Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Non-Fungible Taylor Swift

stratechery.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 245 posts

Re: Non-Fungible Taylor Swift

#11

Post by darkerside »

the_local_host wrote: post #9
seibelj wrote: post #2

This is 100% correct. For those that can’t understand the value of NFTs, it’s the same reason a “squares and circles” modern art piece can be worth millions - it’s the story of who made it, the collective belief, the rarity... Ultimately it has value because people agree it has value. It’s the same reason the Tom Brady football rookie card sold for millions despite it being nothing more than ink on flimsy cardboard.…

Is there anything (other than lawsuits) preventing issuers from "printing NFTs" and diluting the value of those already sold? It seems like a blockchain-based technology that only works when backed by the threat of lawsuits combines the worst aspects of the art market and the cryptocurrency market.

Many modern art pieces could really be recreated. What's the difference you are trying to draw?

Re: Non-Fungible Taylor Swift

#12

Post by chejazi »

jtbayly wrote: post #5

What this piece leaves out is that given this reasoning, Taylor Swift can simply declare another piece of art the "New Taylor version," thus completely devaluing the previous "Taylor version."

It's not like the "New Taylor version" will be valued completely independently of the previous "Taylor version."

Her reputation underwrites the transaction; any transaction contributes to her reputation.

Re: Non-Fungible Taylor Swift

#13

Post by darkerside »

zabzonk wrote: post #8
seibelj wrote: post #2

This is 100% correct. For those that can’t understand the value of NFTs, it’s the same reason a “squares and circles” modern art piece can be worth millions - it’s the story of who made it, the collective belief, the rarity... Ultimately it has value because people agree it has value. It’s the same reason the Tom Brady football rookie card sold for millions despite it being nothing more than ink on flimsy cardboard.…

There is a difference between a physical object (painting, sculpture, trading card, slice of bread) which cannot with our current technology be exactly reproduced, and a digital thing, which can be.

You can reproduce a trading card such that it's indistinguishable to just about every human on the planet.

Re: Non-Fungible Taylor Swift

#14

Post by sodality2 »

eric_b wrote: post #3

Sort of tangential to the main point but - I find the new version of Fearless to be utterly lacking in "soul", "energy", "magic" or whatever you want to call it. The unquantifiable things that made the original so good are missing. Sure, the remakes are competent and perhaps even better technically, but after listening to both side by side (song by song, new then old) - to me there is no comparison. I went online loo…

I think it was more than a money grab- I think it was a giant middle finger as well to the company.

Re: Non-Fungible Taylor Swift

#15

Post by the_local_host »

jtbayly wrote: post #5

What this piece leaves out is that given this reasoning, Taylor Swift can simply declare another piece of art the "New Taylor version," thus completely devaluing the previous "Taylor version."

If we're invoking theoretical possibilities, anyone can declare another piece of are to be the new version.

I don't think re-recording albums for the purpose of attacking former business partners, who priced the intellectual property at roughly all the money that she had been paid in their previous arrangement, indicates a willingness to keep re-recording things.

Re: Non-Fungible Taylor Swift

#16

Post by speedyapoc »

zabzonk wrote: post #8
seibelj wrote: post #2

This is 100% correct. For those that can’t understand the value of NFTs, it’s the same reason a “squares and circles” modern art piece can be worth millions - it’s the story of who made it, the collective belief, the rarity... Ultimately it has value because people agree it has value. It’s the same reason the Tom Brady football rookie card sold for millions despite it being nothing more than ink on flimsy cardboard.…

There is a difference between a physical object (painting, sculpture, trading card, slice of bread) which cannot with our current technology be exactly reproduced, and a digital thing, which can be.

I've struggled wrapping my ahead around whether this line of thinking has merit or not.

I'd argue that everything you listed can be reproduced, almost identically. But there's no value in doing so since it is not the original or was never authorized by the creator. Why does this change all of a sudden once we go digital? Is it because it's so much easier to reproduce something that originates digitally?

Re: Non-Fungible Taylor Swift

#17

Post by peytn »

hobs wrote: post #4
seibelj wrote: post #2

This is 100% correct. For those that can’t understand the value of NFTs, it’s the same reason a “squares and circles” modern art piece can be worth millions - it’s the story of who made it, the collective belief, the rarity... Ultimately it has value because people agree it has value. It’s the same reason the Tom Brady football rookie card sold for millions despite it being nothing more than ink on flimsy cardboard.…

We understand them, we just think y'all are stupid for doing that.

At the very least, these arguments might be more credible if their pushers disclosed their own financial interests in said valuable assets.

Re: Non-Fungible Taylor Swift

#18

Post by twox2 »

apples_oranges wrote: post #6
seibelj wrote: post #2

This is 100% correct. For those that can’t understand the value of NFTs, it’s the same reason a “squares and circles” modern art piece can be worth millions - it’s the story of who made it, the collective belief, the rarity... Ultimately it has value because people agree it has value. It’s the same reason the Tom Brady football rookie card sold for millions despite it being nothing more than ink on flimsy cardboard.…

However that ink on flimsy cardboard is still somewhat unique. The NFT only associates a wallet address with a hash of whatever digital document. It's similar, but not quite. It has value in human imagination, sure, one can convince oneself that's the case. But the token is merely a hash of something that can be obtained very easily in full original quality on the Internet. The flimsy cardboard is not. At least not i…

There's a good chance that "mining" will out live some pieces of cardboard. Even if the blockchain du jour becomes a thing o the past, it might live on in some device in an emulator thanks to Moore's Law.

Re: Non-Fungible Taylor Swift

#19

Post by dsr_ »

eric_b wrote: post #3

Sort of tangential to the main point but - I find the new version of Fearless to be utterly lacking in "soul", "energy", "magic" or whatever you want to call it. The unquantifiable things that made the original so good are missing. Sure, the remakes are competent and perhaps even better technically, but after listening to both side by side (song by song, new then old) - to me there is no comparison. I went online loo…

[Not a Taylor Swift fan or hater]

There is a common sequence of events in creator-driven popular entertainment, where an author or musician becomes too big to edit (or produce, if you prefer). The later works have a tendency to be bigger, looser, and lacking the focus that characterized the earlier works.

Oft-cited examples: Steven King, Anne Rice, Tom Clancy, Alanis Morrissette, Tori Amos, Maroon Five, Aerosmith.

I don't know whether this has happened to Taylor Swift, but it's certainly a plausible explanation.

Re: Non-Fungible Taylor Swift

#20

Post by Quarrelsome »

I feel like the author is missing a trick here, there's an epilogue to write. The power of brigading is terrifying and fierce and this is part of marking the transition into personal brigading where an individual uses the hammer of their fans to beat reality into their will. Its not entirely dissimilar to Trump's relationship with his followers to an extent.

Pans out just fine with Taylor Swift because I figure she might have a modicum of respect for her fans as opposed to someone like Jake Paul who treats his like dirt. The difference between the ages is that fans that were gatekept by organisations had many levels of PR, admin and marketing to wade through, today we have direct, raw and visceral which also can result in corrupt, unethical and even evil.

This is a pattern that could define the coming decades as society coalesces around a few chosen figures and lends them their might directly. Many of them will be found undeserving and the debris they leave might be impactful.

Post reply on HN