Non-Fungible Taylor Swift(stratechery.com)
stratechery.com
Non-Fungible Taylor Swift
https://stratechery.com/2021/non-fungible-taylor-swift/
241 comments
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.
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.
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.
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 fabricating physical items.
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 fabricating physical items.
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.
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.
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!
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!
Don't discount humanity's desire for the abstract.
Love, truth, justice, honor, patriotism, status, etc.
So long as there is consensus that a thing exists (tangibly or intangibly) and is desirable, there will be demand.
Love, truth, justice, honor, patriotism, status, etc.
So long as there is consensus that a thing exists (tangibly or intangibly) and is desirable, there will be demand.
They're quite perceptible. A lower probability of being hacked than one divided by the number of grains of sand in a billion planets.
Thanks. This is exactly my current understanding of the situation regarding NFTs, only articulated better than I could
There's a good chance that "mining" will out live some pieces of cardboard. Even if the blockchain du jour becomes a thing o the past, it might live on in some device in an emulator thanks to Moore's Law.
You do realize that you're comparing a medium that routinely stores information for 350 years versus a field where something saved 10 years ago invariably demands considerable resources to access?
But sadly the URL the NFT points to will probably be long gone.
> Ultimately it has value because people agree it has value.
This feels like a pyramid scheme. What makes it different?
This feels like a pyramid scheme. What makes it different?
The old object-observer duality. Where is the value in this case? It is in the observer, not in the object. It goes in a different layer.
The problem there is that culture, social conventions, shared fictions and so on can be manipulated/twisted/adapted to some agenda or interest, and that includes what we feel valuable or not, without minding of what is really behind (like with bitcoins and similar). Once we took this route, all kinds of mirages can appear. And they can vanish into thin air as fast as they appeared.
The problem there is that culture, social conventions, shared fictions and so on can be manipulated/twisted/adapted to some agenda or interest, and that includes what we feel valuable or not, without minding of what is really behind (like with bitcoins and similar). Once we took this route, all kinds of mirages can appear. And they can vanish into thin air as fast as they appeared.
Tulip Mania
> This feels like a pyramid scheme.
It is. My Google-fu is failing me but there was a famous art dealer in the early part of the 20th century who promised that he would buy back the pieces he sold at least for the price the buyer originally paid less some minuscule percentage if the buyer could not sell the pieces to someone else. It made paints he sold significantly go up in price. He died. Buyers tried to get his estate to pay for the paintings and failed.
It is. My Google-fu is failing me but there was a famous art dealer in the early part of the 20th century who promised that he would buy back the pieces he sold at least for the price the buyer originally paid less some minuscule percentage if the buyer could not sell the pieces to someone else. It made paints he sold significantly go up in price. He died. Buyers tried to get his estate to pay for the paintings and failed.
A Swedish gallery called Timeless pulled that scam recently, they sold art in galleries in Sweden and Poland (and Miami and Dubai) with the promise buy it back N months later with a yearly appreciation of at least 20% (I see here that Polish customers were promised 36%).
Nothing. NFTs are literally nothing more than a scam. People are running mental gymnastics trying to delude themselves in to believing that having a cryptographically signed json packet pointing to a dead url will be worth a fortune in the future.
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.
I've struggled wrapping my ahead around whether this line of thinking has merit or not.
I'd argue that everything you listed can be reproduced, almost identically. But there's no value in doing so since it is not the original or was never authorized by the creator. Why does this change all of a sudden once we go digital? Is it because it's so much easier to reproduce something that originates digitally?
I'd argue that everything you listed can be reproduced, almost identically. But there's no value in doing so since it is not the original or was never authorized by the creator. Why does this change all of a sudden once we go digital? Is it because it's so much easier to reproduce something that originates digitally?
> But there's no value in doing so since it is not the original or was never authorized by the creator.
So the work has no value in and of itself? It seems to me like an unauthorized reproduction of a work of art has just as much intrinsic value as the same bits labeled "original". It evokes the same emotions and forms the same memories.
I don't think this is what you actually believe about art; you probably have your "investor" hat on. In that sense you are right, there is far less liquid value in an unauthorized reproduction than there is in an authentic original. But the actual value of the work in the eyes or ears of a beholder is the same regardless of the legal, historical, or social status of a reproduction. There are probably lots of great works in art collections that owners and viewers believe are original but are in fact illegal counterfeits. But a Rembrandt is still a Rembrandt, and Bach is still Bach, even if the source is The.Well.Tempered.Clavier-xxxWAREZLORDxxx-BEST.QUALITY.torrent.
So the work has no value in and of itself? It seems to me like an unauthorized reproduction of a work of art has just as much intrinsic value as the same bits labeled "original". It evokes the same emotions and forms the same memories.
I don't think this is what you actually believe about art; you probably have your "investor" hat on. In that sense you are right, there is far less liquid value in an unauthorized reproduction than there is in an authentic original. But the actual value of the work in the eyes or ears of a beholder is the same regardless of the legal, historical, or social status of a reproduction. There are probably lots of great works in art collections that owners and viewers believe are original but are in fact illegal counterfeits. But a Rembrandt is still a Rembrandt, and Bach is still Bach, even if the source is The.Well.Tempered.Clavier-xxxWAREZLORDxxx-BEST.QUALITY.torrent.
It’s not just “going digital”—the creative act isn’t there. It’s just financialization. The act of taking an artwork to an auction house isn’t something that’ll hold value.
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 just the same, whether or not it was physical or digital. The cost of the physical goods themselves is negligible. 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, and not some sort of limited release physical item.
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 just the same, whether or not it was physical or digital. The cost of the physical goods themselves is negligible. 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, and not some sort of limited release physical item.
> 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, and even like the scratches. It's also something that cannot be exactly copied, given current technology.
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.
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, and even like the scratches. It's also something that cannot be exactly copied, given current technology.
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 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.
> 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.
I guess I don't understand what "ownership" of a bunch of bits means. Can you "own" what is basically a number?
> almost identically
But not identically. I can get a very nice print of the Mona Lisa, with very accurate colours. But it isn't at all an exact copy of the original. And I defy you to produce anything like a near-exact copy of a specific slice of bread.
But not identically. I can get a very nice print of the Mona Lisa, with very accurate colours. But it isn't at all an exact copy of the original. And I defy you to produce anything like a near-exact copy of a specific slice of bread.
You can reproduce a trading card such that it's indistinguishable to just about every human on the planet.
But not to someone using a few simple scientific tools, such as, say, a microscope.
You don't need a microscope to distinguish NFTs
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.
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.
Many modern art pieces could really be recreated. What's the difference you are trying to draw?
Digital art can be recreated easily, which is probably one reason why few people have been paying money for it.
Physical art, which people have historically paid for, is much more difficult to credibly reproduce than NFTs.
Edited to add:
Moreover if the argument in favor of NFTs is that they're not worse than what preceded them, then what's the point of introducing them? If the same problems in the traditional art market (especially for digital works) are recapitulated with NFTs, I don't see the point.
Physical art, which people have historically paid for, is much more difficult to credibly reproduce than NFTs.
Edited to add:
Moreover if the argument in favor of NFTs is that they're not worse than what preceded them, then what's the point of introducing them? If the same problems in the traditional art market (especially for digital works) are recapitulated with NFTs, I don't see the point.
You can create copies of digital art easily, of course. But you can’t create a copy of a particular NFT (assuming the blockchain software works as intended).
For most of these famous digital art NFTs, the digital work itself is widely distributed online. But of course there’s only one of each NFT.
For most of these famous digital art NFTs, the digital work itself is widely distributed online. But of course there’s only one of each NFT.
Only when the actual piece of digital art imprinted itself on the blockchain and can be viewed with any non-closed source viewer for free, then yes. Until that happens, NFT is useless apart from supply chain/authorship identification
I call this the MLM approach. The more people you can scam, the more you use the size of your scam to pretend you're legitimate, while being a scam.
"Look how many people paid money for this/look how much money was paid for this, it must be worth that money! The actual efficacy of any product sold is secondary to the amount of money I've been paid"
I understand the 'tom brady rookie card' argument but it falls apart in the digital world. A digital image of Tom Brady as a rookie is worth nothing. A print of that digital image is worth less than cost of printing it. The value of the card is that its official merchandise of limited run with no way to create 'new' old cards.
Stop pretending NFTs are physical items, stop pretending they can't be infinitely reproduced.
"Look how many people paid money for this/look how much money was paid for this, it must be worth that money! The actual efficacy of any product sold is secondary to the amount of money I've been paid"
I understand the 'tom brady rookie card' argument but it falls apart in the digital world. A digital image of Tom Brady as a rookie is worth nothing. A print of that digital image is worth less than cost of printing it. The value of the card is that its official merchandise of limited run with no way to create 'new' old cards.
Stop pretending NFTs are physical items, stop pretending they can't be infinitely reproduced.
>> For those that can’t understand the value of NFTs
...
>> it has value because people agree it has value
Yeah but let's be clear it's often just because 2 people say they agree it has value, and for all we know they're often laundering money. I can look at a motorcycle and understand why it has value to someone even though I wouldn't buy one myself even for a penny. I'm afraid I'm unable to do the same with NFTs and cans of feces from an artist.
Yeah but let's be clear it's often just because 2 people say they agree it has value, and for all we know they're often laundering money. I can look at a motorcycle and understand why it has value to someone even though I wouldn't buy one myself even for a penny. I'm afraid I'm unable to do the same with NFTs and cans of feces from an artist.
An important fact to remember about art valuation is that art can be bought and sold anonymously through private dealers who are not subject to anti money laundering regulations.
The trick is to buy some art at a reasonable price, store it in a dark warehouse for a couple of years, then anonymously buy it from yourself at an exorbitant price through shell companies with dirty money.
The trick is to buy some art at a reasonable price, store it in a dark warehouse for a couple of years, then anonymously buy it from yourself at an exorbitant price through shell companies with dirty money.
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.
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.
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)
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)
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"
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"
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.
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.
Tangential, but I've had a somewhat similar experience. Iron Maiden's "Flash of the Blade" used to be my favorite song by the band, but somehow it was not one of their biggest hits. I had it recorded on tape and would listen to it daily. When I finally had money I bought the album it was in, and couldn't not believe how bland the song sounded. Turns out the cassette player I used to play the song was speeding it up - not super noticeable on its own, but obvious if you compared it directly, and the sped up version is MUCH better.
Thinking about it, that makes a lot of sense. I listen to some of the folks on YouTube that do covers of songs. A lot of them speed up the song and it sounds better than the original. I wonder what causes that.
Is there any software that would allow the minimal speed-up to make it enjoyable to listen to again? Also, maybe check some of the live versions. I get the feeling those might be a bit faster.
Is there any software that would allow the minimal speed-up to make it enjoyable to listen to again? Also, maybe check some of the live versions. I get the feeling those might be a bit faster.
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 brave is really stretching belief.
