Non-Fungible Taylor Swift

#1

Post by juokaz » Mon, Apr 12, 2021, 2:17 PM UTC

Non-Fungible Taylor Swift
stratechery.com

Re: Non-Fungible Taylor Swift

#2

Post by seibelj » Mon, Apr 12, 2021, 3:11 PM UTC

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. The actual item itself is secondary to the story it tells.

Re: Non-Fungible Taylor Swift

#3

Post by eric_b » Mon, Apr 12, 2021, 3:14 PM UTC

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 looking for reviews of the "new" album and I only found critics gushing over how great the remakes are. Did they even listen? Did they compare? Sounds like it was just a money grab justified with a healthy dose of moral outrage.

Re: Non-Fungible Taylor Swift

#4

Post by hobs » Mon, Apr 12, 2021, 3:17 PM UTC

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.

Re: Non-Fungible Taylor Swift

#5

Post by jtbayly » Mon, Apr 12, 2021, 3:18 PM UTC

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."

Re: Non-Fungible Taylor Swift

#6

Post by apples_oranges » Mon, Apr 12, 2021, 3:19 PM UTC

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 in the same sense (you could scan it and put a jpg of it online for example).

Also the card will stay in this world for a long time if protected from weather and light, I assume, where as the NFT needs to be constantly kept alive by "mining". I agree it's similar, but it's also different. And interesting. At least to me. :) Also value is relative, of course. I mean: One man's collectible is another woman's trash. It probably needs a certain shared set of beliefs/illusions to agree that something like that has value.

Re: Non-Fungible Taylor Swift

#7

Post by throwawaysea » Mon, Apr 12, 2021, 3:20 PM UTC

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?

Re: Non-Fungible Taylor Swift

#8

Post by zabzonk » Mon, Apr 12, 2021, 3:21 PM UTC

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.

Re: Non-Fungible Taylor Swift

#9

Post by the_local_host » Mon, Apr 12, 2021, 3:24 PM UTC

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.

Re: Non-Fungible Taylor Swift

#10

Post by IneffablePigeon » Mon, Apr 12, 2021, 3:26 PM UTC

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's possibly a bit rich to say that they didn't listen to it just because they had a different opinion.

I found the same thing on first listen, because a few things were subtly "wrong" (different). On second or third listen I love the new version, the production and vocals are just that little bit more polished in a fair few ways and I've gotten used to the slightly different mix. The new bonus tracks are pretty decent and it's nice to rediscover one of my favourite albums again.

It wasn't at all dissimilar to the effect I get when trying new headphones - I hate them for a little while, invariably. Then I get used to the new tonal balance and I learn to love the sound (if they're good headphones)