Top Stories

Taylor Swift Defends Her Spotify Decision Again

Taylor Swift Defends Her Spotify Decision Again

Taylor Swift is defending her decision to take her music off Spotify again after the company claimed she could have expected to make $6 million in the next year.

“With Beats Music and Rhapsody you have to pay for a premium package in order to access my albums, the 24-year-old singer told Time magazine (via Page Six). “And that places a perception of value on what I’ve created. On Spotify, they don’t have any settings, or any kind of qualifications for who gets what music. I think that people should feel that there is a value to what musicians have created, and that’s that.”

Scott Borchetta, the CEO of Taylor‘s record label Big Machine Records, also opened up to Time and revealed the amount of money she has actually received in the past year: $496,044.

“The facts show that the music industry was much better off before Spotify hit these shores,” Borchetta said. “Don’t forget this is for the most successful artist in music today. What about the rest of the artists out there struggling to make a career? Over the last year, what Spotify has paid is the equivalent of less than 50,000 albums sold.”

Just Jared on Facebook
Photos: Getty
Posted to: Taylor Swift

JJ Links Around The Web

  • Offset was reportedly arrested for two felonies - TMZ
  • Taylor Swift is set to star in a Cats movie musical - Just Jared Jr
  • Aaron Paul's daughter is the cutest cosplayer - TooFab
  • A Buffy the Vampire Slayer reboot is in the works - The Hollywood Reporter
  • Joey King has great first kiss advice - Just Jared Jr
  • tabia

    her 1989 album is not on rhapsody

  • Simon Wade

    And yet, 1989 is still all over YouTube..

  • Hill95

    But all of her music catalog–all the music she took off Spotify–is available. There is always a delay before an album appears, at least for the first tier artists. I never pay attention. If something new comes out that I really want to hear, I’ll just buy the CD. I get e-mail all the time about stuff Rhapsody is doing.
    I do also believe that music should not be free. That’s why I pay for subscription services. Spotify–songwriters would have to get a second job if they had to live on the royalties they get on Spotify.
    Some people say performers should tour if they don’t like the money they make from albums. But a lot of performers can’t tour. Like, Barbra Streisand is about 70 and she put out a hit album! She’s a legend!

    Final word–if you have the money, pay for your music. It doesn’t cost much. It’s worth it.

  • tabia

    i wasnt hating i just said it to see if anyone knew when it would be

  • Guest

    To me, it seems to be more about control than monetary value. She should be compensated fairly, but the way she rants about the “value of her art” is petty. People want to enjoy her music and it’s honestly at very little loss to her. Artists make the bulk of their money from touring.

  • Asha

    I somewhat agree. I am still pissed she removed all of her music from Spotify because I pay monthly for their premium service. I wish Spotify would return to their previous model where they limited music to those who don’t pay. Still, I didn’t go out and buy Taylor’s albums when she removed them from Spotify, yet I was able to find every last one of her songs for free on the internet. Pirating will remain the number once source for obtaining music as long as greedy artist like Taylor piss on the people who try to do the right thing by paying for a subscription service.

  • Boss Hawg

    And don’t forget these awful radio stations that play Taylor’s and Ariana Grande’s tripe on loop. Isn’t that free? What about the sense of value there?

  • forrest gump

    …………..blame her mom


    at the end of the day.. it’s not about her ‘passion’ in music, it’s about the MONEY MONEY MONEY.

  • drew

    i don’t understand downloading music i get my music fro the publc libray it cheaper to n last night at the end of my day i still loved 1989 n i bought it not downloaded it!

  • Tania Alvarez-Hildebrand

    I’m sorry, and what’s wrong with that? We all work for money and would defend our livelyhood with bare teeth and sharp utensils if we had to. So what is so wrong about her doing the same?!


    Did I say it was wrong? LOL. Please read back my comment carefully.

  • Tania Alvarez-Hildebrand

    Not that there was a lot to read, unless I’m missing the sarcasm, which I might. Been known to miss forests for trees, but still, I apologize for misreading it. Nevertheless, this entire post is mostly vilifying the woman for defending her art and money. Sure, her “art”is questionable, but nowadays you can be a Taylor or a Christina A, who has lots of God given talent but no charisma. I dunno, the music business has not been about “the” music for a LONG time. I just think it’s silly to condemn one artist for what others have done as well at some point or another.


    it’s a shame that the music business has always been more about the business than the music.

  • Shanon

    hard one – i understand her decision to try and place value on her ‘art’ as she says in other interviews that music is an art form and thus deserves a premium price (not going to get into the argument that all the best art in the world is usually viewed for free at museums and open to the public). Financially speaking yes it was probably an OK decision – she gets .006 ish every time the a song is played, spotify has mentioned numbers in the 16 million playlists etc so if we assume thats about 400k a month (she would get 10-25% of that depending on her deal with big records and other management cuts etc). so enough to buy a few outfits or a new bag a month. The real question comes down to the accessibility of music, i use spotify (via SONOs) as i have chill out playlists I play when i wake up, when i’m home etc. so I can easily add specific tracks of taylors i like to these lists and thus she becomes a part of my every day life and routine, (rememberable) so when she does go on tour (The only way really any artist makes substantial funds these days – in her case up to 1.2 million a show) I’m more likely to buy a ticket to see her live as i listen to her music on a daily basis through my soundsystems set up at home (sonos via spotify playlists) etc… However when she removes herself from this, its not really doing me any harm, i’ll just add more sam smith adele and ed sheeran to my playlists. She then becomes a more distant memory, yes i might buy her album due to the massive marketing done around it – play it in the car or once and a bit on the stereo, or even itunes download it – i might have her on my sound system even though i’ve bought it but if i cant interlink it to my spotify playlists that i’ve already set up due to the large number of music avaliable (boy and bear to sunset sons to adele to josh groban etc) then why would i listen to her on a LONG term regular basis. Thus becoming less memorable around ticket sales (obviously not now but could possibly happen 3-4 years from now) when it comes to world tours.

  • Jordy Lou

    Spotify claims they payed her $2mil… and I’m going to believe them. And really… you’re complaining about $500,000 if it really was that?! There are families that won’t make that in their lifetime and you’re complaining.. Sell one of your 3 mansions and you’ll have more than $500,000.

  • b324

    My mother’s joke about this, “If she’s hard up for money, maybe she should stop buying homes next to her boyfriends of two days”.

  • W2407

    smh…the rich want to get richer