It's like if a bunch of art critics fawned over Da Vinci making an exact copy of the Mona Lisa again. Sure, he might knock it out of the park the second time, but it's not the same.
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 brave is really stretching belief.
It's like if a bunch of art critics fawned over Da Vinci making an exact copy of the Mona Lisa again. Sure, he might knock it out of the park the second time, but it's not the same.
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.
Amusingly enough someone like Apple could get answers over time by watching play counts of both for people who have both versions.
[deleted]
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 worries some about money like most rich people, but it's likely not her primary motivation
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 worries some about money like most rich people, but it's likely not her primary motivation
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."
IIRC, she can already deny licensing for her music -- even though Big Machine owns the publishing, she still owns the songwriter rights. There are about 9,000 exceptions (music law is hard), though, so I'm not 100% sure.
But you're right that she can regain licensing rights AND screw Big Machine at the same time by re-recording. I'm sure that crossed her mind.
But you're right that she can regain licensing rights AND screw Big Machine at the same time by re-recording. I'm sure that crossed her mind.
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.
It's definitely about the money to some extent - she wasn't willing to pony up what it would take to buy them.
That's one side of the story. TS's side is that Big Machine refused to sell her the rights unless she signed a new contract with them, which she didn't want to do.
Specifically, they wouldn't even negotiate unless she signed an NDA with a nondisparagement clause.
Which she wouldn't do, and I wouldn't either: never agree to nondisparagement without substantial consideration.
Which she wouldn't do, and I wouldn't either: never agree to nondisparagement without substantial consideration.
If this really came down to a nondisparagement clause that would be shocking. Getting to make an offer on the rights to some of the best selling music of all time is itself substantial. This explanation would also diminish the emotional/moral attachment Swift still claims to her earlier works -- owning the masters meant a lot to me, but not as much as this tumblr post? The world of celebrity is bizarre so I don't know, but I think there has to be more to it than that. Either that they were never for sale to her, or the price was too high.
“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.
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.
My intended meaning was that I believe it is likely that people motivated primarily by money tend to run out of that motivation once they have $10 million. It doesn't buy a yacht or a mansion in the most famous places, but that's about it.
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.
[deleted]
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 life experiences tugging on the same song, and it hits like a ton of bricks.
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 life experiences tugging on the same song, and it hits like a ton of bricks.
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.
I've always found this apparent in Johnny Cash's covers, like "Hurt", "One", "Big Iron", or "If you could read my mind". He manages to add a different feeling to the song that changes the backstory it's suggesting. I recommend a listen and comparison against the originals if you're interested in the phenomenon.
Johnny Cash's Hurt is one of my fav. songs/versions ever. I listened to the original, and many other versions, but that one is just a few steps above
[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 don't know whether this has happened to Taylor Swift, but it's certainly a plausible explanation.
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 don't know whether this has happened to Taylor Swift, but it's certainly a plausible explanation.
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.
[deleted]
George Lucas.
Ultimately any re-creation is going to have differences from the original. Many fans are going to be attached to that original for various reasons. Even seemingly objective "improvements" are going to grate against the nostalgia for the original.
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.
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.
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.
How dare the people who supported, developed, and promoted a young performer get a return on their investment.
Uh, the people who supported developed and promoted her got, 300 mln when they sols the company and 11 years of revenue of her. Ive seen the rest of their artists and Ill assume like 90% of revenue came from T.Swift. A smart move is to not piss off the client who basicly is your whole cashflow.
Hey man, I don't have a horse in this race. But I asked my friend, she says you are dead wrong >:(
I've listened to Glenn Gould's first and last Goldberg Variations dozens of times each, probably hundreds for the first one (I had a CD back when that was a thing).
I still couldn't tell you which one I like better. I'm very glad they both exist.
I haven't listened to the new Fearless, more of a Reputation guy anyway, so I don't know if it's directly comparable.
But what she's doing is smart. More power to her.
I still couldn't tell you which one I like better. I'm very glad they both exist.
I haven't listened to the new Fearless, more of a Reputation guy anyway, so I don't know if it's directly comparable.
But what she's doing is smart. More power to her.
I agree - they're definitely different from the Big Machine versions and no where near as lively or enjoyable (and I'm a Taylor fan). Seems like they were all recorded in one day one after the other just to pump them out.
She wears high heels
I wear sneakers
She's Cheer Captain, and I'm on the bleachers
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."
It's not like the "New Taylor version" will be valued completely independently of the previous "Taylor version."
Her reputation underwrites the transaction; any transaction contributes to her reputation.
Her reputation underwrites the transaction; any transaction contributes to her reputation.
Exactly. Doing this would 'dilute' her and the "new new taylor version" would be next to worthless
I thought this was kinda the point by comparing it to NFTs. NFTs can be trivially devalued if you derive the value from that attributed to it by the author of whatever it references.
It's probably even truer for NFTs as often the NFT itself merely represents a JSON payload which itself references URLs managed by a third party and trusted to continue referencing the original work. Once that third party goes away, the reference chain breaks. The value is not only reliant on everyone agreeing that the third party "owns" (whatever this might mean) the "work" (whatever that might be) but also that the NFT continues to represent this ownership by proxy even when the proxy goes away.
There's nothing stopping a new middleman claiming authority over the ownership of a work and issuing an NFT for it. But its value entirely hinges on a shared understanding that this claim is valid.
Of course this would break down if an artist really did devalue earlier NFTs for the same work by issuing new ones because the value largely comes from the expectation that the non-fungible token's authority is also non-fungible, i.e. permanent.
It's probably even truer for NFTs as often the NFT itself merely represents a JSON payload which itself references URLs managed by a third party and trusted to continue referencing the original work. Once that third party goes away, the reference chain breaks. The value is not only reliant on everyone agreeing that the third party "owns" (whatever this might mean) the "work" (whatever that might be) but also that the NFT continues to represent this ownership by proxy even when the proxy goes away.
There's nothing stopping a new middleman claiming authority over the ownership of a work and issuing an NFT for it. But its value entirely hinges on a shared understanding that this claim is valid.
Of course this would break down if an artist really did devalue earlier NFTs for the same work by issuing new ones because the value largely comes from the expectation that the non-fungible token's authority is also non-fungible, i.e. permanent.
If we're invoking theoretical possibilities, anyone can declare another piece of are to be the new version.
I don't think re-recording albums for the purpose of attacking former business partners, who priced the intellectual property at roughly all the money that she had been paid in their previous arrangement, indicates a willingness to keep re-recording things.
I don't think re-recording albums for the purpose of attacking former business partners, who priced the intellectual property at roughly all the money that she had been paid in their previous arrangement, indicates a willingness to keep re-recording things.
The entire point of the saga was that she wants to own the masters herself (which she does with the rerecorded versions), so she would be devaluing her own asset.
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 might have a modicum of respect for her fans as opposed to someone like Jake Paul who treats his like dirt. The difference between the ages is that fans that were gatekept by organisations had many levels of PR, admin and marketing to wade through, today we have direct, raw and visceral which also can result in corrupt, unethical and even evil.
This is a pattern that could define the coming decades as society coalesces around a few chosen figures and lends them their might directly. Many of them will be found undeserving and the debris they leave might be impactful.
Pans out just fine with Taylor Swift because I figure she might have a modicum of respect for her fans as opposed to someone like Jake Paul who treats his like dirt. The difference between the ages is that fans that were gatekept by organisations had many levels of PR, admin and marketing to wade through, today we have direct, raw and visceral which also can result in corrupt, unethical and even evil.
This is a pattern that could define the coming decades as society coalesces around a few chosen figures and lends them their might directly. Many of them will be found undeserving and the debris they leave might be impactful.
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.
It doesn't sound like he had threatened that (at least not explicitly); articles about it just say he requested Netflix stop streaming it, and so they did. Of course, them expecting him to create more specials for them in the future likely motivated them here, but it doesn't sound like it was an explicit ultimatum.
Chappelle was brought up in the article ;)
I suppose we'll see contracts include the artist not "de-valuing" their "own" works in such future where they are super-stars able to shape a story to direct their fans on what to believe.
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 scarcity: there’s an endless amount of everything available to everyone.
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! If you tell your mom "I made a song" she will be quite unimpressed if what you actually mean is "I made a digital copy of a song." A book or a song or a movie is more than the bits that make up any individual copy of it.
There is a like-with-like comparison in there, but it actually hurts Patel's argument. There is no scarcity of music on the Internet--not referring to digital copies, but because the Internet has made it trivial to create and widely distribute original music (often for free). If consumers were unwilling to pay much for Swift's music because of the vast quantity of alternatives available on the Internet, Patel would indeed have a point. But consumers still want Swift's music, not other peoples' music. Even in the face of huge amounts of free alternatives, consumers still want Swift's music. That only proves Swift's point!
> 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 scarcity: there’s an endless amount of everything available to everyone.
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! If you tell your mom "I made a song" she will be quite unimpressed if what you actually mean is "I made a digital copy of a song." A book or a song or a movie is more than the bits that make up any individual copy of it.
There is a like-with-like comparison in there, but it actually hurts Patel's argument. There is no scarcity of music on the Internet--not referring to digital copies, but because the Internet has made it trivial to create and widely distribute original music (often for free). If consumers were unwilling to pay much for Swift's music because of the vast quantity of alternatives available on the Internet, Patel would indeed have a point. But consumers still want Swift's music, not other peoples' music. Even in the face of huge amounts of free alternatives, consumers still want Swift's music. That only proves Swift's point!
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
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
So some people believed in her and gave her a chance... backed her with their money ..invested in her and she re-pays them by attacking them and their investment.
I used to be a fan of her and her persona but now comes off as spoiled and unappreciative!
I used to be a fan of her and her persona but now comes off as spoiled and unappreciative!
Nothing says that just because one person paid another person--even at a risk to the person doing the paying--that the person who got paid owes them undying gratitude and appreciation forever.
Look at how many of us got hired as an employee or who got investment to try doing a startup and that relationship ended poorly. Are we, because we are not famous, obligated to always speak kindly of the person who paid us? Even if we perceive that the relationship turned out to not be good?
Just because someone is rich and famous doesn't mean they don't have the same human emotional responses as the rest of us; it just means theirs are more visible and open to attack.
I will never claim to know what Taylor Swift truly thinks of the Big Machine purchase of her masters. But, having made art of my own before, I do very much understand the emotional attachment to that art and the incredible difficulty in separating the art from the business transaction of making money from that art. That's something that the "money men" in the artistic endeavors don't usually seem to get.
Look at how many of us got hired as an employee or who got investment to try doing a startup and that relationship ended poorly. Are we, because we are not famous, obligated to always speak kindly of the person who paid us? Even if we perceive that the relationship turned out to not be good?
Just because someone is rich and famous doesn't mean they don't have the same human emotional responses as the rest of us; it just means theirs are more visible and open to attack.
