Taylor Swift Talks Piracy: 'Music Is Art, and Art Should Be Paid For'

"Music industry isn't dying, it's just coming alive," the singer optimistically adds.

Ultimate Guitar
Country star Taylor Swift has recently penned a Wall Street Journal op-ed regarding the current state of music industry, sharing quite an interesting insight.

Touching on the matter of piracy, Taylor stressed that music is art, and should therefore be cherished and paid for, noting that the music industry isn't dying in her eyes, but rather coming to life.

"Where will the music industry be in 20 years, 30 years, 50 years?" she kicked off. "Before I tell you my thoughts on the matter, you should know that you're reading the opinion of an enthusiastic optimist: one of the few living souls in the music industry who still believes that the music industry is not dying ... it's just coming alive.

"There are many (many) people who predict the downfall of music sales and the irrelevancy of the album as an economic entity," Swift continued. "I am not one of them. In my opinion, the value of an album is, and will continue to be, based on the amount of heart and soul an artist has bled into a body of work, and the financial value that artists (and their labels) place on their music when it goes out into the marketplace. Piracy, file sharing and streaming have shrunk the numbers of paid album sales drastically, and every artist has handled this blow differently."

"My hope for the future, not just in the music industry, but in every young girl I meet ... is that they all realize their worth and ask for it.

"Music is art, and art is important and rare. Important, rare things are valuable. Valuable things should be paid for. It's my opinion that music should not be free, and my prediction is that individual artists and their labels will someday decide what an album's price point is. I hope they don't underestimate themselves or undervalue their art," the vocalist pointed out.

Saying that people still buy albums, Taylor went on to discuss the artists' impact on fans, dividing them to casual trends and lifetime passions, "the ones."

"Some artists will be like finding 'the one,'" she said. "We will cherish every album they put out until they retire and we will play their music for our children and grandchildren. As an artist, this is the dream bond we hope to establish with our fans. I think the future still holds the possibility for this kind of bond, the one my father has with the Beach Boys and the one my mother has with Carly Simon."

Sharing thoughts on the future, Swift added, "I think forming a bond with fans in the future will come in the form of constantly providing them with the element of surprise. No, I did not say 'shock'; I said 'surprise.' I believe couples can stay in love for decades if they just continue to surprise each other, so why can't this love affair exist between an artist and their fans?

"My generation was raised being able to flip channels if we got bored, and we read the last page of the book when we got impatient. We want to be caught off guard, delighted, left in awe. I hope the next generation's artists will continue to think of inventive ways of keeping their audiences on their toes, as challenging as that might be," she continued.

Discussing some of the fan-related changes, the singer noted that "there are a few things I have witnessed becoming obsolete in the past few years, the first being autographs. I haven't been asked for an autograph since the invention of the iPhone with a front-facing camera. The only memento 'kids these days' want is a selfie. It's part of the new currency, which seems to be 'how many followers you have on Instagram.'"

After covering the power of social networks and the lack of genre distinction in today's music, Swift noted that "some things will never change."

"There will always be an increasing fixation on the private lives of musicians, especially the younger ones. Artists who were at their commercial peak in the '70s, '80s and '90s tell me, 'It was never this crazy for us back then!' And I suspect I'll be saying that same thing to younger artists someday (God help them)," she said.

"There continues to be a bad girl vs. good girl/clean-cut vs. sexy debate, and for as long as those labels exist, I just hope there will be contenders on both sides. Everyone needs someone to relate to. And as for me? I'll just be sitting back and growing old, watching all of this happen or not happen, all the while trying to maintain a life rooted in this same optimism. And I'd also like a nice garden," the vocalist concluded.

