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

41–50 of 245 posts

Re: Non-Fungible Taylor Swift

#41

Post by anonymouse008 »

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…

You Belong With Me... wow

There's such a difference in a young up and coming begging for a guy to acknowledge they love the outcast, to Taylor Swift singing the same song.

They always tell you in vocal lessons that so much of a song has to do with feeling. For people like most of us on HN, that makes absolutely 0 sense, and for many decades I've never been able to understand that... until now. Same person, different life experiences tugging on the same song, and it hits like a ton of bricks.

Re: Non-Fungible Taylor Swift

#42

Post by SloopJon »

I've always found the idea of master recordings curious. Once a song becomes a hit, the band may perform it almost every day for the rest of their career, but what we listen to through our headphones or speakers is this one particular moment in time. Yes, there are live recordings and bootlegs, but by and large it's this one master recording, which may get dusted off every couple of decades for a remaster.

Some masters are guarded jealously by their owners. For example, I've heard that some of the Stevie Wonder releases aren't even from the masters, because he won't part with them. Some masters may truly capture something irreproducible; say, John Lennon's hoarse voice in "Twist and Shout."

In this particular case, at least, Taylor Swift has put the lie to the uniqueness of the masters. If she has the right to rerecord everything, the old masters aren't so special. But I think the article is also right. After this exercise, she may have made her point, and may force Shamrock Capital to make a deal.

Re: Non-Fungible Taylor Swift

#43

Post by zabzonk »

speedyapoc wrote: post #31
peytn wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s not just “going digital”—the creative act isn’t there. It’s just financialization. The act of taking an artwork to an auction house isn’t something that’ll hold value.

I agree, but I think that's just a short term effect of people trying to cash in on the hype. Suppose I'm an artist that releases a limited digital run of an album and that NFTs are used to attribute ownership of the digital release. Would this have more, equal, or less value than an artist doing the same thing but with a physical limited run album release? The actual music content can be pirated and made available j…

> Would this have more, equal, or less value

Surely it depends on how much you like the music?

> However, I feel like many people argue that the digital release via NFTs would be worth less because all you have to show for your ownership is a digital token

Correct. I value my vinyl copy of "Live Dead" by The Grateful Dead because I have had it for nearly 50 years, have played it countless times, rolled joints on it, and even like the scratches. It's also something that cannot be exactly copied, given current technology.

Having said that, most of my music is on MP3s, but the idea that referring to them via some block chain crap will give them "value" is just silly.

Re: Non-Fungible Taylor Swift

#44

Post by macksd »

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.…

>> For those that can’t understand the value of NFTs ... >> it has value because people agree it has value

Yeah but let's be clear it's often just because 2 people say they agree it has value, and for all we know they're often laundering money. I can look at a motorcycle and understand why it has value to someone even though I wouldn't buy one myself even for a penny. I'm afraid I'm unable to do the same with NFTs and cans of feces from an artist.

Re: Non-Fungible Taylor Swift

#45

Post by greenshackle2 »

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.…

An important fact to remember about art valuation is that art can be bought and sold anonymously through private dealers who are not subject to anti money laundering regulations.

The trick is to buy some art at a reasonable price, store it in a dark warehouse for a couple of years, then anonymously buy it from yourself at an exorbitant price through shell companies with dirty money.

Re: Non-Fungible Taylor Swift

#46

Post by techsupporter »

paul7986 wrote: post #36
johnwheeler wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I thought the exact same thing. I think Taylor’s real error was in saying anything at all. When someone rich and famous (or even just famous) makes a case for making money, no matter how sound, they open themselves up for attack. I’m not saying they’re wrong to do so, just that the populace isn’t inclined to understand.

So some people believed in her and gave her a chance... backed her with their money ..invested in her and she re-pays them by attacking them and their investment. I used to be a fan of her and her persona but now comes off as spoiled and unappreciative!

Nothing says that just because one person paid another person--even at a risk to the person doing the paying--that the person who got paid owes them undying gratitude and appreciation forever.

Look at how many of us got hired as an employee or who got investment to try doing a startup and that relationship ended poorly. Are we, because we are not famous, obligated to always speak kindly of the person who paid us? Even if we perceive that the relationship turned out to not be good?

Just because someone is rich and famous doesn't mean they don't have the same human emotional responses as the rest of us; it just means theirs are more visible and open to attack.

I will never claim to know what Taylor Swift truly thinks of the Big Machine purchase of her masters. But, having made art of my own before, I do very much understand the emotional attachment to that art and the incredible difficulty in separating the art from the business transaction of making money from that art. That's something that the "money men" in the artistic endeavors don't usually seem to get.

Re: Non-Fungible Taylor Swift

#47

Post by imwillofficial »

packetslave wrote: post #30
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 wouldn't call it a money grab (TSwift already has a net worth of over $400 million. She's not worried solely about money). I think it's more of a giant, public middle finger to Scooter Braun: "you won't sell me my masters? Fine, I have enough money and spare time to re-record them AND it won't hurt my career a bit, because my fans love me enough to buy something I've literally already released." edit: TS probably w…

“Person has a net worth of over $xxx million, they are not worried about money.” Stop and think that through. If this were true the banking industry as we know it would not exist. I’d like to think above some dollar amount I’d stop worrying about money and just do what I love, but who knows? I’ll tell you when I make my first $400 million.

Re: Non-Fungible Taylor Swift

#48

Post by croes »

rayiner wrote: post #28

The quote from Nilay Patel's Vox article hits on one of my pet peeves. > Nilay Patel wrote in Vox: > "Taylor makes a nice little argument in favor of paying for music. 'Music is art,' she says, 'and art is important and rare. Important, rare things are valuable. Valuable things should be paid for.' > This is an impressively-constructed syllogism. It is also deeply, deeply wrong.... On the internet, there’s no scarcit…

Maybe he is referring to music as such, too. Nobody is special, the internet showed there are lots of talented artists and it's just a matter luck who's got to be the next superstar. For every superstar there are dozens if not hundreds of similar talented singers that go down nearly unrecognized.

Re: Non-Fungible Taylor Swift

#49

Post by notyourday »

throwawaysea wrote: post #7
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.…

> Ultimately it has value because people agree it has value. This feels like a pyramid scheme. What makes it different?

> This feels like a pyramid scheme.

It is. My Google-fu is failing me but there was a famous art dealer in the early part of the 20th century who promised that he would buy back the pieces he sold at least for the price the buyer originally paid less some minuscule percentage if the buyer could not sell the pieces to someone else. It made paints he sold significantly go up in price. He died. Buyers tried to get his estate to pay for the paintings and failed.

Re: Non-Fungible Taylor Swift

#50

Post by thaumasiotes »

rayiner wrote: post #28

The quote from Nilay Patel's Vox article hits on one of my pet peeves. > Nilay Patel wrote in Vox: > "Taylor makes a nice little argument in favor of paying for music. 'Music is art,' she says, 'and art is important and rare. Important, rare things are valuable. Valuable things should be paid for.' > This is an impressively-constructed syllogism. It is also deeply, deeply wrong.... On the internet, there’s no scarcit…

> How does such an obvious fallacy command such purchase among smart people? Swift is talking about "music" as an original work. Patel responds with an irrelevant point about digital copies of music.

Your quotes don't support this analysis. There's plenty of original music available on the internet. Enough to call it an endless amount. Weirdly, you point this out yourself immediately after accusing Patel of a fallacy.

The fact that people will pay for Taylor Swift's music against a landscape with other music does not actually support the idea that Taylor Swift's music deserves to be paid for, either. People will pay for all kinds of things. https://satwcomic.com/clean-living

Post reply on HN