Here’s an article from the same place arguing that she’s a neo-con in secret:
Taylor Swift NYU Commencement Speech Urgues Gratitude | National Review
I’m not sure what you are trying to say. 15 years ago somebody predicted that smart phones might diminish radio’s influence?
The Edison Research article was from just a few weeks ago, and is based on their own research which found that radio is still the largest single thing people in cars spend their time listening to. Is the time diminished from 15, 25, 35, or 45 years ago? Probably, but someone else will have to research exactly how much.
The point of me posting the Edison Research article was the surprising finding that radio still needs to be taken into account when discussing people’s listening habits. Of course, that research was for in cars. Some people have long commutes or drive for a living, but other people average just a few minutes in a car per day, so the total listening time to radio is almost definitely greatly diminished from years ago.
Bringing that around to the topic of this thread. Being radio friendly should still be a consideration for an artist seeking main stream success, and Swift’s radio friendliness has certainly played into her success.
I have no debate with that. Being able to get radio airplay (and, back in the day, stuff like VH1 where she seemed to be on regular rotations in their last remaining music shows) AND stuff like “you can hear this as the gas station or drugstore over the PA system” is all a boon to getting famous.
That’s different from the assertion that regularly comes up in music threads that the only music anyone can hear is Top 40 written by the same two Swedish guys because, in their minds, no one has access to any music beyond what’s being played on the most popular Top 40 FM radio station in each market. In reality, radio is having less and less influence, especially among younger listeners, and it’s never been easier to find totally new music.
It’s functionally identical if you’re using it in the exact way you’re describing. If you believe that the 23% cited are using it in that way, I suspect you are 100% incorrect, especially since the cite specifically points out that it’s being used for audio and video. Spotify is streaming, Netflix is streaming, Twitch is streaming. YouTube is streaming. Vudu is streaming. They are all completely different beasts, and it makes perfect sense to separate them.
Or they’re tuning to the streaming channels in their smartphones and feeding it through AUX to the car stereo, if it’s a model from this century.
I suspect a large number of that 23% is using it that way given that YouTube is intentionally designed to facilitate that usage in several ways (including a separate music service which, per the note on the chart, would be included in their number).
It states “YouTube for music and music videos only” to specify that they’re not counting other content people are watching on YouTube, only music-related stuff. But, again, that’s no argument for it to be “different” when it’s functionally serving the same purpose as other streaming music services. Not a convincing one, anyway. And especially not when discussing how people are consuming audio entertainment.
It says on the chart (in small blurry print) that the 15% “Radio” number includes radio streams.
Reading a bit into it, the reason for separating YouTube isn’t because sometimes their music comes with moving pictures but because YouTube is owned by Google/Alphabet whereas Spotify, Pandora, etc are companies that exist only to stream music as their primary business model.
The article sums it up well; these systems are going to make radio obsolete, and if the radio industry doesn’t want to die, it had better follow what the author has laid out in order for it to not suffer this death.
Personally, I want the commercial radio industry to die, with the possibility of only a few commercial outlets surviving, in particular those that actually were truly committed to music (in the ‘spirit’-so to speak-of this radio station in Toronto and what it used to be) and not just be pushing pretty blonde pop princesses onto everybody and down everybody’s throats and always looking to get more revenue from advertising.
It just isn’t. It certainly can, but I highly suspect that the vast majority of YouTube users, for the purposes of that poll, are using YouTube to bring up specific songs and music videos they want to listen to on demand. Non-paid users of Pandora/Spotify.etc. are reliant upon the Almighty Algorithm to bring up specific songs they want to hear. Additionally, Spotify/etc. users have a restricted number of skips they can use. But if I want to listen to “Shake It Off” 100 times on repeat without paying for a subscription or the song, YouTube is my best bet. And if I want to watch the video, it’s DEFINITELY my best option. For those intents and for those purposes, YouTube would be in a different category. Luckily, that report has also noticed that these differences exist and made that distinction.
Where specifically does it give this reason?
I’m also generally aware of YouTube Music as a streaming service if only because it’s a general annoyance when my kids want to watch Frozen videos on our Google Home, because it doesn’t play the video. I’d guess that it is also lumped into the “streaming music” category and not the “YouTube” category. If it isn’t, I’ll happily pay for the pitchforks as we march on the headquarters of this report.
There’s better current female artists out there than Taylor Swift:
Leslie Feist (check out her duet with Little Wings on the song ‘Look At What The Light Did Now’)
For the definition of Streaming Audio on the chart, it says that “Streaming audio includes pure plays such as Spotify, Pandora and others”. A Pure Play is a company that has a singular business.
YouTube is not a pure play business. Not in the sense of them being owned by Google and not even in the sense of YouTube itself where they host tons of non-music/podcast content. Arguably something like iTunes could be called “pure play” when looking at iTunes narrowly (versus its Apple parent) but YouTube, even narrowly, is a lot more than a music (videos or no) service.
Ah, yes, the days when commercial radio wasn’t interested in (checks notes) making money.
Sweet, Peaches! Love her. “The Teaches of Peaches” was one of my favorite albums in the early 00s. I really wouldn’t call her “current,” though. Besides, I think both Taylor Swift and Peaches are wonderful in their own ways. No need for this gatekeeping bullshit.
For real–the attitude is pretty silly. I much prefer the (non-binary) Janelle Monae; but full credit to Swift for what she does.
Agree that gatekeeping is nonsensical.
I already corrected this above. YOU don’t get to decide for everybody who is better. You do you, boo, but stay in your lane.
I believe Swift is aware that many people prefer indie music and dislike mainstream pop and I really don’t think she cares.
And you would hide away and find your peace of mind
With some indie record that’s much cooler than mine
What makes you think I gotta like your favorite music?
I’m not into Taylor. My young adult girls grew up with her. It’s their choice what music they like.
I think you might listen to some Beatles and calm down. Oh, sorry. Don’t wanna tell you who to listen too.
You be you.
There is room in the market for all of these ladies. It isn’t pie.
Wait - did someone mention pie?
As someone who sat through the Eras film at the behest of a Swiftie child, I have to say that while her music generally isn’t my thing, she’s clearly a gifted songwriter (at least lyrically) and performer, and a shrewd businesswoman. This tour is blatantly about getting control of her earlier material back after having lost it to the usual record industry skulduggery (I’ve been calling it the “Copyright Fixation Tour”), and more power to her for it.
Am I going to listen to her more now that I’ve had more exposure to her music? Not really. But I’m not going to begrudge her her hard-earned success just because she doesn’t float my particular boat.
And FTR I don’t care who’s she’s dating either.