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

141–150 of 245 posts

Re: Non-Fungible Taylor Swift

#141

Post by TrainedMonkey »

michaelt wrote: post #89
lopis wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's the reason why many youtubers on patreon switch to a monthly subscription rather than charging per video. It makes it clearer that we are supporting the creator's livelihood, not buying a token that they produced. Would anyone pay for a Taylor Swift subscription if that meant she could relax and produce music as she sees fit? Higher subscription tiers could include merchandising and concert tickets.

> Would anyone pay for a Taylor Swift subscription if that meant she could relax and produce music as she sees fit? I have a (completely speculative) theory that the "support the artist to keep creating the work they're giving away for free" model has a ceiling when artists become visibly a lot richer than their fans. After all, what kind of sucker would charitably donate to a multimillionaire's private jet running c…

That sounds pretty rational, however it does not mesh with reality of most popular streamers getting literally showered with money. There is definitely some rational subset of population that will stop donating once it's clear the artist has made it. My theory is that when you give money to someone it's a commitment that you like them. And once you like them, you are more likely to contribute more money. I'd wager for top artist this effect will dominate the rational people curbing donations effect.

Re: Non-Fungible Taylor Swift

#142

Post by exolymph »

kin wrote: post #116

The thing is, Taylor's version sounds completely different. Did Ben Thompson actually look at streaming numbers? All her fans didn't flock to the new version. They listened to it, but it's so different that the old version is still consistently streamed likely by the same fans. Further, the new version isn't on some new platform or anything. It's not like Taylor Swift asked fans to fork extra money to listen to "Tayl…

The new Fearless just dropped, it's not like the streaming numbers are going to equalize overnight. Can you link the data? Sounds like it's interesting

Re: Non-Fungible Taylor Swift

#143

Post by samatman »

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've listened to Glenn Gould's first and last Goldberg Variations dozens of times each, probably hundreds for the first one (I had a CD back when that was a thing).

I still couldn't tell you which one I like better. I'm very glad they both exist.

I haven't listened to the new Fearless, more of a Reputation guy anyway, so I don't know if it's directly comparable.

But what she's doing is smart. More power to her.

Re: Non-Fungible Taylor Swift

#144

Post by boomlinde »

majormajor wrote: post #133
Aaargh20318 wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. Obviously these are two different things! Yes, they are two different things. The problem is that artists (and record labels) want to get paid for the non-scarce thing: the copies, and not for the actually scarce thing:…

> The solution then would be to find a way to charge not for the copies, but for the time effort that the artist put into the production of the music. That's literally what charging for the copies does, though. People just want something for nothing. Claiming you want to "take the copy for free but pay separately for the time" when you aren't willing to pay for the copy so that there is some reimbursment for the time…

> That's literally what charging for the copies does, though. People just want something for nothing.

I pay about 10€/mo for Spotify. A significant portion of my use of the service is devoted to artists that are dead. They can't put time and effort into producing music. They can't be reimbursed for the time and effort they've already put into it. I could bury the gold with them, but they wouldn't have any use for it because they're dead.

The difference is especially important because options are cropping up for actually funding artists and other creatives by paying for their work, not copies of the results. Kickstarter, Patreon etc.

Re: Non-Fungible Taylor Swift

#145

Post by samatman »

packetslave wrote: post #136
eric_b wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

She was given the opportunity to purchase her masters and she thought the price was too high. So they sold them to someone who would pay more. It's definitely about the money to some extent - she wasn't willing to pony up what it would take to buy them.

That's one side of the story. TS's side is that Big Machine refused to sell her the rights unless she signed a new contract with them, which she didn't want to do.

Specifically, they wouldn't even negotiate unless she signed an NDA with a nondisparagement clause.

Which she wouldn't do, and I wouldn't either: never agree to nondisparagement without substantial consideration.

Re: Non-Fungible Taylor Swift

#146

Post by hamstercat »

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!

It's a business arrangement, not an emotional relationship. They backed her because they thought they'd make a profit, and they did. They owe each other absolutely nothing else.

Most people can't afford to stand up for themselves, I'm glad she's doing it.

Re: Non-Fungible Taylor Swift

#147

Post by TylerE »

lopis wrote: post #76
Aaargh20318 wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. Obviously these are two different things! Yes, they are two different things. The problem is that artists (and record labels) want to get paid for the non-scarce thing: the copies, and not for the actually scarce thing:…

That's the reason why many youtubers on patreon switch to a monthly subscription rather than charging per video. It makes it clearer that we are supporting the creator's livelihood, not buying a token that they produced. Would anyone pay for a Taylor Swift subscription if that meant she could relax and produce music as she sees fit? Higher subscription tiers could include merchandising and concert tickets.

Neil Young has done pretty much exactly that.

https://neilyoungarchives.com/

Re: Non-Fungible Taylor Swift

#148

Post by theNJR »

coredog64 wrote: post #52
Quarrelsome wrote: post #20

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 m…

Something similar happened recently with Dave Chappelle. He asked his fans to stop watching Chappelle Show on Netflix. This depressed the value of the asset low enough that he was able to buy back the rights.

Chappelle was brought up in the article ;)

Re: Non-Fungible Taylor Swift

#149

Post by prox »

samatman wrote: post #140
majormajor wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The solution then would be to find a way to charge not for the copies, but for the time effort that the artist put into the production of the music. That's literally what charging for the copies does, though. People just want something for nothing. Claiming you want to "take the copy for free but pay separately for the time" when you aren't willing to pay for the copy so that there is some reimbursment for the time…

That's fine, and you're right about the economic incentive to charge for copies. I happen to resent the use of legal force to do so, and I'm not alone. I belong to the Napster generation, where the muscle arm of the copyright industry destroyed one of the most promising new applications for the Internet, instead of rolling with it and reaching some kind of mutually-beneficial arrangment. We're all still pretty mad ab…

What’s your take on BitClout?

Re: Non-Fungible Taylor Swift

#150

Post by sumtechguy »

megaman821 wrote: post #123
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…

I don't think Nilay was talking about digital copies. The abundance of music on the internet has hurt artists like Taylor Swift. Taylor Swift's album wouldn't even be in the top 10 sales of 80's albums. It looks even worse if you consider the US had 100 million less people than now (nearly a third less).

Can not remember where I heard this theory but it goes something like this. As more music is created the value of existing music goes down. Basically the idea is adding 1 more song to the pool of millions of others has little value no mater how good/bad that particular song is. As lets say it is the most amazing song ever. I still have a library of millions of other songs to pick from. It is an interesting economic theory.

The other problem for music is 4 fold. 1) many people use 'radio' basically spotify or some streaming service like it. 2) Most people buy songs not albums 3) many times people 'age out'. 4) I can choose from a catalog that is decades old all of the previous years of top 100s and get something good to listen to.

Now there are exceptions where there are collectors in that they must buy everything. But most people are not collectors they are renters or listeners. Many people just want that one song they like and maybe a couple of others. So you can not make 10-15 off them, you make maybe 1-2 dollars, and depending on your contract much less. Also people 'age out'. For example most of the artists I like most are 'done'. They have either disbanded or just not making anything new and going on concert sales. I also have little interest in newer stuff (because I no longer have the inclination or time to devote to it that I used to). Sure I buy a bit here and there or listen to something from streaming but nothing like what I used to do and own hundreds of CDs.

Post reply on HN