How did you to come to the conclusion that it's worth 10 million dollars if you've only been offered two?
Based on current performance of creative output. Taylor isn't pulling stuff from her ass when she thinks she's getting a raw deal, here.
So you consider two million dollars for X amount of work to be a raw deal.
You're certainly free to think so but I definitely disagree.
Considering the amount of money that amount of work produced? Care to explain why you think it wasn't a raw deal?
I find it amazing that people talk about how artists get ripped off by record companies...then turn around and defend them getting ripped off by tech companies.
she didn't get a raw deal! She got offered what she perceived to be a raw deal, so she walked away from it. She has the ability to do that as a direct result of multiple available distribution networks.
If this is 1985 and she decided she was getting a raw deal, she maybe could get a better one from a different label, if she hadn't already signed the rights to her work away in functional perpetuity for a development advance.
hold your head high soldier, it ain't over yet
that's why we call it the struggle, you're supposed to sweat
Also, the main reason for concern is "If this is how Taylor Swift gets treated, then imagine what it's like for the artists who don't have tens of millions of fans."
This is a big one right here.
A few of you know I'm basically a roadie for the music industry. For those of you who don't know: I'm a roadie for the music industry. In my time in the business, I've seen ticket and merch prices skyrocket to cover for the universal decline of album sales across all genres. Wanna know why a Muse (example act) concert t-shirt costs $30 these days instead of the ~$10-15 it used to, back in the day? No, it's not inflation; it's because no one wants to buy albums anymore when they can just stream them for free. Can't stream a t-shirt, though, so you gotta shell out for that. Wanna know why ticket prices have gone through the roof? Because you can't stream a live concert to a satisfying effect.
Merch and live shows have gone from vehicles of promotion and keepsake to the primary profit generation methods for artists in the music industry (merch especially, because it's the one place artists don't have to fork over ANY profit to the record labels). So the next time anyone tisk tisks about concerts being so expensive these days, I just want you to remember that the price is your fault. Knock it off with the damn Youtube playlists and streaming services.
What figures are we talking about here with "cover the decline?" Artists no longer making enough to survive? Or just no longer making seven figures every 2-3 years because they put out an album?
Think of it like this:
The creative industries have traditionally been one of the best ways for people to jump from poverty (and such) to celebrity/monetary fortune through little more than good looks and excellent effort. The arrival of Napster/the internet has severely curtailed that for the people (primarily artists) in the music business because of the ease/ready availability of nabbing services (stuff that gets you music for free, basically permanently, a la Napster and its progeny). Millennials and Gen Xers are a cheap bunch, and while I can't necessarily fault them for that, their reluctance to buy artist's stuff (and this includes porn fyi, which is also in decline/shifting to differently monetized entertainment models) has directly led to the decline/rejiggering of the culture/economic profit model of the music industry as a whole.
Big ticket musicians, like movie stars, want to get paid well for their work. I can't say I fault them for that sentiment, being as their success ultimately determines the fate of my success in many ways, as well.
That's nice. So do a lot of people. I say this as a guy that went to school for animation and wound up doing almost anything but because of how fucking cut throat that field was, which still has absolutely nothing on other entertainment industries. I played the starving artist gig, and you know what?
As a society we are under no obligation to provide an avenue for certain people to become, or remain millionaires just because they really, really want to be.
That is not to say that I in any way support theft of intellectual property. I actually think there is a case to be made that musical play lists on Youtube is a legitimate issue for artists since there is no way for them to monetize other people uploading their songs. But for other distribution efforts? They are making money off them. Whether they are making enough to satisfy themselves? That, ultimately, is not societies problem.
Taylor Swift was paid a pittance at a mere 2 million dollars?
If that is not buying into the language of upper class entitlement, then I don't know what is.
Taylor Swift is a music superstar with tens of millions of fans who all enjoy her music.
What do you think is the proper price tag for that?
We're not talking about a trust fund baby, or some hedge fund manager vulture capitalist. This is an actual creator who produces an actual good that lots of people actually enjoy.