I will never claim to know what Taylor Swift truly thinks of the Big Machine purchase of her masters. But, having made art of my own before, I do very much understand the emotional attachment to that art and the incredible difficulty in separating the art from the business transaction of making money from that art. That's something that the "money men" in the artistic endeavors don't usually seem to get.
People “attack” (read: criticize) their investors publicly all the time. Do you have a problem with all criticism of investors? Because that seems silly. Certainly they aren’t all above criticism. And contract disputes and negotiations play out in the public eye every single day.
And if you aren’t opposed to the WhatsApp or Instagram founders criticizing Facebook but you are opposed to Taylor Swift criticizing various stakeholders in the music industry you might ask yourself why you’re holding Taylor Swift to a different standard.
And if you aren’t opposed to the WhatsApp or Instagram founders criticizing Facebook but you are opposed to Taylor Swift criticizing various stakeholders in the music industry you might ask yourself why you’re holding Taylor Swift to a different standard.
Ummm Facebook was the acquirer of those companies not it's investors. I said investors not acquirers.. acquirers bought something of value your investors invested and believed in you when you were nothing. Helped you make it valuable! Believed in you!
I have never would never spat on any or would spit on any investor of mine even if we didnt see eye to eye. The acquiring company sure as they bought something valuable my investor help me create.
No double standard here and if Justin Bieber did the same thing I'd feel the same way ... so no gender double standard here.
I have never would never spat on any or would spit on any investor of mine even if we didnt see eye to eye. The acquiring company sure as they bought something valuable my investor help me create.
No double standard here and if Justin Bieber did the same thing I'd feel the same way ... so no gender double standard here.
It's a business arrangement, not an emotional relationship. They backed her because they thought they'd make a profit, and they did. They owe each other absolutely nothing else.
Most people can't afford to stand up for themselves, I'm glad she's doing it.
Most people can't afford to stand up for themselves, I'm glad she's doing it.
> They owe each other absolutely nothing else.
So hang on, why should Taylor Swift be demanding more then?
So hang on, why should Taylor Swift be demanding more then?
She isn't demanding what she is owed. She's demanding what she chooses to demand. TFA indicates she is well-placed to have her demands satisfied.
Im not one to bite the hand that feeds me. Even if I became rich and powerful...
There are 1,000s and more artist out there that want to be in her shoes and those who had the cash had confidence/believed in her outside of the other 1000s. I would be gracious, humble and appreciative!
Also, I'm not aware of any startups on the level of a Taylor Swift who publicly spat on their investors (not the companies who bought them)? Can anyone name such startup now mega-popular companies (as big as Swift) who publicly spat on it's investors?
There are 1,000s and more artist out there that want to be in her shoes and those who had the cash had confidence/believed in her outside of the other 1000s. I would be gracious, humble and appreciative!
Also, I'm not aware of any startups on the level of a Taylor Swift who publicly spat on their investors (not the companies who bought them)? Can anyone name such startup now mega-popular companies (as big as Swift) who publicly spat on it's investors?
Maybe he is referring to music as such, too.
Nobody is special, the internet showed there are lots of talented artists and it's just a matter luck who's got to be the next superstar.
For every superstar there are dozens if not hundreds of similar talented singers that go down nearly unrecognized.
> 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 fallacy.
The fact that people will pay for Taylor Swift's music against a landscape with other music does not actually support the idea that Taylor Swift's music deserves to be paid for, either. People will pay for all kinds of things. https://satwcomic.com/clean-living
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 fallacy.
The fact that people will pay for Taylor Swift's music against a landscape with other music does not actually support the idea that Taylor Swift's music deserves to be paid for, either. People will pay for all kinds of things. https://satwcomic.com/clean-living
There's certainly an endless amount of content on the internet, but it's not an endless amount of content you enjoy or seek out, so paying for the content you like is a way to incentivize the creation of more content that you like in a sea of content that you don't.
720,000 hours of new content is uploaded to Youtube every day, and none of it is the 90 minute movie I want to watch right now.
720,000 hours of new content is uploaded to Youtube every day, and none of it is the 90 minute movie I want to watch right now.
> it's not an endless amount of content you enjoy
Hard disagree. There's an endless amount of that too. It's just filtering it out from the rest that's the difficult part.
Hard disagree. There's an endless amount of that too. It's just filtering it out from the rest that's the difficult part.
I'm not a huge taylor swift fan but people who work in an industry with market disruption and the networking effect shouldn't throw stones. I'm a big fan of a number of artists personally - some headliners like RTJ and The Prodigy, and some less well known folks like m|o|o|n and bioxeed - there's a lot of good music out there but it can be quite hard to promote music and actually get it into peoples ears. That is a part of the business of music, as much as we might wish it wasn't - and it's exactly the same with other forms of art. Notoriety does help drive value since it will force people to take your production more seriously than someone hawking paintings at a farmers market - even if their paintings are technically excellent and moving.
Record labels often try to stand up rando pop groups - sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't, but those groups that manage to stay around for more than a few months do have talent that supports the large marketing campaigns being thrown behind them - they may not be the most talented out there, but a large number of people genuinely enjoy their music.
Record labels often try to stand up rando pop groups - sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't, but those groups that manage to stay around for more than a few months do have talent that supports the large marketing campaigns being thrown behind them - they may not be the most talented out there, but a large number of people genuinely enjoy their music.
I think there's a limited amount of good entertaining (to me) music available on the internet.
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.
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.
[deleted]
That may be right but her music is neither art nor important or rare (there are hundreds of pop songs that sound like carbon copy) ... people pay for junk food and they also pay for junk entertainment. Taylor Swift, for the worth of her work, is obviously beyond overpaid. That statement is just hypocrisy.
> there are hundreds of pop songs that sound like carbon copy
ie 4-chord songs - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5pidokakU4I
ie 4-chord songs - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5pidokakU4I
For what it's worth on my first reading I understood the part you're quoting to mean precisely that there's no scarcity of art, not in the digital sense but in the same sense you use in your final paragraph.
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.
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.
> 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: 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.
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.
> 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.
That's literally what charging for the copies does, though. People just want something for nothing.
Claiming you want to "take the copy for free but pay separately for the time" when you aren't willing to pay for the copy so that there is some reimbursment for the time is an exercise in wankery.
(You aren't just paying for the time, anyway. You're paying for talent, etc. A genius who creates something better in 5 minutes than someone else does in a year is still someone you'd rather compensate...)
That's literally what charging for the copies does, though. People just want something for nothing.
Claiming you want to "take the copy for free but pay separately for the time" when you aren't willing to pay for the copy so that there is some reimbursment for the time is an exercise in wankery.
(You aren't just paying for the time, anyway. You're paying for talent, etc. A genius who creates something better in 5 minutes than someone else does in a year is still someone you'd rather compensate...)
> That's literally what charging for the copies does, though. People just want something for nothing.
No, it does not do that at all. If you sell 200 copies, you get paid twice as much as when you sell 100 copies. Artists should make a decent hourly wage depending only on the amount of work they have done.
Imagine if other professions worked the same way as the copyright industry does. You have a plumber install a new toilet in your home, but instead of charging you for his time and effort, he charges you 5 cents every time you pee, and 10 cents every time you poo. Or you have someone pave your driveway, and instead of paying for his work you pay $1 every tine you park your car there.
Would you accept that ? Why should artists be different ?
No, it does not do that at all. If you sell 200 copies, you get paid twice as much as when you sell 100 copies. Artists should make a decent hourly wage depending only on the amount of work they have done.
Imagine if other professions worked the same way as the copyright industry does. You have a plumber install a new toilet in your home, but instead of charging you for his time and effort, he charges you 5 cents every time you pee, and 10 cents every time you poo. Or you have someone pave your driveway, and instead of paying for his work you pay $1 every tine you park your car there.
Would you accept that ? Why should artists be different ?
That's fine, and you're right about the economic incentive to charge for copies.
I happen to resent the use of legal force to do so, and I'm not alone. I belong to the Napster generation, where the muscle arm of the copyright industry destroyed one of the most promising new applications for the Internet, instead of rolling with it and reaching some kind of mutually-beneficial arrangment. We're all still pretty mad about that when we think on it.
Like it or not, NFTs represent a way out of this. Taylor Swift has trufans, she could easily cut a limited-issue NFT for her new recording of Fearless, with a smart contract which pays a residual every time it's resold.
If she wanted to. Probably not the right time in the hype cycle for her to get on board, there are unsolved questions in terms of user experience.
But the option is there, and if it becomes sufficiently widespread we can do away with the whole tawdry cycle of DMCA requests and randomly penalizing music enjoyers with ruinous fines and lawsuits. That would be all to the good.
I happen to resent the use of legal force to do so, and I'm not alone. I belong to the Napster generation, where the muscle arm of the copyright industry destroyed one of the most promising new applications for the Internet, instead of rolling with it and reaching some kind of mutually-beneficial arrangment. We're all still pretty mad about that when we think on it.
Like it or not, NFTs represent a way out of this. Taylor Swift has trufans, she could easily cut a limited-issue NFT for her new recording of Fearless, with a smart contract which pays a residual every time it's resold.
If she wanted to. Probably not the right time in the hype cycle for her to get on board, there are unsolved questions in terms of user experience.
But the option is there, and if it becomes sufficiently widespread we can do away with the whole tawdry cycle of DMCA requests and randomly penalizing music enjoyers with ruinous fines and lawsuits. That would be all to the good.
What’s your take on BitClout?
The sense of entitlement in this comment is pretty shocking. The only justification I see in here is “I want”. That’s it. You (“and I'm not alone”) want certain things and so the world needs to accommodate you. If it doesn’t—-you are telling us you’ll just do what you want anyway.
How is this anything other than sociopathic?
How is this anything other than sociopathic?
> randomly penalizing music enjoyers with ruinous fines and lawsuits
That's a weird spelling of "people who want to listen to music -without- paying for it". Napster started a conversation about IP and copyright, but I for one am glad it is dead.
DCMA is monumentally stupid in its -implementation-, but the idea is not a bad one. There need to be protections for people who make a living by creating music, art, etc. Yes, that means repercussions for people who reproduce digital content and redistribute it without a license. I think that we can all agree that how these things are currently enforced via the DCMA is rather bad, though.
What I'm saying is, we need to pay people for their work. This includes artists making music that you want "to enjoy". In 2021 there isn't really an excuse, with spotify/apple music/etc existing for streaming, and things like bandcamp for outright buying cds/lps, and discogs for the secondary/used market.
That's a weird spelling of "people who want to listen to music -without- paying for it". Napster started a conversation about IP and copyright, but I for one am glad it is dead.
DCMA is monumentally stupid in its -implementation-, but the idea is not a bad one. There need to be protections for people who make a living by creating music, art, etc. Yes, that means repercussions for people who reproduce digital content and redistribute it without a license. I think that we can all agree that how these things are currently enforced via the DCMA is rather bad, though.
