before concluding "The more we grow, the more we'll pay you", adding: "We're going to be transparent about it all the way through".

The UK's Music Managers Forum followed this by issuing a statement saying that the organisation is a "big supporter of streaming services", and suggesting Taylor Swift and her label  are taking a short-sightedness for pulling her content from Spotify, although the MMF also hit out ar Non Disclosure Agreements that hide the deals between streaming services and the major labels. "Few markets are perfect and yes the 'low rate issue' has conflicted many, but above all, streaming services are a fabulous tool that connects artists and creators with fans", the statement reads. "No longer restricted by physical barriers, streaming gives a voice to those that want to be heard and a platform from which to build multi-revenue businesses that cross borders. There are no guarantees of success but the opportunity is there for all that want to give it a shot".  Finally, the statement concludes: "Non Disclosure Agreements hide how the major music corporations license streaming services and we have grave concerns that the deals contain stipulations that both significantly reduce the amount artists ultimately get attributed and damage the growth of the streaming economy. The real fight is more likely between opacity and transparency, and we call on all major music corporations to take note and react in the best interest of their artists and shareholders".

Ek's blog post in full here https://news.spotify.com/se/2014/11/11/2-billion-and-counting/

Swift streams away

Taylor Swift has refused to allow any material from her new album, '1989' on streaming services -  the album sold 1.287 million copies in the US in its first week debuting at No 1 in the Billboard 200 albums chart - and Swift is now pulling her entire catalogue down from Spotify and others streaming platforms. Swift and her label Big Machine have always been particularly vocal about their fear that a presence on the big streaming platforms will damage first week download sales. Her last album, 'Red', was kept away  for seven months. Spotify had already noted the absence of the new record from its catalogue, with its official Twitter account retweeting a message to the musician pleading with her not to hold out too long. Deezer have also now removed Swift's catalogue from it's service.

More here http://www.theguardian.com/theguardian/2014/nov/08/taylor-swift-decision-pull-music-spotify-shot-arm-feminism

Swift to Go, hold the streaming

Big Machine Media, Taylor Swift's record label, have confirmed that her new album 'Red'  will not initially available on streaming services. Label boss Scott Borchetta told Billboard "I personally struggle with that model - and I don't think that it should be free. We've spoken with the services, and spoken with Spotify in particular ... We just haven't hit on the right model that works for us. I don't have thousands and thousands of albums and hundreds and hundreds of artists, I have a finite artist roster and finite number of releases" and he  told Rolling Stone magazine "We're not putting the brand new releases on Spotify. Why shouldn't we learn from the movie business? They have theatrical releases, cable releases. There are certain tiers. If we just throw out everything we have, we're done". The CD album will also be available for $13 in the USA when ordering a pizza.from Papa John's.