This doesn't address my point either - specifically, whether or not Swift can command a higher pricetag for her catalogue (and if she believes she can do so in this way then she's welcome to whatever ethical negotiating strategy she wishes) does not change the fact that referring to 2 million dollars as a pittance puts you out of the frame of reference of 99% of the world in terms of their remuneration for their labor, claiming it as outrageous can only be born of the entitlements of those levels of society.
That said, I would answer your question with a question of my own - how much does a teacher get paid?
And that has exactly what to do with the point in question? The reason I used the term is because when you look at how her album performed, $2M for what they were asking of her - to allow them to release her album day and date on their ad-supported service, which would have definitely cannibalized her initial sales - was exactly that. Which is why she ultimately told Spotify to go pound sand.
Don't understand your question. Which part of my post is it about?
It was about your comment about how much teachers get paid. It seems like you want to use a frame of reference for this argument that does not really fit.
It was in response to Schrodinger's question about "what I think is the proper price tag?" a question that smuggles in a lot of assumptions, my question was Socratic.
But the greater point, as a whole, is that the pro-Swift side (a name selected for the purposes of simplicity and clarity, not the accuracy of its representation of the issues) buys into the assumptions that the elite and upper classes want us to buy - they deserve the high price tags that they command, through something other than market forces.
So, again, you view Spotify as an agent for the redistribution of wealth?
The fuck are you talking about?
Shryke, I request that you reconsider the tone and care with which you respond to me in particular but to everyone in general. That's neither a proportionate conversational escalation nor a remotely reasonable paraphrase or consequence of anything I have said.
I have been talking about the language used, arguments deployed and assumptions smuggled by the pro-Swift side. It may be you and your compatriots are correct about your overall points - for example, that the current situations are unsustainable, that it's the streaming and technology sites that are the actual rent-seekers and so on and so forth - I haven't been seeking to interact with those sorts of things.
If I were to summarise my main point it would be - the questions of appropriate compensation are not trivial and the pro-Swift side are using a number of context specific assumptions that are useful for the elite in society and that 2 million dollars a year is a lot for personal income and referring to it as a "pittance" is also dependent upon a lot of assumption and privilege.
And your only point so far has been to imply that because the cost is so much that the matter of proper compensation from one multi-million dollar party to another in this deal is irrelevant. Which is ludicrous. Especially when the implications apply to all levels of artists.
Taylor Swift was paid a pittance at a mere 2 million dollars?
If that is not buying into the language of upper class entitlement, then I don't know what is.
Taylor Swift is a music superstar with tens of millions of fans who all enjoy her music.
What do you think is the proper price tag for that?
We're not talking about a trust fund baby, or some hedge fund manager vulture capitalist. This is an actual creator who produces an actual good that lots of people actually enjoy.
This doesn't address my point either - specifically, whether or not Swift can command a higher pricetag for her catalogue (and if she believes she can do so in this way then she's welcome to whatever ethical negotiating strategy she wishes) does not change the fact that referring to 2 million dollars as a pittance puts you out of the frame of reference of 99% of the world in terms of their remuneration for their labor, claiming it as outrageous can only be born of the entitlements of those levels of society.
That said, I would answer your question with a question of my own - how much does a teacher get paid?
And that has exactly what to do with the point in question? The reason I used the term is because when you look at how her album performed, $2M for what they were asking of her - to allow them to release her album day and date on their ad-supported service, which would have definitely cannibalized her initial sales - was exactly that. Which is why she ultimately told Spotify to go pound sand.
Don't understand your question. Which part of my post is it about?
It was about your comment about how much teachers get paid. It seems like you want to use a frame of reference for this argument that does not really fit.
It was in response to Schrodinger's question about "what I think is the proper price tag?" a question that smuggles in a lot of assumptions, my question was Socratic.
But the greater point, as a whole, is that the pro-Swift side (a name selected for the purposes of simplicity and clarity, not the accuracy of its representation of the issues) buys into the assumptions that the elite and upper classes want us to buy - they deserve the high price tags that they command, through something other than market forces.
No, the point is that Swift deserves the high price tag she commands because she has created a product that a large number of people want. Spotify wanted her to give them day-one access to her brand new album, which has become the #1 performing album for this year, at their standard rates. And when she realized how bad a deal that was and told them that it was not going to happen, that makes her somehow "elite"?