What I'm saying is, we need to pay people for their work. This includes artists making music that you want "to enjoy". In 2021 there isn't really an excuse, with spotify/apple music/etc existing for streaming, and things like bandcamp for outright buying cds/lps, and discogs for the secondary/used market.
>What I'm saying is, we need to pay people for their work.
Most musicians don't get paid for their work or get paid a token amount.
I don't see what the point is in fighting for Taylor Swift's right to make millions from making music if the average person can't make a living.
It's not about quality either. It's about distribution channels.
Most musicians don't get paid for their work or get paid a token amount.
I don't see what the point is in fighting for Taylor Swift's right to make millions from making music if the average person can't make a living.
It's not about quality either. It's about distribution channels.
> It's about distribution channels.
This is the part that gets completely glossed over when talking about creative output. I’m not convinced that the difference between an artist who commands eight figures in annual revenue and one who commands five figures is a simple matter of talent or dedication to one’s craft. Pop superstars, in particular, are the product of a promotion and distribution machine without which the actual artist would probably enjoy only a small fraction of their reach and popularity.
As with most political slogans, “pay people for their work” is in fact an extremely nuanced idea in practice.
This is the part that gets completely glossed over when talking about creative output. I’m not convinced that the difference between an artist who commands eight figures in annual revenue and one who commands five figures is a simple matter of talent or dedication to one’s craft. Pop superstars, in particular, are the product of a promotion and distribution machine without which the actual artist would probably enjoy only a small fraction of their reach and popularity.
As with most political slogans, “pay people for their work” is in fact an extremely nuanced idea in practice.
> I don't see what the point is in fighting for Taylor Swift's right to make millions from making music if the average person can't make a living.
This is a strawman argument. Obviously I would like to see -all- artists get paid a living wage at least for their work. The fact that life isn't fair and TS makes millions isn't my fault, and is not what I'm specifically advocating here.
This is a strawman argument. Obviously I would like to see -all- artists get paid a living wage at least for their work. The fact that life isn't fair and TS makes millions isn't my fault, and is not what I'm specifically advocating here.
Obviously you would like to see all artists get paid a living wage in theory but the mechanism for "getting artists paid" that you actually support is one that excels mostly at getting Taylor Swift and her record labels paid, not the average musician.
So no, I don't think it is such of a straw man.
It's not the average musician who is affected by pirates. Spotify will send them $90 / month instead of $100 / month, maybe.
So no, I don't think it is such of a straw man.
It's not the average musician who is affected by pirates. Spotify will send them $90 / month instead of $100 / month, maybe.
> That's literally what charging for the copies does, though. People just want something for nothing.
I pay about 10€/mo for Spotify. A significant portion of my use of the service is devoted to artists that are dead. They can't put time and effort into producing music. They can't be reimbursed for the time and effort they've already put into it. I could bury the gold with them, but they wouldn't have any use for it because they're dead.
The difference is especially important because options are cropping up for actually funding artists and other creatives by paying for their work, not copies of the results. Kickstarter, Patreon etc.
I pay about 10€/mo for Spotify. A significant portion of my use of the service is devoted to artists that are dead. They can't put time and effort into producing music. They can't be reimbursed for the time and effort they've already put into it. I could bury the gold with them, but they wouldn't have any use for it because they're dead.
The difference is especially important because options are cropping up for actually funding artists and other creatives by paying for their work, not copies of the results. Kickstarter, Patreon etc.
> I pay about 10€/mo for Spotify.
Consider not; the majority of that money just goes to Spotify. If, every month, you paid 10€ to a random artist you liked (or split 10€ between all of them), the artists would receive probably more than two orders of magnitude more money. (If I remember correctly, anyway.) Of course, this assumes you can get the music elsewhere.
If Spotify's too convenient to give up, there are several Spotify download tools you can use to get the music onto a device that doesn't support Spotify (e.g. MP3 players). Lots of them seem to actually grab from YouTube, but perhaps if you use the Spotify API, you might be able to do it?
Consider not; the majority of that money just goes to Spotify. If, every month, you paid 10€ to a random artist you liked (or split 10€ between all of them), the artists would receive probably more than two orders of magnitude more money. (If I remember correctly, anyway.) Of course, this assumes you can get the music elsewhere.
If Spotify's too convenient to give up, there are several Spotify download tools you can use to get the music onto a device that doesn't support Spotify (e.g. MP3 players). Lots of them seem to actually grab from YouTube, but perhaps if you use the Spotify API, you might be able to do it?
> the majority of that money just goes to Spotify
Last I checked, Spotify's cut is 30%. That's a lot, but even with a significant error it's nowhere near the "majority."
> If, every month, you paid 10€ to a random artist you liked (or split 10€ between all of them), the artists would receive probably more than two orders of magnitude more money.
That's a function of how popular your favorite artists are and how much you listen to them. No matter how unknown they are, if you listen to an average number of streams per month then they'll get at least 70% of your 10€/mo -- a far cry from two orders of magnitude. If your favorite artists are much above average popularity then they'll make more with the Spotify arrangement than if you gave them cash even if you don't listen to them at all.
There's still a kernel of truth in what you're pointing out -- at some point in the fairly recent past you had to buy the music outright no matter how often you would listen to it, so if there exists a long tail of musicians who aren't listened to much but whose music would have been paid for in a record/tape/CD/itunes market (and I suspect there does) then Spotify is going to be much worse for them.
Last I checked, Spotify's cut is 30%. That's a lot, but even with a significant error it's nowhere near the "majority."
> If, every month, you paid 10€ to a random artist you liked (or split 10€ between all of them), the artists would receive probably more than two orders of magnitude more money.
That's a function of how popular your favorite artists are and how much you listen to them. No matter how unknown they are, if you listen to an average number of streams per month then they'll get at least 70% of your 10€/mo -- a far cry from two orders of magnitude. If your favorite artists are much above average popularity then they'll make more with the Spotify arrangement than if you gave them cash even if you don't listen to them at all.
There's still a kernel of truth in what you're pointing out -- at some point in the fairly recent past you had to buy the music outright no matter how often you would listen to it, so if there exists a long tail of musicians who aren't listened to much but whose music would have been paid for in a record/tape/CD/itunes market (and I suspect there does) then Spotify is going to be much worse for them.
> No matter how unknown they are, if you listen to an average number of streams per month then they'll get at least 70% of your 10€/mo
From what I understand the number of listens that month is pooled globally/in buckets for the purpose of distribution. So if you listen to your friend's band once and nothing else, and someone plays a 31 second song on repeat 83612x over 30 days nonstop, your friend's band gets {{payout rate}}*1. And the other artist gets {{payout rate}}*83612. Rather than both artists getting ~70% of their listener's $10 subscription.
And then the payout rate is a bit complicated because it comes from a variety of buckets. Some regions earn more/less than others, some account types (free trial, free with ads, family plan) earn less than others. Some specific labels or artists even get their own special buckets. 30% take overall is still correct. If you check their 2020 Q4 "Cost of Revenue" was about 73.5%, which is almost entirely royalties.
In practice though, I don't think it matters too much. I don't think many people listen to one artist exclusively. Or if they do, it's probably a pop or children's music artist getting many streams already. But in the rare case of some person listen to one specific relatively unknown artist as most of their streaming, I'm pretty certain that artist does not receive an equal majority of that subscriber's money.
From what I understand the number of listens that month is pooled globally/in buckets for the purpose of distribution. So if you listen to your friend's band once and nothing else, and someone plays a 31 second song on repeat 83612x over 30 days nonstop, your friend's band gets {{payout rate}}*1. And the other artist gets {{payout rate}}*83612. Rather than both artists getting ~70% of their listener's $10 subscription.
And then the payout rate is a bit complicated because it comes from a variety of buckets. Some regions earn more/less than others, some account types (free trial, free with ads, family plan) earn less than others. Some specific labels or artists even get their own special buckets. 30% take overall is still correct. If you check their 2020 Q4 "Cost of Revenue" was about 73.5%, which is almost entirely royalties.
In practice though, I don't think it matters too much. I don't think many people listen to one artist exclusively. Or if they do, it's probably a pop or children's music artist getting many streams already. But in the rare case of some person listen to one specific relatively unknown artist as most of their streaming, I'm pretty certain that artist does not receive an equal majority of that subscriber's money.
> From what I understand the number of listens that month is pooled globally/in buckets for the purpose of distribution.
Yep, exactly. Views are pooled per stream rather than per artist, which is its own can of worms (I mentioned that somewhere in this thread), but if you watch an "average" amount that already accounts for such an artifact. At least 70% of your contributions go to the artists you listen to in such a scenario (that money has to come from somewhere; many artists _don't_ get paid much).
> And then the payout rate is a bit complicated because it comes from a variety of buckets.
Yep, that's why I simplified it as much as possible in the context of the net effect of your personal actions. Your paid listens will impact one bucket and not the others, and that allows them to be safely ignored when evaluating the difference in an artist's pay with you watching them on Spotify or just giving them cash.
> In practice though, I don't think it matters too much. I don't think many people listen to one artist exclusively.
This is a point I'm seeing crop up a lot, not just from you. I think we might be talking past each other; I'll lay out why I don't think that matters, and I'm curious to know what you think.
In particular, if you're comparing spending X per month on Spotify or spending X per month on other forms of music, in both scenarios you would be splitting that between the artists you actually care about. I'm pretty sure people spend more per month on music than they used to (still haven't found the original source, so maybe that idea is wrong), so IMO it doesn't make sense when comparing Spotify to alternatives to point out that in _both_ instances your money doesn't all go to one artist.
There is a point to be made that you'll probably listen to a broader variety of artists through Spotify than otherwise (why not? that's one of their core value propositions), so your individual X payment is split further than it would have been. However, everyone else is listening to more people too, and on average assuming everyone listens to the same distribution of music as in a pre-Spotify world those effects actually cancel out.
There is still an open question of whether that distribution is the same -- does there exist a pool of artists being listened to via Spotify who would rarely have their music purchased otherwise? My gut says "yes," but I don't actually know. Is it a bad thing for those artists to be paid?
Yep, exactly. Views are pooled per stream rather than per artist, which is its own can of worms (I mentioned that somewhere in this thread), but if you watch an "average" amount that already accounts for such an artifact. At least 70% of your contributions go to the artists you listen to in such a scenario (that money has to come from somewhere; many artists _don't_ get paid much).
> And then the payout rate is a bit complicated because it comes from a variety of buckets.
Yep, that's why I simplified it as much as possible in the context of the net effect of your personal actions. Your paid listens will impact one bucket and not the others, and that allows them to be safely ignored when evaluating the difference in an artist's pay with you watching them on Spotify or just giving them cash.
> In practice though, I don't think it matters too much. I don't think many people listen to one artist exclusively.
This is a point I'm seeing crop up a lot, not just from you. I think we might be talking past each other; I'll lay out why I don't think that matters, and I'm curious to know what you think.
