Taylor Swift just released her fifth latest album, 1989, on October 27th of this year, projected to be the most successful release of the year thus far. However, even after two weeks at number one, the pop star’s most recent work is still stirring up controversy.

At the start of November, the singer and her team had pulled her entire catalog off Spotify, the world’s largest music streaming website, claiming that the company underpaid the artists and their labels.

Swift has stated that music streaming sites like, Spotify, detract from potential artist revenue; the website has made a public response claiming that Swift could have made $6 million, a figure significant even for a star of Swift’s stature. Spotify founder, Daniel Ek, asked for Taylor Swift’s return to the service, mentioning that out of its 40 million users, two million of them are active followers of the Red artist. That is two million disappointed “swifties”.

In conclusion he asked for Swift’s help to construct “a new music economy that works for everyone”; she has not yet made a public response.

Many industry experts expect that the catalog returns to Spotify, only after the fall of direct sales. An industry native, Dave Grohl told Digital Spy that he simply does not care for the unnecessary tension and drama of the technical peculiarities, instead focusing on the music itself.

“You want people to (expletive deleted) listen to your music? Give them your music. They like hearing your music? They’ll go see a show,” says the Foo Fighters front man. To him it’s “that simple” it used to work that way.” Most other artists seem to share the same stance.

Spotify could serve as a solid platform for Swift to share her music universally and provide the consumer audience with a chance to get a feel for her music before actually purchasing it. The music industry should be fueled by the drive to make and share music, not hindered by the drive for profit.