It makes her elitist. Spotify was obviously not so worried about losing her album that they felt the need to offer her a better deal. Swift basically said "You guys don't pay me enough to get access to my work." To which it seemed Spotify's response was "You don't generate enough revenue for us to care." One of the parties then decided to make a huge fuss over this.
This assumption is not supported by the evidence. It is just possible, and far more likely, Spotify's thinking was actually "No one has complained about our low-ball offers before/No one knows it's even a low-ball offer".
The idea that Spotify's payment to Taylor Swift is a function of the revenue it generates rather then the price they think they can get away with is fucking silly given historical trends. Netflix after all got it's start snatching up streaming rights who's value was being hugely underestimated by the rights holders.
If they thought losing her album would impact their bottom line that much, they would have negotiated a deal. You would have to assume both sides are hilariously incompetent at business to assume there weren't negotiations of some sort.
The end result was one side decided to walk, and the other found that an acceptable loss.
We live in a country where companies like Walmart will shut down entire megamarts when the workers ask for more cash.
Taylor Swift was paid a pittance at a mere 2 million dollars?
If that is not buying into the language of upper class entitlement, then I don't know what is.
Taylor Swift is a music superstar with tens of millions of fans who all enjoy her music.
What do you think is the proper price tag for that?
We're not talking about a trust fund baby, or some hedge fund manager vulture capitalist. This is an actual creator who produces an actual good that lots of people actually enjoy.
This doesn't address my point either - specifically, whether or not Swift can command a higher pricetag for her catalogue (and if she believes she can do so in this way then she's welcome to whatever ethical negotiating strategy she wishes) does not change the fact that referring to 2 million dollars as a pittance puts you out of the frame of reference of 99% of the world in terms of their remuneration for their labor, claiming it as outrageous can only be born of the entitlements of those levels of society.
That said, I would answer your question with a question of my own - how much does a teacher get paid?
And that has exactly what to do with the point in question? The reason I used the term is because when you look at how her album performed, $2M for what they were asking of her - to allow them to release her album day and date on their ad-supported service, which would have definitely cannibalized her initial sales - was exactly that. Which is why she ultimately told Spotify to go pound sand.
Don't understand your question. Which part of my post is it about?
It was about your comment about how much teachers get paid. It seems like you want to use a frame of reference for this argument that does not really fit.
It was in response to Schrodinger's question about "what I think is the proper price tag?" a question that smuggles in a lot of assumptions, my question was Socratic.
But the greater point, as a whole, is that the pro-Swift side (a name selected for the purposes of simplicity and clarity, not the accuracy of its representation of the issues) buys into the assumptions that the elite and upper classes want us to buy - they deserve the high price tags that they command, through something other than market forces.
Meanwhile, Daniel Ek, CEO of Spotify, has a net worth of $300 million.
Next up: We can't have a $15 minimum wage, because if we do, then we're buying into the elitist assumption that Gordon Gecko deserves to be rich.
As far as I can tell this is either radically incomplete as a rebuttal, entirely disingenuous or entirely absurd.
No, it's pointing out the fact that your argument hinges on us not pulling aside the curtain - you want us to view Swift's side as "eilte", but ignore that the other side in the equation is even moreso by your own standards.
Taylor Swift was paid a pittance at a mere 2 million dollars?
If that is not buying into the language of upper class entitlement, then I don't know what is.
Taylor Swift is a music superstar with tens of millions of fans who all enjoy her music.
What do you think is the proper price tag for that?
We're not talking about a trust fund baby, or some hedge fund manager vulture capitalist. This is an actual creator who produces an actual good that lots of people actually enjoy.
This doesn't address my point either - specifically, whether or not Swift can command a higher pricetag for her catalogue (and if she believes she can do so in this way then she's welcome to whatever ethical negotiating strategy she wishes) does not change the fact that referring to 2 million dollars as a pittance puts you out of the frame of reference of 99% of the world in terms of their remuneration for their labor, claiming it as outrageous can only be born of the entitlements of those levels of society.
