Why Can't I Listen To Taylor Swift On Rdio?

I have Rdio and really love it.

Anyhow, I like to listen to Taylor Swift and was distressed today to discover that I can't listen to Taylor Swift on Rdio.

The question I have is: Why?

 

Most likely because she wants revenues so is purely money related...just guessing.

 

Because she doesn't have a deal with Rdio. Of course it is money related as she is in the music business - the business part being the key. Whatever machinations are involved, we will never know.

 

Hmmm, surely there must be some way to listen to Taylor Swift...

 

Just got a response back from Rdio Support.

Hey.

Thanks for writing in.

There are certain artists that require a certain subscription to listen to their content.

Taylor Swift is one of them.

You'll need to subscribe to Rdio Unlimited to be able to listen to her on Web.

 

I think that it's really ridiculous that you have to have a subscription just so you can listen to certain artists on Rdio.

 

Isn't that how streaming services work? Spotify is the only one with an on-demand free tier.

 

Do you work for free?

 

No. I don't work for free.

 

Neither does Taylor Swift.

 

I hear her in the RADIO all the time.

 

Swift pulled her music off Spotify with great publicity. A few minutes with your favorite search engine should give you some answers.

 

Are the other artists on rdio working for free?

Gosh, hope she don't starve to death like some artists.

 

I meant ON but I think she might be in there somewhere.

 

This you complain?

Sorry, couldn't resist.

 

Her current account balance doesn't have anything to do with it does it? None of the artists makes jack from streaming.

 

If streaming music had no value, it wouldn't exist, would it? Some artists are interested in getting the music to the fans. Swift appears to be beyond that thinking, worrying more about what she wears on the next red carpet.

 

It has little to no value for the artists because they get paid pennies. The labels make the money, as do the streaming companies.

So artists should just be interested in getting their music to the fans? For nothing.
That's a joke.

 

Used to be called listening to the radio, and that's what it was for.

 

Sorry, but that's the way life is for many who put the importance of their music before the importance of their celebrity. Are you able to be honest about the transparency of Taylor Swift's motivations?

 

They still have radio where I live.

Radio was never able to play any song immediately on demand. Streaming has taken the place of going to a store and actually buying the record.

 

I'm not a Taylor Swift fan whatsoever. However, artists should get paid fairly ...which they're not. And they certainly have the right to NOT have their music available for streaming if they don't want to.

 

I'm very interested in sources which make you think otherwise, because Taylor Swift is getting paid more than fairly.

The right to control one's music isn't in question. The fact that Swift can afford to restrict airplay to fans (the OP of this thread, for example) and does answers the OP's question. This isn't a Pearl Jam vs. Ticketmaster kind of statement. It's a money first, music second or third kind of statement.

Streaming is the primary source for listening for everybody under, what, thirty? It's unlikely that if she was still a struggling artist, she and her management wouldn't look down their nose at the exposure streaming provides. She's playin' a diva card.

Kudos to her for using her looks and performance chops to create this opportunity. But can't we just call it like it is?

 

We're, say, the Beatles playin' a Diva card because their CD's weren't on the BMG, Columbia House, or RCA record clubs back in the day?

 

Now JAY Z just pulled his music from Spotify.