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

Disney’s Taylor Swift Era

stratechery.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 87 posts

Re: Disney’s Taylor Swift Era

#61

Post by whinenot »

taylodl wrote: post #56
racl101 wrote: post #8

I still could not accurately identify one of her songs by audio if my life depended on it OR if someone offered me $100 million I'd definitely lose out on that money. Yet, she is the biggest popstar on the planet. It's weird, somehow she is everywhere in image and presence but the art she produces eludes me. On the other hand, there are catchy songs like the Benny Hill theme that I know by heart, yet I could not name…

Her music isn't that hard to identify, even if you don't listen to it. It has a country-folk song structure, and a simple rhyme scheme. Listen to a few songs and you'll see what I mean. Meanwhile, I'm coming from the other side - I'm a musician and I've been wondering why is it I don't care much for the music of the biggest pop star on the planet? Usually when it comes to the "pop tarts" as I call them, they have som…

> use of a saxophone in modern pop music

Ahh, the halcyon days of damn near every 80's Top 40 hit.

Re: Disney’s Taylor Swift Era

#62

Post by kibwen »

WORMS_EAT_WORMS wrote: post #14
racl101 wrote: post #8

I still could not accurately identify one of her songs by audio if my life depended on it OR if someone offered me $100 million I'd definitely lose out on that money. Yet, she is the biggest popstar on the planet. It's weird, somehow she is everywhere in image and presence but the art she produces eludes me. On the other hand, there are catchy songs like the Benny Hill theme that I know by heart, yet I could not name…

> I still could not accurately identify one of her songs by audio if my life depended on it OR if someone offered me $100 million I'd definitely lose out on that money. Lies.

Both this comment and the comment it's responding to are indicative of people living in their own bubbles. It's entirely reasonable that plenty of people just don't expose themselves to contexts where they would have had any opportunity to hear any given musical genre. This is easier than it's ever been since the invention of radio, thanks to the fracturing of culture via recommendation algorithms and the long tail that the internet facilitates.

Re: Disney’s Taylor Swift Era

#63

Post by racl101 »

rospaya wrote: post #48
WORMS_EAT_WORMS wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I still could not accurately identify one of her songs by audio if my life depended on it OR if someone offered me $100 million I'd definitely lose out on that money. Lies.

If you don't listen to the radio, how could you hear them? I'm probably in the only demographic that doesn't have swifties, most people my age streams movies and uses adblockers so I honestly couldn't identify a song by her if I didn't write her name in Youtube just to see what the deal is. Music is so fragmented these days that there's no comparison to Pink Floyd and Rolling Stones days. M/30+/not the US

That's pretty much me to a T. Don't listen to the radio since I stopped working in the service industry, have adblockers, don't have cable.

But you know what is probably the biggest factor for me: I am single and don't have kids.

Save for commuting to work or the supermarket or the occasional outing, I almost live under the proverbial rock.

Re: Disney’s Taylor Swift Era

#64

Post by samcat116 »

taylodl wrote: post #56
racl101 wrote: post #8

I still could not accurately identify one of her songs by audio if my life depended on it OR if someone offered me $100 million I'd definitely lose out on that money. Yet, she is the biggest popstar on the planet. It's weird, somehow she is everywhere in image and presence but the art she produces eludes me. On the other hand, there are catchy songs like the Benny Hill theme that I know by heart, yet I could not name…

Her music isn't that hard to identify, even if you don't listen to it. It has a country-folk song structure, and a simple rhyme scheme. Listen to a few songs and you'll see what I mean. Meanwhile, I'm coming from the other side - I'm a musician and I've been wondering why is it I don't care much for the music of the biggest pop star on the planet? Usually when it comes to the "pop tarts" as I call them, they have som…

Nothing from Folklore or Evermore?

Re: Disney’s Taylor Swift Era

#65

Post by giantrobot »

alexpotato wrote: post #19

I remember reading the following quote about music in the 1950s and 60s: "Prior to this era, there was no distinction between music adults and teenagers listened to. E.g. Frank Sinatra was popular with multiple age demographics. Starting in the late 1950s, being a cool teenager meant that you liked music that was different than what your parents listened to. This was first seen with rock and roll." It's interesting t…

I think Taylor Swift is a unique case. Not unrepeatable, just currently unique.

For one she is genuinely talented. Many pretty singers are in fact terrible song writers and mediocre musicians. Their hits are often written by middle aged men, occasionally middle aged women, and rarely themselves and pulled from fake books.

Taylor Swift can write music, sing, dance, and even play her music so she is in rare company with those talents. It helps her a great deal she is attractive. There's plenty of talented women in music that aren't/haven't been as successful because they aren't "pretty".

The second part of her uniqueness is she came up in an age of peak media saturation and peak ease of distribution. When Taylor Swift started the Internet was already big and she had a significant online following. iTunes ascension was also happening so she could easily sell to people only wanting singles rather than whole CDs which maximized her sales under the price/demand curve. P2P file trading was also prominent so she got even more space under the price/demand curve.

The third part of her uniqueness is her age. She's positioned right between Millennials and Gen Z which are both pretty large demographic cohorts. Even her early work was fairly mature (considering her biological age) so it didn't just appeal to people her age. If she was ten years older I don't think she'd have her current level of impact, it would be significant but might not straddle generations so she'd have far fewer younger fans.

The situation in the 50s and 60s was very different. Distribution was harder and more expensive, there were fewer radio stations, and music on TV was very limited. Not to mention just fewer radios and TVs. A household might have one of each but it wouldn't be until the later 60s you might expect a teenager to have their own record player or radio in their bedroom.

By the time of Taylor Swift it would be uncommon for a middle class teenager to not have at least their own radio. A non-trivial segment had their own computers by then so could easily access Taylor Swift's online presence, fan-based or direct.

So I'm not sure her appeal to multiple age brackets being the overall industry coming full circle but instead some unique factors of Taylor Swift individually.

Re: Disney’s Taylor Swift Era

#66

Post by TheGRS »

gumby wrote: post #50

The connection with Disney in the title seemed weird but it makes sense. The nut of his thesis is that we don't actually want to live our whole lives online, though things that are easier there (say buying singles) won't return to the real world. Two two revenue moat opportunities: 1 - physical experiences and 2 - customer "investment" drives enthusiasm, as a kind of brand-fueled sunk cost fallacy. Successful b2c bus…

Yes, the brands they own that don't have good multipliers seem like they're starting to slow them down. Stuff like Marvel and Star Wars integrate into their system extremely well.

ESPN is odd because it is a multiplier on its own, but doesn't really seem to generate any money outside of advertising. The sports teams and their own live events benefit from the ESPN system though. I don't know who would buy that brand, it made the most sense as its own cash cow.

Personally I've seen Disney weather many storms in the past, they have pushed out a lot of stinkers and have even had long periods of duds. But their back catalog and branding always remained strong. Disneyland will probably continue to make profitable returns and continue to be a destination. And honestly they may have just focused on the wrong things when it came to streaming, its possible it'll rally with a different focus, like something that strengthens their brand in the long run. I guess I don't really see Disney declining in the wrong run as long as they can make adjustments and play to their strengths again, while ditching the stuff that is weighing them down.

Re: Disney’s Taylor Swift Era

#68

Post by aworks »

dfxm12 wrote: post #40
throw7 wrote: post #5

All these fathers with their daughters. ;) I'm happy for them, but dude really: "I’ve been here for 21 years I can’t remember anything as important as these Taylor Swift tickets"

It's Bill Simmons talking in a podcast. He's trying to harness some of the Swift-a-mania and to get more focus on himself.

I'm a heavy Bill Simmons podcast listener as well as with other podcasts on the Ringer Network. I had only head music by Taylor Swift sporadically in the past.

Those podcast discussions about Swift in the last several years have heightened my awareness of her music. I'm not particularly a fan but I now stream each new release.

I think media publicity benefits both sides. And my experience of the world is slightly bigger as well.

Re: Disney’s Taylor Swift Era

#69

Post by taylodl »

whinenot wrote: post #61
taylodl wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Her music isn't that hard to identify, even if you don't listen to it. It has a country-folk song structure, and a simple rhyme scheme. Listen to a few songs and you'll see what I mean. Meanwhile, I'm coming from the other side - I'm a musician and I've been wondering why is it I don't care much for the music of the biggest pop star on the planet? Usually when it comes to the "pop tarts" as I call them, they have som…

> use of a saxophone in modern pop music Ahh, the halcyon days of damn near every 80's Top 40 hit.

Max Martin recycles well!

Re: Disney’s Taylor Swift Era

#70

Post by giantrobot »

duxup wrote: post #41
alexpotato wrote: post #19

I remember reading the following quote about music in the 1950s and 60s: "Prior to this era, there was no distinction between music adults and teenagers listened to. E.g. Frank Sinatra was popular with multiple age demographics. Starting in the late 1950s, being a cool teenager meant that you liked music that was different than what your parents listened to. This was first seen with rock and roll." It's interesting t…

I certainly saw the claimed fracturing of music along various demographic lines but I always wondered how true it was. It certainly felt that way and it was talked about... but people I knew always listened to a variety of music. The running joke on Youtube about something like Wilson Philips "Hold on" was that "Somewhere out there there's is rocking out to this song". I don't doubt there were differences among demog…

> It certainly felt that way and it was talked about... but people I knew always listened to a variety of music.

Before about 2000 I think you'd find most people, not all but most, tended to listen to smaller varieties of music. Top40/Pop radio stations played a very safe middle ground of music. There was never anything too avant-garde or experimental. The 70s and 80s saw a lot of radio stations cropping up targeting particular genres rather than just one late night DJ that loved that genre. This included "oldies" stations catering to previous decades' Top40 back catalogs. Big record stores were very clearly organized by genre which was copied by the big box stores when they started carrying significant music sections.

It wasn't until finding single tracks online was easy that I think many people branched out with musical styles. Someone hearing a single on the radio of a genre they didn't normally listen to were unlikely to go drop $15 (in 199x dollars) on a whole CD of that artist. Relatively few artists actually released CD singles (in the US) so that $15 entry fee to a new genre wasn't trivial.

Fast forward to the early 00s in the era of P2P and iTunes (the clear industry juggernaut) and singles were now readily available. If you wanted that one rap or dance track you could easily get it without dropping $15 on a whole album. YouTube and then streaming just made this sort of thing even easier and cheaper. Someone spending $10 a month on music in 1993 had access to far fewer choices than someone spending the same amount today.

Post reply on HN