112 comments sorted by best / new / date

comments policy
    If anyone actually read what she said, she's actually right in every way. Did she say that streaming is a bad thing? No, in fact she said it is just the beginning of the music industry. She only said she believes that people don't see the value in the 'art' of what music is and SHE believes its worth paying for.
    Totally right. Good I'm not the only guy to notice this. I guess people just get butthurt because it's Taylor Swift.
    The value of art is subjective. I can listen to your songs, and still deem them as not worthy of money.
    My way to think about this is that it's almost like buying a car. You can test drive it (listen to the single), you can read reviews, and you can watch advertisement. But most of the time you can do that, spend money, and still get screwed. I listen to music off the album on youtube, on that artist's channel so that they get ad-cents, and if I like enough of the music I buy the album. What I don't like is the fact that if I buy music, I like a song, send a friend the song online, I can be charged legally. If I buy a CD and I want to share it with my friends, that should be my right because I put up money. On true piracy, the mass-distribution of media without paying the artist. Yes it sucks, but think about it like this. Every song ever put out is on some site. It's almost a guarantee, there is some way that you can get it for free. There are risks though. If fans of my band wanted my music so badly that they would risk breaking the law to get it, I would rather them have it free.
    matteo cubano
    Whenever someone posts youtube players I always spend way too long looking at random videos on them, 15 minutes ago I was laughing at South Park's take on piracy, now I'm looking at Jennifer Lawrence pictures.
    While I don't agree with piracy, it's equally important that "individual artists and their labels will someday decide what an album's price point is.", because 15 bucks for a new CD is outrageous. Piracy wouldn't be as much of an issue if they weren't gauging us to buy physical music.
    They should drop it to 10 or 5. I'm sure if CDs were all 5 dollars people would still be making profit and people would buy more CDs.
    Word. That's me. I don't look twice at a CD over 10 dollars. I buy a lot of older/used CDs, but simply can't afford to regularly buy newly released for CDs for artists I do want to support.
    While I can understand your situation, you should be aware that buying a used CD does only support the guy you bought it from and not the Band. "Old" CDs don't support the artist either, because the labels most likely don't care anymore anout albums after 1-6 month and I'm not sure how much a band get's out of a sold CD, if they changed the label, they will pretty sure not see a cent of your money
    Buying old CDs is less for support and more just because I like CDs, to be honest. It takes a KILLER new CD, or one I can find for a halfway reasonable price, to fall in that within 6 months of release range you mentioned. Which is why I feel CD prices should be cut, when the guy who loves CDs doesn't buy new ones often. As mentioned in original post.
    matteo cubano
    There's a difference between just listening to music (radio, youtube) and owning music (CDs. downloads). Music and art in general, shouldn't be taken advantage of, but should be respected. You can say that it's everyone's right to be able to listen to music without having to pay, through things such as radio and youtube which is fair enough, but what's 10 pounds or dollars for a CD or download that you can OWN and listen to/use unlimited times? Respect the music and it's creators for what they provide
    I haven't illegally downloaded an album or song in years. With that said I don't own or get as much new music as I once did, but I really do appreciate owning a new album and I really dig into it. Now I'm not totally against file sharing, but I do think an artist should always be paid for his work.
    If people like something enough they will pay for it.If the music is perceived just as soundtrack material,well guess what people will probably pirate it and never pay for it.Not all art is created equaly.
    That'd be nice if it were true but even when people like something enough and have more than enough money to pay for it, they'll still take the "free" option out of laziness and selfishness. Not all people will but lots will. We need to come up with a moral model that everyone can agree on that will bring back a sense of support and affection to the bands that are dying off because people don't care about them anymore.
    You need to look at stats for Game of Thrones paid ways to watch and pirate rates. When everything goes well with HBO and HBOGO, Game of thrones pirates stay relatively low, but back when HBOGO went down during an episodes release, the amount of people pirating it sky rocketed. That's because paying for something is honestly easier than pirating it.
    Art is not a ****ing industry... get that in your heads already. Can't you see this is why music is so shitty today - it's turned into a product and not art because of the industry.
    Music has always been a product and it will always be. It's not just today's music.
    Art should be appreciated. And Taylor Swift isn't appreciated on UG. Thus Taylor Swift isn't art.
    "the value of an album is, and will continue to be, based on the amount of heart and soul an artist has bled into a body of work". In that case, why are the radio "artists" CDs the most costly?
    Whilst i'm unmoved by moral blackmail, it has to be said that file sharing is not theft, it's copying ones and zeroes. You're not depriving the artist of their work and no, you're not depriving them of a sale either, i can't afford to buy all the music i enjoy, so if i couldn't download music i would not be able to purchase it, ergo no money for the artist/record label.
    I agree with you, at least partially. I think that piracy is not theft, but is not just copying ones and zeroes. That would be just like saying that stealing some one's car is only 'moving atoms'. However, I also think that music industry needs some changes, and piracy is forcing them to do that. Music used to be mainly a live matter, where a recording was just a medium to get people to know your music and go see you perform it. Recordings were secondary, and I think they should still be. That being said, piracy is making the music industry focus on performers that can entertain in a live setup, and not only some one that can sell CD's. In the end, that what music is about, an aesthetic experience, not filling label's pockets.
    Your assessment of the music industry is interesting, i think that the 'industry' part needs to die and artist's need to cut out the middle men. Your car (i assume you meant car) and atom analogy doesn't hold when you consider that if you take my car - i no longer have a car, if you copy a song off of my computer - i still have the song.
    Stealing money out of your bank account is also just copying 1's and 0's. But the money that you steal has a value on it. So the same could be said about music. I do agree with you though that music is way too overpriced these days
    If money is stolen from my bank account, i am being deprived of that money, when you copy a song, the original remains.
    Yeah but if you start supplying a free flow for a product which you don't actually have ownership of, and you have another entity offering the product that belongs to THEM for a price, then you are cutting into their market profit. I mean I download music too. But I think it does do something negative to a certain extent.
    You re-distributing something that isn't yours legally is stealing. You can't deny that. The issue isn't with the original, but with the supply and demand of the product.
    No one really cares about the bit strings in a bank account hacking though. What is cared about is using the bits to change ownership of existing tangible currency (as tangible as fiat can get at least) so it's not too different from the theft of a car or any other physical item just with another layer of action.
    Right! Change of ownership is what pisses people off. So what are we doing with music files or mp3's that don't belong to us? Belong to us meaning we didn't pay for it.
    But you're not changing the ownership, you're copying a file. My money isn't a file. Even currencies like bitcoin have an abstract but agreed upon limit that can be bartered, exchanged, and of course, stolen. The change in ownership in money means I no longer have that money. If someone copies a file from my computer I still own that file, they can do whatever they want so long as it's not passwords or something (for the same reason as the money example).
    So like you said, people only care about the tangible value tied to the 1's and 0's in your bank account, not the bit string. So it's the same thing with an mp3 file. It's not that actual file people care about but it's the tangible value associated with it.
    So I take it you don't believe in intellectual property, copyrights, trademarks, etc.? The "ones and zeroes" argument is a fallacy. The fact is that much of our intellectual property, art - whatever - is digital. I mean, I could make reproductions of the Mona Lisa and claim "it's just paint on paper!" It seems that some people strongly believe that art is not a commodity, and therefore shouldn't be treated as property. And that's fine for you - go ahead and give your music away for free if you want. But respect the fact that there are people out there for whom art is their job. Anyway, I suppose I could go make copies of my company's proprietary drawings to give to our competitors. After all, they're just ink on vellum, or ink on paper, or ones and zeroes. (that was sarcasm, in case anyone from my company reads this!)
    Another downvote... if you disagree with my opinion why not write a rebuttal?
    "moral blackmail" - I agree. She's kissing the money grubbin labels' asses so hard here and making the rest of us feel bad for not doing the same.
    If you can't afford all the music you want, then you're the one needs to get a job. Period. NEXT!!!!
    Art should be shared Get a job
    Making music is a job. You get paid by selling music. Would you not want to get paid for doing your job?
    Dude we all play and make music, almost all of us have jobs as well. Making money comes when there is a demand for your music...as played by you. Thats how YOU get paid.
    Just because not everyone can make money playing music doesn't mean we should screw over those lucky enough to do so.
    I run a small-town newspaper. I used to charge for my newspaper but I had to reevaluate that business model because people can get their information for free. Now, the newspaper is sustained by advertising alone. Newspapers are folding around the country because they can't charge for news any more. This is the information age. Recorded music is data. Data is dirt cheap. Adapt or die!
    You get paid for playing your music. It's nearly always been a constant fact that most musicians make money mainly from live shows.
    Floyd Phoenix
    But it shouldn't be stolen..? Which is what piracy does?
    Whoever downvoted my comment clearly has a problem with logic.
    Redistributing a product that you do not have ownership of is stealing. That is logic.
    By that argument, lending CD's to your friends is stealing, since by lending you are distributing (!) a piece which is not yours. You could think that the physical CD is yours, but so is the MP3 file stored in my computer.
    Exactly, or copying tapes for a friend (went out of fashion when i was very young). Trying to equate copyright infringement with the definition of theft is nonsensical.
    Regardless of the ethical ideas behind it, piracy is not theft in the common form. If you rob a physical album from a store you are taking the money (albeit small amount) that it took to construct it and that the store spent to have it on shelf. Making a copy of a file means the artist never gets that amount, but there was nothing spent to begin with to take. It's like saying me finding a dollar on the ground is stealing from you because you also could have found it first. I'd also say there's a problem with not actually owning what you purchase when it comes to media but that's another topic.
    She sued a small sports bar in Idaho for playing her music on the jukebox without paying for the rights to play it. Fuck her.