That said, I would answer your question with a question of my own - how much does a teacher get paid?
And that has exactly what to do with the point in question? The reason I used the term is because when you look at how her album performed, $2M for what they were asking of her - to allow them to release her album day and date on their ad-supported service, which would have definitely cannibalized her initial sales - was exactly that. Which is why she ultimately told Spotify to go pound sand.
Don't understand your question. Which part of my post is it about?
It was about your comment about how much teachers get paid. It seems like you want to use a frame of reference for this argument that does not really fit.
It was in response to Schrodinger's question about "what I think is the proper price tag?" a question that smuggles in a lot of assumptions, my question was Socratic.
But the greater point, as a whole, is that the pro-Swift side (a name selected for the purposes of simplicity and clarity, not the accuracy of its representation of the issues) buys into the assumptions that the elite and upper classes want us to buy - they deserve the high price tags that they command, through something other than market forces.
No, the point is that Swift deserves the high price tag she commands because she has created a product that a large number of people want. Spotify wanted her to give them day-one access to her brand new album, which has become the #1 performing album for this year, at their standard rates. And when she realized how bad a deal that was and told them that it was not going to happen, that makes her somehow "elite"?
What makes elite is that her net worth is multiple orders of magnitude than greater the average citizen in any country in the developed world let alone the entire world.
Taylor Swift was paid a pittance at a mere 2 million dollars?
If that is not buying into the language of upper class entitlement, then I don't know what is.
Taylor Swift is a music superstar with tens of millions of fans who all enjoy her music.
What do you think is the proper price tag for that?
We're not talking about a trust fund baby, or some hedge fund manager vulture capitalist. This is an actual creator who produces an actual good that lots of people actually enjoy.
This doesn't address my point either - specifically, whether or not Swift can command a higher pricetag for her catalogue (and if she believes she can do so in this way then she's welcome to whatever ethical negotiating strategy she wishes) does not change the fact that referring to 2 million dollars as a pittance puts you out of the frame of reference of 99% of the world in terms of their remuneration for their labor, claiming it as outrageous can only be born of the entitlements of those levels of society.
That said, I would answer your question with a question of my own - how much does a teacher get paid?
And that has exactly what to do with the point in question? The reason I used the term is because when you look at how her album performed, $2M for what they were asking of her - to allow them to release her album day and date on their ad-supported service, which would have definitely cannibalized her initial sales - was exactly that. Which is why she ultimately told Spotify to go pound sand.
Don't understand your question. Which part of my post is it about?
It was about your comment about how much teachers get paid. It seems like you want to use a frame of reference for this argument that does not really fit.
It was in response to Schrodinger's question about "what I think is the proper price tag?" a question that smuggles in a lot of assumptions, my question was Socratic.
But the greater point, as a whole, is that the pro-Swift side (a name selected for the purposes of simplicity and clarity, not the accuracy of its representation of the issues) buys into the assumptions that the elite and upper classes want us to buy - they deserve the high price tags that they command, through something other than market forces.
No, the point is that Swift deserves the high price tag she commands because she has created a product that a large number of people want. Spotify wanted her to give them day-one access to her brand new album, which has become the #1 performing album for this year, at their standard rates. And when she realized how bad a deal that was and told them that it was not going to happen, that makes her somehow "elite"?
What makes elite is that her net worth is multiple orders of magnitude than greater the average citizen in any country in the developed world let alone the entire world.
She is part of the 1% and all that.
And guess what - so is Ek.
So what is your point again? Because it really seems like you have a genuine problem with her making money.
Taylor Swift was paid a pittance at a mere 2 million dollars?
If that is not buying into the language of upper class entitlement, then I don't know what is.
Taylor Swift is a music superstar with tens of millions of fans who all enjoy her music.
What do you think is the proper price tag for that?
We're not talking about a trust fund baby, or some hedge fund manager vulture capitalist. This is an actual creator who produces an actual good that lots of people actually enjoy.
This doesn't address my point either - specifically, whether or not Swift can command a higher pricetag for her catalogue (and if she believes she can do so in this way then she's welcome to whatever ethical negotiating strategy she wishes) does not change the fact that referring to 2 million dollars as a pittance puts you out of the frame of reference of 99% of the world in terms of their remuneration for their labor, claiming it as outrageous can only be born of the entitlements of those levels of society.
That said, I would answer your question with a question of my own - how much does a teacher get paid?
And that has exactly what to do with the point in question? The reason I used the term is because when you look at how her album performed, $2M for what they were asking of her - to allow them to release her album day and date on their ad-supported service, which would have definitely cannibalized her initial sales - was exactly that. Which is why she ultimately told Spotify to go pound sand.
Don't understand your question. Which part of my post is it about?
It was about your comment about how much teachers get paid. It seems like you want to use a frame of reference for this argument that does not really fit.
It was in response to Schrodinger's question about "what I think is the proper price tag?" a question that smuggles in a lot of assumptions, my question was Socratic.
But the greater point, as a whole, is that the pro-Swift side (a name selected for the purposes of simplicity and clarity, not the accuracy of its representation of the issues) buys into the assumptions that the elite and upper classes want us to buy - they deserve the high price tags that they command, through something other than market forces.
No, the point is that Swift deserves the high price tag she commands because she has created a product that a large number of people want. Spotify wanted her to give them day-one access to her brand new album, which has become the #1 performing album for this year, at their standard rates. And when she realized how bad a deal that was and told them that it was not going to happen, that makes her somehow "elite"?
What makes elite is that her net worth is multiple orders of magnitude than greater the average citizen in any country in the developed world let alone the entire world.
Taylor Swift was paid a pittance at a mere 2 million dollars?
If that is not buying into the language of upper class entitlement, then I don't know what is.
Taylor Swift is a music superstar with tens of millions of fans who all enjoy her music.
What do you think is the proper price tag for that?
We're not talking about a trust fund baby, or some hedge fund manager vulture capitalist. This is an actual creator who produces an actual good that lots of people actually enjoy.
This doesn't address my point either - specifically, whether or not Swift can command a higher pricetag for her catalogue (and if she believes she can do so in this way then she's welcome to whatever ethical negotiating strategy she wishes) does not change the fact that referring to 2 million dollars as a pittance puts you out of the frame of reference of 99% of the world in terms of their remuneration for their labor, claiming it as outrageous can only be born of the entitlements of those levels of society.
That said, I would answer your question with a question of my own - how much does a teacher get paid?
And that has exactly what to do with the point in question? The reason I used the term is because when you look at how her album performed, $2M for what they were asking of her - to allow them to release her album day and date on their ad-supported service, which would have definitely cannibalized her initial sales - was exactly that. Which is why she ultimately told Spotify to go pound sand.
Don't understand your question. Which part of my post is it about?
It was about your comment about how much teachers get paid. It seems like you want to use a frame of reference for this argument that does not really fit.
It was in response to Schrodinger's question about "what I think is the proper price tag?" a question that smuggles in a lot of assumptions, my question was Socratic.
But the greater point, as a whole, is that the pro-Swift side (a name selected for the purposes of simplicity and clarity, not the accuracy of its representation of the issues) buys into the assumptions that the elite and upper classes want us to buy - they deserve the high price tags that they command, through something other than market forces.
No, the point is that Swift deserves the high price tag she commands because she has created a product that a large number of people want. Spotify wanted her to give them day-one access to her brand new album, which has become the #1 performing album for this year, at their standard rates. And when she realized how bad a deal that was and told them that it was not going to happen, that makes her somehow "elite"?
It makes her elitist. Spotify was obviously not so worried about losing her album that they felt the need to offer her a better deal. Swift basically said "You guys don't pay me enough to get access to my work." To which it seemed Spotify's response was "You don't generate enough revenue for us to care." One of the parties then decided to make a huge fuss over this.
This assumption is not supported by the evidence. It is just possible, and far more likely, Spotify's thinking was actually "No one has complained about our low-ball offers before/No one knows it's even a low-ball offer".
The idea that Spotify's payment to Taylor Swift is a function of the revenue it generates rather then the price they think they can get away with is fucking silly given historical trends. Netflix after all got it's start snatching up streaming rights who's value was being hugely underestimated by the rights holders.