In particular, if you're comparing spending X per month on Spotify or spending X per month on other forms of music, in both scenarios you would be splitting that between the artists you actually care about. I'm pretty sure people spend more per month on music than they used to (still haven't found the original source, so maybe that idea is wrong), so IMO it doesn't make sense when comparing Spotify to alternatives to point out that in _both_ instances your money doesn't all go to one artist.
There is a point to be made that you'll probably listen to a broader variety of artists through Spotify than otherwise (why not? that's one of their core value propositions), so your individual X payment is split further than it would have been. However, everyone else is listening to more people too, and on average assuming everyone listens to the same distribution of music as in a pre-Spotify world those effects actually cancel out.
There is still an open question of whether that distribution is the same -- does there exist a pool of artists being listened to via Spotify who would rarely have their music purchased otherwise? My gut says "yes," but I don't actually know. Is it a bad thing for those artists to be paid?
> L ast I checked, Spotify's cut is 30%. That's a lot, but even with a significant error it's nowhere near the "majority."
It is in fact way way more than the majority because the remaining is split among artists while the cut is kept in totally by Spotify. Spotify is taking 3€ while any given artist would get a few cents at best.
It is in fact way way more than the majority because the remaining is split among artists while the cut is kept in totally by Spotify. Spotify is taking 3€ while any given artist would get a few cents at best.
Kind of, but that's an artifact of not holding enough variables constant. If you were going to distribute $7 in cash to N artists then that's functionally equivalent to distributing $10 to Spotify and watching those N artists equally up to an average number of streams per month. The few main reasons that model isn't quite perfect are:
- You probably watch more artists via Spotify than you would via other methods, so each individual artist is paid less. Note this is less of an issue than it seems because on average there will be proportionally more people watching each of those artists.
- Artists may have cut other deals so they're getting much less than the 70% being distributed to "not Spotify." Note this isn't much different from pre-spotify, but it's a real effect.
- Something I left out completely in my original comment is that you very well might be paying less per month to Spotify than you would for other forms of media. I vaguely recall a stat saying that the opposite has happened mildly (but we pay a lot less for merchandise), but my memory is fuzzy on that point, so somebody who knows more should step in.
That isn't to say that Spotify is better for all artists (it's not), better for most artists (given typical pareto distributions my gut says that's probably also false), or that it's a "net positive" in some ill-defined way (maybe, maybe not, that's not an argument I want to try to make) -- just that Spotify's payment model isn't super complicated or super unfair at a macroscopic level, and it's super easy to construct reasonable scenarios where your dollars would have more positive impact on artists via Spotify than if you just paid those artists cash.
- You probably watch more artists via Spotify than you would via other methods, so each individual artist is paid less. Note this is less of an issue than it seems because on average there will be proportionally more people watching each of those artists.
- Artists may have cut other deals so they're getting much less than the 70% being distributed to "not Spotify." Note this isn't much different from pre-spotify, but it's a real effect.
- Something I left out completely in my original comment is that you very well might be paying less per month to Spotify than you would for other forms of media. I vaguely recall a stat saying that the opposite has happened mildly (but we pay a lot less for merchandise), but my memory is fuzzy on that point, so somebody who knows more should step in.
That isn't to say that Spotify is better for all artists (it's not), better for most artists (given typical pareto distributions my gut says that's probably also false), or that it's a "net positive" in some ill-defined way (maybe, maybe not, that's not an argument I want to try to make) -- just that Spotify's payment model isn't super complicated or super unfair at a macroscopic level, and it's super easy to construct reasonable scenarios where your dollars would have more positive impact on artists via Spotify than if you just paid those artists cash.
Ouch. So 30% per subscriber, not 30% per artist which is what we would usually mean by a cut. A classic instance of "two for you two, and two for me, too!".
A majority is more than half.
A quick google says that spotify pays at least $0.003 per stream to an artist. So your $10 pays for 3333 streams per month, or just over 100 a day. I probably don't average 100 streams per day, but I definitely average over 10. I'm not sure its as bad a deal for the artist as you may think. It's not two orders of magnitude bad, at least.
The problem with this math is you're assuming a roughly even distribution for paying out to artists, when in fact the Spotify pay model wildly favors the popular artists in terms of paying out money. Basically if you aren't already famous, Spotify isn't going to pay you any meaningful money.
https://qz.com/1660465/the-way-spotify-and-apple-music-pays-...
I should probably mention I haven't really looked into Spotify's business model in about a year, so if something has changed and my information is outdated someone please let me know.
https://qz.com/1660465/the-way-spotify-and-apple-music-pays-...
I should probably mention I haven't really looked into Spotify's business model in about a year, so if something has changed and my information is outdated someone please let me know.
You also have to consider the cut for developers, lawyers, servers and everything else that goes behind getting music to you.
Spotify pays a lot more than radio plays, and radio plays reach a lot more people. From this POV, artists aren't that hard done by.
Spotify plays a lot less per play, on average, than most albums sold. From this POV, artists are pretty hard done by.
If you're a fan, buy the album (i.e. pay even for the music you don't like as much). If you only listen to the music ambiently, stream and don't feel too guilty about it.
Spotify plays a lot less per play, on average, than most albums sold. From this POV, artists are pretty hard done by.
If you're a fan, buy the album (i.e. pay even for the music you don't like as much). If you only listen to the music ambiently, stream and don't feel too guilty about it.
> That's literally what charging for the copies does, though. People just want something for nothing.
Charging for copies to cover effort sounds suspiciously like a leaky abstraction.
Charging for copies to cover effort sounds suspiciously like a leaky abstraction.
Or, Patreon. You pay creators on an ongoing basis to produce content at a rate you find acceptable for the amount you pay them. Patronage does away with the illogic of artificial scarcity and subjects artistic work to the same standards as any other work. That is, ongoing payment entails ongoing labor. People pay you to write songs, to travel and perform songs, instead of paying you to have once written a song at some indeterminate point in the past. Songs that are already made have no scarcity and hence no inherent value, but your labor to perform them and to write new songs does, so that's what you should logically be paid for.
The degree of silliness to artificial scarcity becomes apparent when you try to apply it to any other labor. If an investigative reporter uncovers corruption at city hall, does he deserve a royalty every time you tell someone and hence copy the fruits of his labor? Does a meteorologist when you freely share his forecast? Should the doctor who invents a new surgical technique get a percentage every time it's used to save someone's life?
The degree of silliness to artificial scarcity becomes apparent when you try to apply it to any other labor. If an investigative reporter uncovers corruption at city hall, does he deserve a royalty every time you tell someone and hence copy the fruits of his labor? Does a meteorologist when you freely share his forecast? Should the doctor who invents a new surgical technique get a percentage every time it's used to save someone's life?
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 costs?
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 costs?
> After all, what kind of sucker would charitably donate to a multimillionaire's private jet running costs?
Millions of people currently support many televangelists in precisely this way, so this isn't rhetorical.
Millions of people currently support many televangelists in precisely this way, so this isn't rhetorical.
Plenty of people send money to televangelists.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7y1xJAVZxXg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7y1xJAVZxXg
That sounds like a feature, not a bug.
Even if this is true, the ceiling is very high. Look at the current top earners on Patreon, with a known per month figure:
https://graphtreon.com/top-patreon-creators
* Chapo Trap House, 3 hosts - 170k/month
* The Tim Dillon Show, 1 host - 121k/month
* AdeptusSteve (I couldn't figure out how many people, possibly 1 guy making some sort of porn game?) - 103k/month
* Flagrant 2, 2 hosts - 98k/month
* Tiny Meat Gang, 2 hosts - 82k/month
* Cum Town, 3 hosts - 81k/month
Note that the dollar amounts of most of the people on that list aren't visible and I cut them off at 80k/month.
People are willingly chipping in to help creators making 1M/year, not including sponsorships, live shows, etc.
And there are some multimillionaires that could likely make it work. If the Spotify deal hadn't happened, Joe Rogan almost certainly could have.
Unrelated comment about the list: of the Patreon categories, podcasters are predictably over-represented. But I am surprised by the number of "adult games" on the list. I didn't realize how popular these were.
https://graphtreon.com/top-patreon-creators
* Chapo Trap House, 3 hosts - 170k/month
* The Tim Dillon Show, 1 host - 121k/month
* AdeptusSteve (I couldn't figure out how many people, possibly 1 guy making some sort of porn game?) - 103k/month
* Flagrant 2, 2 hosts - 98k/month
* Tiny Meat Gang, 2 hosts - 82k/month
* Cum Town, 3 hosts - 81k/month
Note that the dollar amounts of most of the people on that list aren't visible and I cut them off at 80k/month.
People are willingly chipping in to help creators making 1M/year, not including sponsorships, live shows, etc.
And there are some multimillionaires that could likely make it work. If the Spotify deal hadn't happened, Joe Rogan almost certainly could have.
Unrelated comment about the list: of the Patreon categories, podcasters are predictably over-represented. But I am surprised by the number of "adult games" on the list. I didn't realize how popular these were.
BitwiseFool(2)
How much of that is really charitable? Patreon allows creators to lock access to some content behind a set monthly amount, which makes the transaction more like a regular subscription than a donation. How many of those top earners use that feature?
It doesn't have to be pure charity. I was a subscriber to Deadmau5's livestreams back when he was doing that. Monthly subscription and you had access to a private stream that was almost always live when he was producing in the studio. That particular example is boring if you're not into music production, but there are certainly things an artist can do to make a subscription worthwhile. Will it make a superstar artist more money than the usual means? Probably not. But it also doesn't have to include zero rewards.
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.
Suckers or not, but people do donate to visibly rich people, e.g. Trump.
Spread the love around: Nancy Pelosi has a net worth of about $120M, and even Joe Biden is worth $9M. Donating to a national political campaign is usually a donation to a rich person.
Why are you conflating personal wealth with political campaigns?
I think that would be great. If the artists are being paid enough to support them* and their craft, and they're being paid enough to help motivate others to become artists, then they shouldn't get any more money. That money would be better spent elsewhere.
* "support them" would also include leaving them with enough money to retire on after their career, if they live in a country where retirement savings are important to have, or otherwise are a strong motivating factor for those who are considering this as a career.
* "support them" would also include leaving them with enough money to retire on after their career, if they live in a country where retirement savings are important to have, or otherwise are a strong motivating factor for those who are considering this as a career.
That sounds pretty rational, however it does not mesh with reality of most popular streamers getting literally showered with money. There is definitely some rational subset of population that will stop donating once it's clear the artist has made it. My theory is that when you give money to someone it's a commitment that you like them. And once you like them, you are more likely to contribute more money. I'd wager for top artist this effect will dominate the rational people curbing donations effect.
Bandcamp offers a subscription service [0] for just this purpose. I've thought about it for one or two, and $5/mo or whatever doesn't sound much, but it pretty quickly adds up across music, newsletters, patreons, etc... i need an aggregator for paying all of my content aggregators.
[0] https://bandcamp.com/subscriptions
[0] https://bandcamp.com/subscriptions
Neil Young has done pretty much exactly that.
https://neilyoungarchives.com/
https://neilyoungarchives.com/
I think with an estimated net worth of $360,000,000 Taylor Swift could just relax and produce music as she sees fit, without any need for subscriptions.
> That's the reason why many youtubers on patreon switch to a monthly subscription rather than charging per video.
Well, that or it’s just more user friendly. It’s hard to plan my finances if I don’t know how much I’ll be paying (since I don’t know, and have no control over, how many creations someone will make next month).
Well, that or it’s just more user friendly. It’s hard to plan my finances if I don’t know how much I’ll be paying (since I don’t know, and have no control over, how many creations someone will make next month).
>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.
But this method would be anti-consumer for many buyers of music because the final quality of a song does not always correlate with effort.
- low effort but high value: a musician can have a flash of inspiration and come up with a catchy chorus melody and great intro hook on a synth in 15 minutes. They then record the vocals in 2 or 3 takes and thus the whole song is done in less than a day. This ends up being a hit song.
- high effort but low value: an artist struggles for weeks and months on composing a song with many rewrites. The producer brings in a dozen other co-writers to help finish it. When they go to record, they record 100 different takes of the vocal and then construct the final vocal by splicing in syllable-by-syllable from the different takes. Very laborious. And yet, the final result is music that's heavily produced but lacks an addictive chorus and does not compel repeat listens.
A lot of movies and its sequels are like that. The original on a shoestring budget had a better story and a magic quality but the new sequel with a $200 million budget and an army of special fx artists ends up creating a dud.
But this method would be anti-consumer for many buyers of music because the final quality of a song does not always correlate with effort.
- low effort but high value: a musician can have a flash of inspiration and come up with a catchy chorus melody and great intro hook on a synth in 15 minutes. They then record the vocals in 2 or 3 takes and thus the whole song is done in less than a day. This ends up being a hit song.
- high effort but low value: an artist struggles for weeks and months on composing a song with many rewrites. The producer brings in a dozen other co-writers to help finish it. When they go to record, they record 100 different takes of the vocal and then construct the final vocal by splicing in syllable-by-syllable from the different takes. Very laborious. And yet, the final result is music that's heavily produced but lacks an addictive chorus and does not compel repeat listens.
A lot of movies and its sequels are like that. The original on a shoestring budget had a better story and a magic quality but the new sequel with a $200 million budget and an army of special fx artists ends up creating a dud.
Also, repeatability does not necessarily correlate with quality. John Cages works or an AAA movie are surely of high quality, but it's fine experiencing them once. Compare that to quite a few (even cheap) songs, which I've listened to hundreds of times
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.
Another way of solving this problem is to first make sure every person in society has what they need for survival without needing to pay for it. Then you don’t have to pay artists anything and they can do what they enjoy and survive and we can all benefit from the way that computers can duplicate value for free.
It’s a kind of inside out or upside down economics that I have been thinking about a lot lately. And personally I think this can be done in a totally voluntary way without a state drawing taxes and paying a UBI (though a UBI may help cut a path towards this future).
It’s a kind of inside out or upside down economics that I have been thinking about a lot lately. And personally I think this can be done in a totally voluntary way without a state drawing taxes and paying a UBI (though a UBI may help cut a path towards this future).
>The problem is that artists (and record labels) want to get paid for the non-scarce thing: the copies,
of course one could argue that the way to gauge the value of the artist's time and effort is by how many copies people want of what they produced.
I am not arguing this is a good way of estimating value, but there are lots of people who do make this argument, and it should be addressed.
note - I guess it should be time and ability, effort is generally another measure of time.
of course one could argue that the way to gauge the value of the artist's time and effort is by how many copies people want of what they produced.
I am not arguing this is a good way of estimating value, but there are lots of people who do make this argument, and it should be addressed.
note - I guess it should be time and ability, effort is generally another measure of time.
The time and effort of artists isn't exactly scarce either, if you treat it as a commodity. In my view, artists of every generation have had to figure out a hack that lets them earn a living while also pursuing their art. Possibly the greatest threat to the income of rank-and-file musicians right now is the decline in church attendance.
I know a lot of musicians, and virtually all of them who earn a decent middle class living earn more than half of their income from teaching classical music to children. The other half comes from a spouse with a day job. ;-)
I know a lot of musicians, and virtually all of them who earn a decent middle class living earn more than half of their income from teaching classical music to children. The other half comes from a spouse with a day job. ;-)
I don't really see how this is possible for an independent artist unless I go the route of "Once this Kickstarter reaches $10k I'll release my song for free"
That's called a bounty and it's one of the open source software business models.
It has a freeloader problem, though.
An alternative is to drop price over time but give refunds/royalties to earlier buyers, so they always lay a little less than later buyers.
It has a freeloader problem, though.
An alternative is to drop price over time but give refunds/royalties to earlier buyers, so they always lay a little less than later buyers.
The bounty model only works when a few individuals (businesses in that case) are very interested in the result. I'm not aware of any projects that run on a bounty model and also take small payment from thousands of sources to make it happen. Unless you have some super-fans willing to drop a lot of money, or price your bounty incredibly low [0], I don't see this working for a song.
The alternative solution doesn't address the above commenter's problem that you shouldn't charge for copies of music, but for the creation of it in the first place.
[0] And yeah, I realize expecting a high bounty is kind of hypocritical for an indie musician. I've made maybe $50 from my music sales/streaming over the past decade, so why should I be asking a bounty bigger than a few dollars for any song? Well, because with the bounty model I'm setting a ceiling for what I can earn from my work, which doesn't exist on a pay-each-download model. Maybe over the next 10 years I'll only earn another $50 from music, maybe I won't, but I don't want to lock that in.
Also, I am going to make my music regardless of any sort of bounty. The payment is just for whether or not I release the music. Open Source projects typically use the bounty to pay a developer to work on the project. They don't develop an entire project and then withhold release until they get payment. Software doing it feels necessary. A musician doing it feels stingy. It just doesn't feel like a comparable model to me.
The alternative solution doesn't address the above commenter's problem that you shouldn't charge for copies of music, but for the creation of it in the first place.
[0] And yeah, I realize expecting a high bounty is kind of hypocritical for an indie musician. I've made maybe $50 from my music sales/streaming over the past decade, so why should I be asking a bounty bigger than a few dollars for any song? Well, because with the bounty model I'm setting a ceiling for what I can earn from my work, which doesn't exist on a pay-each-download model. Maybe over the next 10 years I'll only earn another $50 from music, maybe I won't, but I don't want to lock that in.
Also, I am going to make my music regardless of any sort of bounty. The payment is just for whether or not I release the music. Open Source projects typically use the bounty to pay a developer to work on the project. They don't develop an entire project and then withhold release until they get payment. Software doing it feels necessary. A musician doing it feels stingy. It just doesn't feel like a comparable model to me.
> 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.
Which is the "labor theory of value" of old man Karl Marx, one of the most thoroughly debunked theories there is.
In this case, I can spend 1000 hours recording a song that no one wants to hear, and I should not get paid for the labor I put in to it.
Which is the "labor theory of value" of old man Karl Marx, one of the most thoroughly debunked theories there is.
In this case, I can spend 1000 hours recording a song that no one wants to hear, and I should not get paid for the labor I put in to it.
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.
> 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.
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.
> 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.
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.
> On the internet, there’s no scarcity: there’s an endless amount of everything available to everyone.
This got me thinking: in a post-scarcity civilization, what would people do? Probably invent new ways to create artificial scarcity.
This got me thinking: in a post-scarcity civilization, what would people do? Probably invent new ways to create artificial scarcity.
Non-fungible tokens are one way to create artificial scarcity.
However, just because something isn't scarce any more doesn't mean it isn't valuable. Lots of people want to support artists whose work is important to them. Platforms like Patreon may be much more important in the future.
However, just because something isn't scarce any more doesn't mean it isn't valuable. Lots of people want to support artists whose work is important to them. Platforms like Patreon may be much more important in the future.
You don't have to speculate. That's what people already do. If there's any chance for something to become ubiquitous, someone always swoops in to make it artificially scarce again.
(To be honest, if all someone does is take an unlimited good and make it scarce to extract rent, I consider that to be deeply immoral.)
(To be honest, if all someone does is take an unlimited good and make it scarce to extract rent, I consider that to be deeply immoral.)
I don't think Patel was saying that there are an endless amount of copies of Swift's music on the internet. He was saying that there is an endless selection of music available, which you agree with in your second paragraph.
And that hurts Swift's point - if music implies art, and art implies important and rare, and important and rare implies valuable, and valuable implies it should be paid for - that doesn't explain why so much music is not paid for. It also doesn't explain why some people create music for free.
And that hurts Swift's point - if music implies art, and art implies important and rare, and important and rare implies valuable, and valuable implies it should be paid for - that doesn't explain why so much music is not paid for. It also doesn't explain why some people create music for free.
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.
It does read like that, but it's hurt the stars far less than the second-level folks. While (slightly) helping the long tail.
The abundance of meh on the internet makes it harder to charge for mid-level stuff that you used to be able to make a living off of, but the money still finds the trancedental stuff.
The abundance of meh on the internet makes it harder to charge for mid-level stuff that you used to be able to make a living off of, but the money still finds the trancedental stuff.
Can not remember where I heard this theory but it goes something like this. As more music is created the value of existing music goes down. Basically the idea is adding 1 more song to the pool of millions of others has little value no mater how good/bad that particular song is. As lets say it is the most amazing song ever. I still have a library of millions of other songs to pick from. It is an interesting economic theory.
The other problem for music is 4 fold. 1) many people use 'radio' basically spotify or some streaming service like it. 2) Most people buy songs not albums 3) many times people 'age out'. 4) I can choose from a catalog that is decades old all of the previous years of top 100s and get something good to listen to.
Now there are exceptions where there are collectors in that they must buy everything. But most people are not collectors they are renters or listeners. Many people just want that one song they like and maybe a couple of others. So you can not make 10-15 off them, you make maybe 1-2 dollars, and depending on your contract much less. Also people 'age out'. For example most of the artists I like most are 'done'. They have either disbanded or just not making anything new and going on concert sales. I also have little interest in newer stuff (because I no longer have the inclination or time to devote to it that I used to). Sure I buy a bit here and there or listen to something from streaming but nothing like what I used to do and own hundreds of CDs.
The other problem for music is 4 fold. 1) many people use 'radio' basically spotify or some streaming service like it. 2) Most people buy songs not albums 3) many times people 'age out'. 4) I can choose from a catalog that is decades old all of the previous years of top 100s and get something good to listen to.
