Taylor Swift pulling her music from Spotify was pointless, says CEO Daniel Ek
Daniel Ek struggles to see the benefit as Swift's music is on YouTube
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Spotify's CEO has hit out at Taylor Swift for pulling her back catalogue from the streaming service last year.
The "Blank Space" singer removed her songs because she did not want to "contribute her life's work to an experiment that does not fairly compensate the writers, producers, artist and creators".
But according to boss Daniel Ek, Swift's fans have since been listening to her music on YouTube, making the whole idea pointless.
"Her YouTube streams went through the roof," Ek told Billboard. "What that tells me is the audience that was listening to Taylor Swift on Spotify went on YouTube to do it instead. Then you may ask, 'Well, what was the benefit of it?'"
Ek added that he was "a little surprised" by the extensive media coverage of Swift's controversial decision but knew he was "dealing with America's darling".
Spotify may have more than 10 million paying subscribers around the world but Swift's departure would have made quite the dent, as over 25 per cent had streamed at least one of her songs at the time.
The 25-year-old believes that "valuable things should be paid for", arguing last year that "music should not be free" and artists should not "underestimate themselves or undervalue their art".
"I felt like I was saying to my fans, 'If you create music someday, if you create a painting someday, someone can just walk into a museum, take it off the wall, rip off a corner off it and it's theirs now and they don't have to pay for it," she said.
"I didn't like the perception that it was putting forth and so I decided to change the way I was doing things."
Enjoy unlimited access to 100 million ad-free songs and podcasts with Amazon Music
Sign up now for a 4 month free trial (3 months for non-Prime members)
Enjoy unlimited access to 100 million ad-free songs and podcasts with Amazon Music
Sign up now for a 4 month free trial (3 months for non-Prime members)
Spotify begged Swift to return to the service with a "we love you" playlist and insisted that nearly 70 per cent of its revenue goes back to the music community.
Swift's popular repertoire can be found on Jay Z's artist-owned Tidal service as well as other subscription services Beats Music, Google Play Music and Rhapsody.
Earlier this month, Edgar Berger, Sony Music CEO said that streaming is the "final destination" for the music industry.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments