Livies are delusional/fuckin dumb. The reason Olivia gets to write her shitty teen angst music is cuz of the doors Taylor (& others) opened for her to be taken seriously as a young girl songwriter…Taylor dealt with so much shit & Olivia just gets to waltz in and have it easier
We didn’t forget. It’s gotten worse too.
The end goal is to drive people away from her, to replace her with the fake promise of a “younger, nicer, better, more talented & morally superior girl”.. IF u compare the smear campaigns against Taylor to the Positive articles about Olivia, u would see they are RUNNING TOGETHER
💯 this… specially some white woman who are always hating her, they feel like it makes them different and an activist cuz they drag her.. she’s their shield for a lot of things. A fall back option for views and protection
THIS is real Impact… she took a stance for the sake of ALL artists, this is how you use your power to make change, nobody else even dared… she went on to do the same thing with Spotify 👏🏽 also when she signed a new contract in 2018 she made sure to help all artists again:
In an open letter on June 21, 2015, Taylor Swift said Apple Music would not get her album 1989 because of its three-month free trial policy. A few hours later, Apple agreed to pay all artists during the trial.
In the clip below, she explains why she wrote it. "For anyone who wants to create music, for any little kid who's taking piano lessons right now, I want them to have an industry to go into."
She had done this before. In November 2014, she pulled her catalog from Spotify, which refused to keep her music behind its paid tier.
Apple Music was set to launch on June 30, 2015, with three free months. For that time, artists, songwriters and producers would be paid nothing.
Apple's answer was a bigger cut after the trial, about 72% of revenue against roughly 70% elsewhere in the industry.
Her letter ended: "We don't ask you for free iPhones. Please don't ask us to provide you with our music for no compensation."
After posting it, she later recalled, she was struck by an overwhelming fear: "Am I gonna wake up tomorrow and all my music is off of iTunes?"
That Sunday evening, Apple's Eddy Cue posted that Apple would pay artists during the trial, at a lower rate per stream, and called her. "Fast forward a couple hours and everything was different," she said.
On June 25, she announced 1989 would be on Apple Music. At launch, it was the only streaming service with the album.
Later she joked: "I didn't have a personal relationship with Apple until that point. I'm sure there are better ways to introduce yourself." The introduction turned into a partnership. In December 2015, her 1989 tour film came out exclusively on Apple Music, and in 2016 she starred in its ads.
So did Swift win this fight for every artist, or did Apple just not want to lose her?
The other thing that needs to be highlighted is that Pitchfork has chosen Olivia Rodrigo as their angel and they uplift her by mentioning her in every single review and bringing down all the other female artists to uplift her … it’s not just Taylor but she is the main one.
BettyM retweeted
To be fair he’s doing the same kind of numbers as the other girls who only appeal to gay men (Carly, Tinashe, Slayyyter, etc).
Also the two lead singles were hot garbage
Normally when you hate an artist, you are not supposed to keep up with her or her fans … but we know you broke and need Taylor for engagement cuz when you talk about your fav, it’s crickets
BettyM retweeted
In an open letter on June 21, 2015, Taylor Swift said Apple Music would not get her album 1989 because of its three-month free trial policy. A few hours later, Apple agreed to pay all artists during the trial.
In the clip below, she explains why she wrote it. "For anyone who wants to create music, for any little kid who's taking piano lessons right now, I want them to have an industry to go into."
She had done this before. In November 2014, she pulled her catalog from Spotify, which refused to keep her music behind its paid tier.
Apple Music was set to launch on June 30, 2015, with three free months. For that time, artists, songwriters and producers would be paid nothing.
Apple's answer was a bigger cut after the trial, about 72% of revenue against roughly 70% elsewhere in the industry.
Her letter ended: "We don't ask you for free iPhones. Please don't ask us to provide you with our music for no compensation."
After posting it, she later recalled, she was struck by an overwhelming fear: "Am I gonna wake up tomorrow and all my music is off of iTunes?"
That Sunday evening, Apple's Eddy Cue posted that Apple would pay artists during the trial, at a lower rate per stream, and called her. "Fast forward a couple hours and everything was different," she said.
On June 25, she announced 1989 would be on Apple Music. At launch, it was the only streaming service with the album.
Later she joked: "I didn't have a personal relationship with Apple until that point. I'm sure there are better ways to introduce yourself." The introduction turned into a partnership. In December 2015, her 1989 tour film came out exclusively on Apple Music, and in 2016 she starred in its ads.
So did Swift win this fight for every artist, or did Apple just not want to lose her?
