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

71–80 of 245 posts

Re: Non-Fungible Taylor Swift

#71

Post by aaroninsf »

tshaddox wrote: post #35
apples_oranges wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 i…

I think we might disagree on the extent to which the collectible sports card is valuable because of its unique physical materials, and the extent to which it’s valuable because of “human imagination.” I think the latter is responsible for the overwhelming share of the value of a sports card, and the former is only a historical coincidence that creating rare and difficult to counterfeit items was only practical by fab…

I have been looking for a useful formulation, or metaphor,

for why the NFT premise feels so [preposterously] wrong to many including myself.

Here is one idea, for how we intuit value:

As a fraction, in which non-fungibility (~= "authenticity") is the denominator; nominal value (whatever that is, a function of context etc.) is the numerator.

In the sports card example, a physical object with a provenance has intrinsic guarantees of uniqueness.

Low uniqueness means high intuited value.

In the NFT case, a hash has non-intrinsic guarantees. They are provable; they are not perceptible.

Uncertain uniqueness means low intuited value.

It's not that it's not provably unique; it's that if we don't perceive it, no one cares.

Perceptible and provable for us monkeys is a serious and real difference.

That's the general idea. The edges are full of corners, for sure, e.g. a counterfeit or reproduction can be exacting enough to create a new game for us to play (I am reminded of the rabbit hole of reproduction collectible watches...)... the quest of authenticity has a fractal quality in the case of mass-produced but limited goods (what edition number? What pressing? The one with the misaligned cyan?)...

...but in the 80% case, I think it's simply, we monkeys like objects; ideas remain a hard sell.

My own belief is this is so deeply baked into the relationship between our world modeling that it will not be overcome through culture.

A lemma might be, non-fungibility is less important than materiality.

Authenticity for fungible goods, like gold, is persistent, in part because they are fungible. It's their material (perceptible provability) that reassures us.

I believe this is rooted in intuitions about the scale and durability of consensus on value containers, which appears until recently to have been in the long view winner-take-all, in the case of things without pragmatic use-value.

Re: Non-Fungible Taylor Swift

#73

Post by nickysielicki »

anonymouse008 wrote: post #41
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…

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…

I gave both a listen after reading this comment. To my ear, the difference is just that her voice much more mature as a 31 year old than it was when the song released 12 years ago and she was 19, and that naturally makes it harder to believe the small-town highschool themed lyrics. Her voice is too deep to sound like a teenager anymore.

Re: Non-Fungible Taylor Swift

#74

Post by nickysielicki »

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…

I agree, but I feel you've missed the biggest part: if anyone wants to license the song for usage in a commercial / TV show / whatever, she can undercut Big Machine at any price she wants. There's a market now where there otherwise wouldn't be one. It's more like, "You won't sell them to me? I'll introduce a viable alternative to them and drive the value of both to zero."

Re: Non-Fungible Taylor Swift

#75

Post by mattnewton »

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…

> Swift is talking about "music" as an original work. Patel responds with an irrelevant point about digital copies of music.

I didn’t read it as such, I read it as “art” - new, good music I find enjoyable - being produced by so many artists in such quantities to not be rare anymore. There may be only one Taylor Swift but there are hundreds of pop artists around the world who continuously produce music I enjoy comparably (sometimes with the help of the same team that produces Swift songs) and many thousands more with 1 hit or so I enjoy more.

People want Swift’s music at a price, but not necessarily at more than that because they have alternatives to listen to that are cheaper. Demand at a current price doesn’t prove that the actual value of something is higher.

I think where Swift is unique and rare has just as much to do with the timbre and size of her brand.

Re: Non-Fungible Taylor Swift

#76

Post by lopis »

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:…

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.

Re: Non-Fungible Taylor Swift

#77

Post by paxys »

johnwheeler wrote: post #32
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 thought the exact same thing. I think Taylor’s real error was in saying anything at all. When someone rich and famous (or even just famous) makes a case for making money, no matter how sound, they open themselves up for attack. I’m not saying they’re wrong to do so, just that the populace isn’t inclined to understand.

Taylor Swift has made very successful arguments in favor of making money throughout her career. She made Apple Music pay artists during a user's trial period. She has the clear moral and financial win in the whole album rights affair. She has always advocated for bigger payouts for streaming.

Two things she does right:

- she is always fighting on behalf of every artist, not just herself

- her beef is always with much larger companies (Apple, Spotify, record labels) so it's easy for people to take her side

Re: Non-Fungible Taylor Swift

#78

Post by mattnewton »

Y_Y wrote: post #64
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.

I don’t even think good songs are exceptionally rare anymore. The number of incredibly talented artists who can be discovered over the internet direct to consumers now is pretty high.

Re: Non-Fungible Taylor Swift

#79

Post by tshaddox »

aaroninsf wrote: post #71
tshaddox wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think we might disagree on the extent to which the collectible sports card is valuable because of its unique physical materials, and the extent to which it’s valuable because of “human imagination.” I think the latter is responsible for the overwhelming share of the value of a sports card, and the former is only a historical coincidence that creating rare and difficult to counterfeit items was only practical by fab…

I have been looking for a useful formulation, or metaphor, for why the NFT premise feels so [preposterously] wrong to many including myself. Here is one idea, for how we intuit value: As a fraction, in which non-fungibility (~= "authenticity") is the denominator; nominal value (whatever that is, a function of context etc.) is the numerator. In the sports card example, a physical object with a provenance has intrinsic…

I think your intuition sounds pretty reasonable and probably matches most people’s intuition including my own. But I think it’s mistaken.

Even for physical objects like paintings or sports cards, the matter of provenance is extraordinarily difficult to ascertain. Counterfeiters are really good at what they do, and determining authenticity of very valuable items is presumably impossible for all but a few experts, to the extent that what you’re buying can really be thought of as a physical object along with some easily-verifiable (often through digital means!) claim of authenticity from a trusted group. In cases like this it’s pretty silly to place such emphasis on the provenance of the physical object itself!

Re: Non-Fungible Taylor Swift

#80

Post by lucideer »

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?

Because Swift is not talking about music (by your definition). Swift is also talking about digital copies of music.

And with your differentiation you've made Patel's point very well: Swift is taking a valid argument for paying for music and through conflation of the two, she is arguing that it should also apply to digital copies of music. This is the actual fallacy here.

Post reply on HN