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

61–70 of 245 posts

Re: Non-Fungible Taylor Swift

#61

Post by lm28469 »

IneffablePigeon wrote: post #10
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 pr…

This phenomenon happens when you compare anything similar side to side.

Every time I fire up my calibrated color profile for my pc screen the colors look all wrong for a few minutes, even though I know they are the absolute "right" colors. So when it comes to topics with no rights or wrongs it's even more subjective, try with wine or whisky, TV screens, driving sensations in a car, sitting on a chair &c.

You'll always find someone to argue X is right and Y is wrong but in the end it's 100% subjective, you know you're in for a ride when people start talking about missing "soul", "magic", "unquantifiable and unmeasurable qualities"

Re: Non-Fungible Taylor Swift

#62

Post by protomyth »

soperj wrote: post #40
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…

I've had the same thing happen with live versions. The Pixies play "Where is my mind" very differently live, the vocal lines especially. First time I heard it was jarring because of the expectation and I didn't think it was good as the recorded version. Recorded version feels much worse now.

I hate, just hate, the album version of Kiss's God of Thunder, but they speed it up live and it sounds amazing. STP was amazing in the Fargo Civic Center which makes me think the person who mixed their album just hated life because it is noticeably inferior. On the other hand, Aerosmith has sounded like crap the two times I've seen them in concert.

It gets weird when you buy the import (for the US) versions of some songs. A lot of the Seattle bands sounded better to my ear on the versions sold in Europe. Japan is always an odd duck.

Re: Non-Fungible Taylor Swift

#63

Post by packetslave »

imwillofficial wrote: post #47
packetslave wrote: post #30

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.

Fair. I'm just saying she's probably not ONLY motivated by earning more money to feed her cats. If it was all about a cash grab, she'd be releasing more new music, which would (presumably) sell better than re-treads of her first 6 albums. She's already released two new pandemic albums, it's not like she's likely to run out of things to say anytime soon.

Re: Non-Fungible Taylor Swift

#64

Post by Y_Y »

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…

What about when the "free alternatives" are identical copies. Good songs are rare, bad songs are plentiful, but digital copies of both are limitless.

Re: Non-Fungible Taylor Swift

#65

Post by speedyapoc »

zabzonk wrote: post #43
speedyapoc wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree, but I think that's just a short term effect of people trying to cash in on the hype. Suppose I'm an artist that releases a limited digital run of an album and that NFTs are used to attribute ownership of the digital release. Would this have more, equal, or less value than an artist doing the same thing but with a physical limited run album release? The actual music content can be pirated and made available j…

> Would this have more, equal, or less value Surely it depends on how much you like the music? > However, I feel like many people argue that the digital release via NFTs would be worth less because all you have to show for your ownership is a digital token Correct. I value my vinyl copy of "Live Dead" by The Grateful Dead because I have had it for nearly 50 years, have played it countless times, rolled joints on it,…

I appreciate the perspective.

> Having said that, most of my music is on MP3s, but the idea that referring to them via some block chain crap will give them "value" is just silly.

I think the point here is that verifying ownership of digital goods is hard, because they are so easily reproduced identically. Blockchain technology and NFTs are one way to solve this problem because it allows you to have a verifiable chain of ownership which cannot be modified or faked. (ie. if a music release was as simple as the artist distributing an MP3 to 10 people, it would be impossible to tell who actually owned the "original" MP3).

Is it unreasonable to think that in 50 years, someone might look back at the limited digital release they got of their favourite album as fondly as you look back on your Live Dead record, and then pass that digital ownership down to their next of kin? It's a concept that's been explored time and time again physically but seems weirdly uncharted for anything digital.

Re: Non-Fungible Taylor Swift

#66

Post by ska »

dsr_ wrote: post #19
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…

[Not a Taylor Swift fan or hater] There is a common sequence of events in creator-driven popular entertainment, where an author or musician becomes too big to edit (or produce, if you prefer). The later works have a tendency to be bigger, looser, and lacking the focus that characterized the earlier works. Oft-cited examples: Steven King, Anne Rice, Tom Clancy, Alanis Morrissette, Tori Amos, Maroon Five, Aerosmith. I…

This cuts both ways. In music particularly, inexperienced acts may not have much choice in producer, and production can radically change things. Sometimes what you hear later is the artists own voice, for good or for ill. Possible example, strings arrangements on Tom Waits early albums.

Re: Non-Fungible Taylor Swift

#67

Post by karpierz »

Aaargh20318 wrote: post #59
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…

> 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:…

Artists want to be paid proportional to impact; how many people are interacting with the work. I'd love to move to a world where media is funded in advance (regardless of effort) and then released for free, but I don't think that pricing music based on effort, as though it were a factory good is desirable.

Re: Non-Fungible Taylor Swift

#68

Post by kevin_thibedeau »

sodality2 wrote: post #14
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 was more than a money grab- I think it was a giant middle finger as well to the company.

> giant middle finger as well to the company.

How dare the people who supported, developed, and promoted a young performer get a return on their investment.

Re: Non-Fungible Taylor Swift

#69

Post by kevin_thibedeau »

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.

Chapelle Show doesn't drive subscriptions. Holding out on any more comedy specials is what made them capitulate.

Re: Non-Fungible Taylor Swift

#70

Post by [deleted] »

IneffablePigeon wrote: post #10
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 pr…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN