51–60 of 245 posts
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 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…
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 fallac…
Look, I can record a song and release it on iTunes (and all the others) using Distrokid.
This doesn't mean it's good music that people will listen to, or would sell at all.
Art is subjective obviously, but when you like something you know you like it, and when you don't like something you know you don't like it.
But just because there's a ton of music out there doesn't make it good, or therefore valuable.
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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
People at the top of banking are likely motivated by things like status and winning as much as by how many millions they have.
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…
And I'm not sure I'm convinced by what you're saying, I think people mostly pay for Taylor Swift because she has a brand with a lot of marketing and everything that comes with it, you hear her on the radio, on TV, then you're familiar with her work and style so you buy it to hear it again because it's convenient and music discovery is hard, the art is just the minimum requirement to enable the marketing. That's only my opinion as a consumer, I have no industry knowledge.
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…
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…
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 artists time and effort. This is why people don't see pirating music as stealing, while at the same time they are more than willing to pay a small fortune for a concert ticket.
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.
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…
One example I'm familiar with is the Catch-22 album Keasbey Nights. This was a ska-punk album recorded in 1998 and is one of my favorite albums of all time. The songwriter and lead singer from the band, Tomas Kalnoky, left the band shortly after the album was released. He eventually formed the group Streetlight Manifesto. In the mid-200s, Victory Records was going to re-release the album. Instead, Streetlight Manifesto re-recorded the album to fix all the things Kalnoky didn't like about the original. It's still very similar but has less charm to me than the original.