Now there are exceptions where there are collectors in that they must buy everything. But most people are not collectors they are renters or listeners. Many people just want that one song they like and maybe a couple of others. So you can not make 10-15 off them, you make maybe 1-2 dollars, and depending on your contract much less. Also people 'age out'. For example most of the artists I like most are 'done'. They have either disbanded or just not making anything new and going on concert sales. I also have little interest in newer stuff (because I no longer have the inclination or time to devote to it that I used to). Sure I buy a bit here and there or listen to something from streaming but nothing like what I used to do and own hundreds of CDs.
Taylor Swift will have her music reviewed and cultural impact discussed on NYTimes, LA Times, and numerous major publications that do not ordinarily review music.
Increased supply of music via Bandcamp/Spotify/Soundcloud has almost no impact on artists that already dominate the charts. They can simply pay Spotify to blanket their app with ads for their new music. Spotify took some flack for their OTT promotion of Drake's 2018 album [0], but long term, Drake and the other 'market leaders' came out on top.
Some small band hit languishing in the middle of a 100-song playlist is never going to be able to win against that.
[0] https://techcrunch.com/2018/07/03/spotify-users-push-back-at...
Increased supply of music via Bandcamp/Spotify/Soundcloud has almost no impact on artists that already dominate the charts. They can simply pay Spotify to blanket their app with ads for their new music. Spotify took some flack for their OTT promotion of Drake's 2018 album [0], but long term, Drake and the other 'market leaders' came out on top.
Some small band hit languishing in the middle of a 100-song playlist is never going to be able to win against that.
[0] https://techcrunch.com/2018/07/03/spotify-users-push-back-at...
> Swift is talking about "music" as an original work. Patel responds with an irrelevant point about digital copies of music.
No one wants Swift's music as an original work; that doesn't even make sense, because it's not possible to retroactively make someone else the creator of given song. They want digital copies of Swift's music, the thing that is not scarce.
No one wants Swift's music as an original work; that doesn't even make sense, because it's not possible to retroactively make someone else the creator of given song. They want digital copies of Swift's music, the thing that is not scarce.
The entire discussion is headache-inducing.
1) "Music is art," ...by definition.
2) "Art is important and rare." A particular piece of art may be important and rare. The quality of being art does not make things either important and rare.
3) "Important, rare things are valuable." Tautologically. Valuable things are important and rare. Value is defined by relative scarcity and relative desire.
4) "Valuable things should be paid for." My mother's love is valuable (and important and rare - I can't get it from anyone else.)
Patel is stating the obvious - the scarcity of Taylor Swift's music is a government-granted monopoly aided by technology that is largely unenforceable on the internet. He's being patronizing in even pretending like Swift was making a coherent argument, and he's not addressing it, but ignoring it.
> If consumers were unwilling to pay much for Swift's music because of the vast quantity of alternatives available on the Internet, Patel would indeed have a point. But consumers still want Swift's music, not other peoples' music. Even in the face of huge amounts of free alternatives, consumers still want Swift's music. That only proves Swift's point!
Not really. The mean price paid to listen to a Taylor Swift song has got to be at the sub-cent level. The average price paid to listen to obscurities that 99.99% of people have never heard of is going to be significantly higher.
1) "Music is art," ...by definition.
2) "Art is important and rare." A particular piece of art may be important and rare. The quality of being art does not make things either important and rare.
3) "Important, rare things are valuable." Tautologically. Valuable things are important and rare. Value is defined by relative scarcity and relative desire.
4) "Valuable things should be paid for." My mother's love is valuable (and important and rare - I can't get it from anyone else.)
Patel is stating the obvious - the scarcity of Taylor Swift's music is a government-granted monopoly aided by technology that is largely unenforceable on the internet. He's being patronizing in even pretending like Swift was making a coherent argument, and he's not addressing it, but ignoring it.
> If consumers were unwilling to pay much for Swift's music because of the vast quantity of alternatives available on the Internet, Patel would indeed have a point. But consumers still want Swift's music, not other peoples' music. Even in the face of huge amounts of free alternatives, consumers still want Swift's music. That only proves Swift's point!
Not really. The mean price paid to listen to a Taylor Swift song has got to be at the sub-cent level. The average price paid to listen to obscurities that 99.99% of people have never heard of is going to be significantly higher.
Yes. Is music rare?
I've always found the idea of master recordings curious. Once a song becomes a hit, the band may perform it almost every day for the rest of their career, but what we listen to through our headphones or speakers is this one particular moment in time. Yes, there are live recordings and bootlegs, but by and large it's this one master recording, which may get dusted off every couple of decades for a remaster.
Some masters are guarded jealously by their owners. For example, I've heard that some of the Stevie Wonder releases aren't even from the masters, because he won't part with them. Some masters may truly capture something irreproducible; say, John Lennon's hoarse voice in "Twist and Shout."
In this particular case, at least, Taylor Swift has put the lie to the uniqueness of the masters. If she has the right to rerecord everything, the old masters aren't so special. But I think the article is also right. After this exercise, she may have made her point, and may force Shamrock Capital to make a deal.
Some masters are guarded jealously by their owners. For example, I've heard that some of the Stevie Wonder releases aren't even from the masters, because he won't part with them. Some masters may truly capture something irreproducible; say, John Lennon's hoarse voice in "Twist and Shout."
In this particular case, at least, Taylor Swift has put the lie to the uniqueness of the masters. If she has the right to rerecord everything, the old masters aren't so special. But I think the article is also right. After this exercise, she may have made her point, and may force Shamrock Capital to make a deal.
The original masters led to the song sounding "the right way" when you hear it on the radio, instead of sounding different. Sometimes that difference sounds good too, like your favorite live album from some band. But other times that song doesn't sound right, the live version or alternative take just loses that magic. So the original has a lot of value if it hits.
But I think you missed another aspect, the real value is the original master plus the tweaks and additions to make it into what became popular. That production of the song probably wouldn't sound the same if you applied those processes to a slightly different version, say the singer or band's best efforts later.
But I think you missed another aspect, the real value is the original master plus the tweaks and additions to make it into what became popular. That production of the song probably wouldn't sound the same if you applied those processes to a slightly different version, say the singer or band's best efforts later.
That can be a big problem for some Pop/Rock bands, in that their fans expect them to play their hits exactly the way they were recorded, down to the exact solos, for decades on end.
In contrast, Jazz vocalists don't get taken as seriously if they reproduce their recordings too exactly, and Jazz instrumentalists don't get taken seriously at all. In that genre, you're expected to bring something new to each performance.
In contrast, Jazz vocalists don't get taken as seriously if they reproduce their recordings too exactly, and Jazz instrumentalists don't get taken seriously at all. In that genre, you're expected to bring something new to each performance.
It's also interesting in that if you hear a version that is NOT the master you can easily notice it, even if it's a very close version.
I suspect for lots of "hearing but not listening" as long as you hear the "normal master" version you don't notice, but if it were subtly different it would be noticeable (perhaps only subconsciously).
I wonder if you could do studies on Muzak at stores (original "radio" masters vs live versions vs lounge vs remaster vs ...).
I suspect for lots of "hearing but not listening" as long as you hear the "normal master" version you don't notice, but if it were subtly different it would be noticeable (perhaps only subconsciously).
I wonder if you could do studies on Muzak at stores (original "radio" masters vs live versions vs lounge vs remaster vs ...).
The concept of the master is unhelpful in inhibiting artists from setting out a version of a song in studio conditions once they've had chance to live with it and play it live for a while. Live recordings are more spontaneous but we all know that the sound can be less than ideal.
I've been listening to a few recordings of Little Feat's Rock'n'Roll Doctor [1] - a wonderful song but one where I'm convinced by far the least interesting version is the 'master recording'. How many songs languish because the master is not that great?
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-r-qi_cJs0
I've been listening to a few recordings of Little Feat's Rock'n'Roll Doctor [1] - a wonderful song but one where I'm convinced by far the least interesting version is the 'master recording'. How many songs languish because the master is not that great?
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-r-qi_cJs0
[deleted]
Nobody ever bought any music "to support the publisher" - the middle man is just that, the middle man.
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 big can cut out the middleman.
Now there will be no middleman to take on the small risks of many unproven artists, and because of the relentless greed and ego of Chapelle and Swift many young artists will never have the opportunity that they did.
Now there will be no middleman to take on the small risks of many unproven artists, and because of the relentless greed and ego of Chapelle and Swift many young artists will never have the opportunity that they did.
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.
Then don't use a label/publisher? There are apparently very low fee labels which just act as a tool to get your content on spotify without doing any more. But artists keep using labels so they are either making illogical choices or they are getting value from it.
I do think there's a missing ground that is being lost - it was incidental to the publishers but they would provide production, editors, other various things that are seen as "not important".
It takes an exceptionally bright young artist to REALIZE they need those things and go out of their way to find and pay for them. Neither Patreon nor Youtube is going to provide an editor and certainly not force you to use one - no matter how valuable it may be.
It takes an exceptionally bright young artist to REALIZE they need those things and go out of their way to find and pay for them. Neither Patreon nor Youtube is going to provide an editor and certainly not force you to use one - no matter how valuable it may be.
But youtube and patreon are the equivalent of the publisher. Nobody ever things about them.
In a practical sense, you'd pay for music in pre-internet day because you want to listen to that song/album. Then, people on internet started paying for music because it was easy and accessible (for some, it was easier to just download things off the "dark web" of that day). Now people pay music subscriptions because you don't have to think about where a specific song is: it's just there on Spotify/etc.
Note that nowhere do I mention artists. Certainly (some people) also pay for art because they want to compensate for what the artist did but I think that increasingly, people pay artists to keep doing what they are doing. Not for what they did.
So, no, I don't think the value that people pay an artist derives from a work that exists today, but derives from the value (speculatively) they will create on the future.
And ultimately, I don't think any contract can enforce this, even a smartone.
Note that nowhere do I mention artists. Certainly (some people) also pay for art because they want to compensate for what the artist did but I think that increasingly, people pay artists to keep doing what they are doing. Not for what they did.
So, no, I don't think the value that people pay an artist derives from a work that exists today, but derives from the value (speculatively) they will create on the future.
And ultimately, I don't think any contract can enforce this, even a smartone.
Def Leppard, to name one artist, did something similar:
https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-news/def-leppard-re...
https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-news/def-leppard-re...
The thing is, Taylor's version sounds completely different. Did Ben Thompson actually look at streaming numbers? All her fans didn't flock to the new version. They listened to it, but it's so different that the old version is still consistently streamed likely by the same fans.
Further, the new version isn't on some new platform or anything. It's not like Taylor Swift asked fans to fork extra money to listen to "Taylor's version" so nothing is really proven here regarding Taylor's so called power. In terms of accessibility, the tracks exist side by side with the original on Spotify.
The idea of NFTs is incredibly appealing to artists because the technology could allow for artists to sell music that can only be played by some client if the NFT for a track or album was authentic. Ultimately this is bad for consumers and you bet your bottom dollar that some new form of music piracy will be born if music tried to go this direction.
