Latest News Update mashableunitedstates: MUSIC

Showing posts with label MUSIC. Show all posts

Saturday, June 27, 2015

Beyonce and Jay-Z make less money than Taylor Swift and Calvin Harris

IMAGE: CHRIS PIZZELLO/INVISION/ASSOCIATED PRESS

Turns out Jay Z and Beyonce did need to watch the throne.

Taylor Swift and Calvin Harris knocked the first couple of music out of the number one spot on the Forbes list of highest-earning celebrity couples. Swift and Harris topped the list with a joint $146 million annual income. Bey and Jay raked in $110.5 million.

SEE ALSO: The Taylor Swift guide to being a kickass businesswoman

It’s only been a handful of days since Swift and Harris confirmed the rumors of their coupledom when Harris referred to Swift as his “girl” in a tweet celebrating her victory over Apple Music.

Swift’s platinum album 1989, revenue from her ongoing world tour, and a handful of lucrative endorsements, including Keds, Diet Coke, and Sony, certainly helped secure the number one spot on the list. But her Scottish beau pulls his weight — he was named the highest paid DJ last year and has a contract with Giorgio Armani.

But there’s probably not any bad blood between the two high rolling couples. Harris is a stakeholder in Jay Z’s Tidal streaming service, and Beyonce and Jay Z stopped by Swift’s epic 25th birthday party last December.

The couples ranking is part of Forbes annual Celebrity 100 ranking, which ranks celebrities by their annual income, expected to be unveiled on Monday. Only three couples made the list, with the third spot going to country darlings Miranda Lambert and Blake Shelton.

Apple Music will be the only service to stream Taylor Swift's '1989'

US singer Taylor Swift performs on stage in Cologne, Germany, 19 June 2015.

IMAGE: JAN KNOFF/DPA/CORBIS

BY SETH FIEGERMAN2 DAYS AGO

Taylor Swift, in her infinite mercy, has agreed to do business with Apple Music.

Swift announced on Twitter Thursday that she has agreed to make her latest album, 1989, available on Apple Music.

SEE ALSO: Poll: Will you give Apple Music a shot now that it has Taylor Swift's '1989'?

The momentous decision comes just days after she publicly shamed Apple for not paying rights holders for songs streamed during a three-month free trial period, which quickly forced the world's largest technology company to reverse its policy.

The deal, Swift said in a followup tweet, is not an "exclusive" offering for Apple Music. However, the album is not currently available on other major streaming services like Spotify and Tidal.

Swift's announcement caps off a very public clash between Apple and the music community over the compensation arrangement for songs streamed during the free trial. It began complaints from indie labels, but escalated after Swift shared a firmly worded post with her tens of millions of followers. That scrutiny threatened to undermine Apple Music ahead of its launch at the end of this month.

Instead, Swift's decision to embrace Apple Music, along with the endorsement of many independent record labels who have already followed her lead, may just prove to be the perfect publicity for Apple as it tries to crack a market filled with well-established competitors like Spotify.

"Taylor brought more light to the Apple Music service and Apple will get more people checking it out," Tim Bajarin, a longtime Apple analyst with Creative Strategies, told Mashable in an earlier interview. "In a bizarre way, it was a win-win for both of them."

On Sunday, Swift wrote in a Tumblr post that she found it "shocking" and "disappointing" that Apple would not pay out a single dime to record labels for the free trial period. Within hours, Apple had capitulated to America's sweetheart.

The agreement ensures that Apple wins by gaining access to goodwill in the industry and a hugely popular artist's complete catalogue just in time for the launch of Apple Music. It also guarantees Swift will be viewed as the chief advocate for musicians everywhere.

But don't expect artists to profit too much from the arrangement.

Apple will reportedly pay 0.2 cents (or $0.0002) per song streamed during the trial period, according to The New York Times. As one industry watcher put it in an earlier interview withMashable, the royalties paid out to each artist during the three-month trial period will be "barely enough for a sushi lunch."

Taylor Swift has inspired a peace treaty between indie labels and Apple Music

Taylor Swift in concert at the Birmingham LG Arena in the UK in 2011.

IMAGE: DAVE HOGAN/GETTY IMAGES

BY SETH FIEGERMAN3 DAYS AGO

Taylor Swift has helped independent record labels shake off their concerns about Apple Music.

Two major independent labels made peace with Apple's new streaming music service on Wednesday. The Beggars Group, an independent label that has represented The White Stripes, Vampire Weekend and Adele, joined Merlin, a prominent digital rights agency, and the Worldwide Independent Network, which speaks for the indie music community, in publicly endorsing the service.

The labels were previously cool on Apple Music.

The endorsement comes one week after Beggars Group criticized Apple Music for not compensating artists and labels for songs streamed during an initial three-month trial period. Apple didn't budge on its position — until Swift echoed this concern about fair compensation in a series of online posts over the weekend.

SEE ALSO: Here's why Apple had no chance against Taylor Swift

Apple, apparently fearing the wrath of the most powerful woman in music in the lead-up to the launch of Apple Music, reversed course and agreed to pay an undisclosed amount per song streamed during the free trial.

“Over the last few days we have had increasingly fruitful discussions with Apple," Martin Mills, founder and chairman of Beggars Group, said in a statement. "We are now delighted to say that we are happy to endorse the deal with Apple Music as it now stands, and look forward to being a big part of a very exciting future.”

The news was first reported by Billboard. Reps for Apple did not immediately respond to our request for comment.

Apple initially promoted its streaming service as a being a better experience for artists and listeners alike, in an effort to stand out from competitors like Spotify with a head start, only to be slammed by Swift and have her withhold her latest album — just as she had done with Spotify a few months earlier.

"We know how astronomically successful Apple has been and we know that this incredible company has the money to pay artists, writers and producers for the 3 month trial period… even if it is free for the fans trying it out," Swift wrote in a post Sunday on Tumblr.

Swift's comments earned praise from the artist community and prompted a quick reversal from Apple execs, eager to sweep the issue under the rug before the launch of Apple Music on June 30.

"Apple sees advantages in having artists (especially the more vocal ones) and labels be very supportive of their music efforts," David Pakman, a venture partner at Venrock and former CEO of eMusic, told Mashable in an earlier interview about Apple caving to Swift. "Given that music downloads and streaming, even if Apple had 100% market share, will not have a material effect on Apple's revenue or earnings, Apple doesn't gain anything with being at odds with the music community on their service payouts."

Swift, for her part, said she was "elated" by Apple's turnaround, but has yet to say whether she will make her latest album available on Apple Music.

Thursday, June 25, 2015