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

121–130 of 245 posts

Re: Non-Fungible Taylor Swift

#121

Post by ppod »

bombcar wrote: post #119
ppod wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The middle man is a load balancer for risk. The middleman makes a bunch of artists moderately rich, and they lose money on most of them and make money on some of them. They take on the risk of letting an unproven artist spend a few years doing something that could turn out to generate little money, and in return they get a big share of the ones that do make money. Now, thanks to the internet, the ones that do make it…

In theory things like YouTube and Patreon could provide that gap - but not sure it actually will.

Don't get me wrong, I like the internet. It is almost free to record and publish material now, which probably far outweighs the value that is captured by the fat cats.

Re: Non-Fungible Taylor Swift

#122

Post by savanaly »

runarberg wrote: post #113
BitwiseFool wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Part of me finds it ironic that so many leftist podcasts rake in big bucks on Patreon.

Why? Do socialists not deserve to earn the value of their work?

It's not that they don't deserve it, it's that it's ironic.

Re: Non-Fungible Taylor Swift

#123

Post by megaman821 »

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).

Re: Non-Fungible Taylor Swift

#124

Post by pedrosorio »

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 does not seem to be the case in Twitch, for example. The largest creators just amass larger and larger numbers of subscribers ($5/month) even though it is public knowledge that these people are making >$1M/month in some cases.

Re: Non-Fungible Taylor Swift

#125

Post by villasv »

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).

Yes, and considering Ben's past writing on Stratechery, this is also a constant argument of his. The Internet is abundant of alternative-but-same-quality content, not just copies of a single original source.

Re: Non-Fungible Taylor Swift

#126

Post by bombcar »

eric_b wrote: post #86
IneffablePigeon wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 pr…

No, the problem isn't that the critics disagreed with me - the problem is that every critical write up I found said this new release was amazing, breathtaking, incredible, brave, [insert extreme superlative here] etc. Not one review I found had the guts to say "eh, 15 is abysmal on the new record, especially compared to the raw energy and feeling of the original". It's OK to like the new version, but to say it's brav…

I would be suspect of reviews in general - you'd need to find a group of experts without bias (if you want a review of the technical aspects) or of fans who have had enough time to "digest" both versions.

Amusingly enough someone like Apple could get answers over time by watching play counts of both for people who have both versions.

Re: Non-Fungible Taylor Swift

#127

Post by yks »

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…

Suckers or not, but people do donate to visibly rich people, e.g. Trump.

Re: Non-Fungible Taylor Swift

#128

Post by eric_b »

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…

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.

Re: Non-Fungible Taylor Swift

#130

Post by bombcar »

maxerickson wrote: post #56
imwillofficial wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“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.

I think there are probably more people that make ~$5-10 million and chill out than there are people north of $100 million. Lots of people likely do keep doing productive things that they enjoy, without the number mattering much. People at the top of banking are likely motivated by things like status and winning as much as by how many millions they have.

If you're the type to chill out when you've hit a certain amount you're unlikely to climb to $100m - as you've already chilled out long before. Bill Waterson vs Jim Davis.
Post reply on HN