Further, the new version isn't on some new platform or anything. It's not like Taylor Swift asked fans to fork extra money to listen to "Taylor's version" so nothing is really proven here regarding Taylor's so called power. In terms of accessibility, the tracks exist side by side with the original on Spotify.
The idea of NFTs is incredibly appealing to artists because the technology could allow for artists to sell music that can only be played by some client if the NFT for a track or album was authentic. Ultimately this is bad for consumers and you bet your bottom dollar that some new form of music piracy will be born if music tried to go this direction.
The new Fearless just dropped, it's not like the streaming numbers are going to equalize overnight. Can you link the data? Sounds like it's interesting
I just spent a few minutes looking for data, expecting something like a stock chart. I can't find almost anything -- even total stream numbers for an album or song are difficult to find.
If you have a good source, I'm very interested.
If you have a good source, I'm very interested.
The Spotify app shows play counts. I'm seeing, for example, 433M plays of "Love Story" and 65M plays of "Love Story (Taylor's Version)".
Considering that it was released only 3 days ago it seems like the number of plays for the "(Taylor's Version)" is quite incredible.
Considering that it was released only 3 days ago it seems like the number of plays for the "(Taylor's Version)" is quite incredible.
Ah, I only use open.spotify.com. Still, without scraping it/api access, there's no way to see a distribution AFAIK.
So basically we are reinventing DRM but call it NFTs now because...blockchain?
> The idea of NFTs is incredibly appealing to artists because the technology could allow for artists to sell music that can only be played by some client if the NFT for a track or album was authentic.
That's nonsense. DRM is just DRM and there's no way to stop piracy. If one person can listen to the track, that person can copy the track end of story.
That's nonsense. DRM is just DRM and there's no way to stop piracy. If one person can listen to the track, that person can copy the track end of story.
> Patel wrote about the end of scarcity, so technology that brings scarcity back seems like a panacea. Perhaps Swift’s 2014 vision was simply ahead of its time?
If our technology allows us to now distribute media in a post-scarcity environment, isn't that a good thing for culture? It's absolutely ridiculous that artificially reintroducing scarcity is seen as a good thing.
It also serves as yet another example of the reliance of profit on artificial scarcity, and the irrationality of the system- as well as the lengths to which people will go, just to desperately preserve an outdated model.
If our technology allows us to now distribute media in a post-scarcity environment, isn't that a good thing for culture? It's absolutely ridiculous that artificially reintroducing scarcity is seen as a good thing.
It also serves as yet another example of the reliance of profit on artificial scarcity, and the irrationality of the system- as well as the lengths to which people will go, just to desperately preserve an outdated model.
You wouldn't download an NFT
Technically, you cannot download an NFT. It's a distributed consensus that you cannot ever truly put your arms around (unless you're running a testnet and operate all of the nodes).
As long as I can download the gif, you can keep the NFT.
FWIW, this phenomenon is not new under the sun. I observe that we are experiencing a McLuhan Tetrad retrieval of it via our modern ~ Internet media artifact.
For example, I experienced (preferentially) buying, in the 1970s, LotR paperbacks with Tolkien's picture on the back cover with his authorial economic plea -- see his statement, below, in this citation ...
from "Tolkien: Lord of the Royalties" at https://ansible.uk/sfx/tolkien.html > Eventually the authorized edition appeared with Tolkien's stern message: "Those who approve of courtesy (at least) to living authors will purchase it and no other."
This was bad publicity for Ace, who eventually caved in, paid Tolkien royalties, and promised not to reprint. <
also referring to this circumstance is a Library of Congress blog post: J.R.R. Tolkien – Paperbacks and Copyright November 24, 2014 by Margaret Wood https://blogs.loc.gov/law/2014/11/j-r-r-tolkien-paperbacks-a...
For example, I experienced (preferentially) buying, in the 1970s, LotR paperbacks with Tolkien's picture on the back cover with his authorial economic plea -- see his statement, below, in this citation ...
from "Tolkien: Lord of the Royalties" at https://ansible.uk/sfx/tolkien.html > Eventually the authorized edition appeared with Tolkien's stern message: "Those who approve of courtesy (at least) to living authors will purchase it and no other."
This was bad publicity for Ace, who eventually caved in, paid Tolkien royalties, and promised not to reprint. <
also referring to this circumstance is a Library of Congress blog post: J.R.R. Tolkien – Paperbacks and Copyright November 24, 2014 by Margaret Wood https://blogs.loc.gov/law/2014/11/j-r-r-tolkien-paperbacks-a...
> In the future, artists will get record deals because they have fans — not the other way around.
I'm not in the industry, so I don't grok it too well. Why would an artist with an established fan base need a record deal?
I'm not in the industry, so I don't grok it too well. Why would an artist with an established fan base need a record deal?
Before streaming, the label owned the means of production (professional studios and professionals), means of distribution (Vynil, CDs etc), means of promotion (deals with radios, magazines, channels etc) and it sort of operated like a bank. So it would give lots of money upfront and the artist would sign the deal to x amount of albums to be distributed by the label (which was kept very non transparent by design, so that the artists who were not business savvy always did a bad deal. There were all kinds of other shenanigans, like underreporting sales (to pay less for the artist) etc.
Today labels lost a lot of their power in distribution (Spotify, Youtube, etc), a little in recording (recording is easier) but still have the promotion power. So they operate in a similar way but with deals focused on production and promotion. So an artist with fans would make a deal with a big label to get the promotion/production power they have and the bank function. So he/she would leverage on that to become a global star betting that this will bring more money that he/she owes the label.
Because the record label handles all the business aspects which is all the actual work of monetizing an artist. You can DIY but you will end up becoming a record label as you scale in the process.
They handle the marketing, merch, venues, social media, distribution, retail relationships, deals with studios, relationships with radio, relationships with personalities to do interviews, all the video production staff for music videos, like this could on forever.
They handle the marketing, merch, venues, social media, distribution, retail relationships, deals with studios, relationships with radio, relationships with personalities to do interviews, all the video production staff for music videos, like this could on forever.
They may have some fans, but not a lot of money. The label steps in to give money to fund creating a new album, creating music videos (these can easily run up to millions of dollars), issuing new LP pressings, doing concerts, advertising them, etc.
I don't know if this is completely right. It's true that artists can do damage to the companies that own copyrights and licenses to their work. It's also true that some dynamics will change because of the artist's ability to go directly to the consumer. Substack is a great evidence of this.
But those companies can and will fight back with legal means. For example, if I'm a label, non-disparagement clauses are the norm going forward. You don't bring our business in front of (from my perspective) the mob on Twitter. Also, I don't sign a deal unless I get the copyrights, the mechanical rights, the sync rights, the performance rights, and the songwriter rights. I need all the rights. The artist can keep the a perpetual, non-transferrable license to the performance right, but that's it. I bet this won't even cost them that much more, because until Ms. Swift flipped the script, this was kind of de facto understanding of what the master rights meant. This lateral move by Ms. Swift (apparently) caught everyone off guard.
She is a genius, though. I'm not sure if what she did was fair, but apparently this was war, and there's no fairness in war.
But those companies can and will fight back with legal means. For example, if I'm a label, non-disparagement clauses are the norm going forward. You don't bring our business in front of (from my perspective) the mob on Twitter. Also, I don't sign a deal unless I get the copyrights, the mechanical rights, the sync rights, the performance rights, and the songwriter rights. I need all the rights. The artist can keep the a perpetual, non-transferrable license to the performance right, but that's it. I bet this won't even cost them that much more, because until Ms. Swift flipped the script, this was kind of de facto understanding of what the master rights meant. This lateral move by Ms. Swift (apparently) caught everyone off guard.
She is a genius, though. I'm not sure if what she did was fair, but apparently this was war, and there's no fairness in war.
I didn't know that about Dave Chapelle's relationship with Comedy Central. It's a pretty good outcome for someone who over-performed much more than Comedy Central could have expected during initial negotiations.
It might seem intuitively strange-- "He signed the contract, he knew what he was getting!" But when I consider it through the lens of the professional business world, that doesn't make sense. If a company hires me at a salary of $X but I underperform, I get fired. In entertainment, the show gets cancelled. But if I vastly over-perform, things like bonuses, merit increases, and promotions are pretty standard: It's a renegotiation of the original terms of employment, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. I'm glad that it's becoming a less novel concept in the entertainment industry as well. (especially in a streaming age where limited air-time is no longer an issue and all old shows can be available, allowing for massive resurgence in demand for given show that might not have been aired at all previously)
And Dave was very astute to go to what he says are his real bosses-- his fans-- to address the issue. That is a somewhat unique dynamic to the entertainment industry, where the value that a solo entertainer brings to the table is much more easily quantified than the specific value of many employees at a 10k employee company.
It might seem intuitively strange-- "He signed the contract, he knew what he was getting!" But when I consider it through the lens of the professional business world, that doesn't make sense. If a company hires me at a salary of $X but I underperform, I get fired. In entertainment, the show gets cancelled. But if I vastly over-perform, things like bonuses, merit increases, and promotions are pretty standard: It's a renegotiation of the original terms of employment, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. I'm glad that it's becoming a less novel concept in the entertainment industry as well. (especially in a streaming age where limited air-time is no longer an issue and all old shows can be available, allowing for massive resurgence in demand for given show that might not have been aired at all previously)
And Dave was very astute to go to what he says are his real bosses-- his fans-- to address the issue. That is a somewhat unique dynamic to the entertainment industry, where the value that a solo entertainer brings to the table is much more easily quantified than the specific value of many employees at a 10k employee company.
Patronage is no longer the domain of the rich. When it is clear that it is optional to support an artist, some will do so for the personal satisfaction, some out of gratitude, and others for the social credit it brings.
A difference from old-fashioned patronage is that it's easier to lie -- you can pretend to support artists while secretly enjoying their music for free. Happily, it seems like only a minority of people are satisfied by that.
A difference from old-fashioned patronage is that it's easier to lie -- you can pretend to support artists while secretly enjoying their music for free. Happily, it seems like only a minority of people are satisfied by that.
> If the creator decides that their NFTs are important, they will have value
The reason artists who believe in the value of their own NFTs get paid more is because they're nominating themselves as NFT spokespeople and attracting the attention of marketplace investors with skin in the game.
If you're the CFO of one of these marketplaces and you're faced with a choice of which NFT to buy, do you choose the guy who just tweeted "trying out this NFT thing lol", or the guy who acts like he's the next Andy Warhol and constantly pushes the NFTs-have-value narrative?
The reason artists who believe in the value of their own NFTs get paid more is because they're nominating themselves as NFT spokespeople and attracting the attention of marketplace investors with skin in the game.
If you're the CFO of one of these marketplaces and you're faced with a choice of which NFT to buy, do you choose the guy who just tweeted "trying out this NFT thing lol", or the guy who acts like he's the next Andy Warhol and constantly pushes the NFTs-have-value narrative?
That should be a great band name!
The NFTs
The NFTs