If they thought losing her album would impact their bottom line that much, they would have negotiated a deal. You would have to assume both sides are hilariously incompetent at business to assume there weren't negotiations of some sort.
The end result was one side decided to walk, and the other found that an acceptable loss.
This assumes you have any clue how the negotiations went, that they are even concluded or what Taylor Swift's stand on the issue is. All are bad ones.
It's been a matter of weeks. The whole thing is still shaking out. Spotify may not have made a counter offer yet. They may be waiting to see how the album sales pan out. Taylor Swift may view this as a matter of principle and has turned down larger offers. Spotify may not want to make a larger counter-offer because that would indicate to other artists that they could get more if they bargained harder and Spotify may be willing to cut their losses on Taylor Swift so as not to cause issues with other artists on their platform.
You are making alot of very narrow and bad assumptions to make this work.
Who cares? The net result is the same. Spotify currently doesn't carry Taylor Swift. At some unknown point in the future, they may carry her. Or they may not!
Swift thought it was in her best interest to pull her material. Good for her! Spotify didn't feel compelled to do enough to keep her? Good for them! If other artists decide to follow Swifts lead? Good for them too!
Spotify is under no obligation to pay artists more than they feel is necessary. The artists are free to take this deal or leave it (one just did!).
If it makes you feel better, I will now go take a moment and feel very sad for Taylor Swift not getting her $10 million from Spotify next year.
Taylor Swift was paid a pittance at a mere 2 million dollars?
If that is not buying into the language of upper class entitlement, then I don't know what is.
Taylor Swift is a music superstar with tens of millions of fans who all enjoy her music.
What do you think is the proper price tag for that?
We're not talking about a trust fund baby, or some hedge fund manager vulture capitalist. This is an actual creator who produces an actual good that lots of people actually enjoy.
This doesn't address my point either - specifically, whether or not Swift can command a higher pricetag for her catalogue (and if she believes she can do so in this way then she's welcome to whatever ethical negotiating strategy she wishes) does not change the fact that referring to 2 million dollars as a pittance puts you out of the frame of reference of 99% of the world in terms of their remuneration for their labor, claiming it as outrageous can only be born of the entitlements of those levels of society.
That said, I would answer your question with a question of my own - how much does a teacher get paid?
And that has exactly what to do with the point in question? The reason I used the term is because when you look at how her album performed, $2M for what they were asking of her - to allow them to release her album day and date on their ad-supported service, which would have definitely cannibalized her initial sales - was exactly that. Which is why she ultimately told Spotify to go pound sand.
Don't understand your question. Which part of my post is it about?
It was about your comment about how much teachers get paid. It seems like you want to use a frame of reference for this argument that does not really fit.
It was in response to Schrodinger's question about "what I think is the proper price tag?" a question that smuggles in a lot of assumptions, my question was Socratic.
But the greater point, as a whole, is that the pro-Swift side (a name selected for the purposes of simplicity and clarity, not the accuracy of its representation of the issues) buys into the assumptions that the elite and upper classes want us to buy - they deserve the high price tags that they command, through something other than market forces.
No, the point is that Swift deserves the high price tag she commands because she has created a product that a large number of people want. Spotify wanted her to give them day-one access to her brand new album, which has become the #1 performing album for this year, at their standard rates. And when she realized how bad a deal that was and told them that it was not going to happen, that makes her somehow "elite"?
It makes her elitist. Spotify was obviously not so worried about losing her album that they felt the need to offer her a better deal. Swift basically said "You guys don't pay me enough to get access to my work." To which it seemed Spotify's response was "You don't generate enough revenue for us to care." One of the parties then decided to make a huge fuss over this.
This assumption is not supported by the evidence. It is just possible, and far more likely, Spotify's thinking was actually "No one has complained about our low-ball offers before/No one knows it's even a low-ball offer".
The idea that Spotify's payment to Taylor Swift is a function of the revenue it generates rather then the price they think they can get away with is fucking silly given historical trends. Netflix after all got it's start snatching up streaming rights who's value was being hugely underestimated by the rights holders.
If they thought losing her album would impact their bottom line that much, they would have negotiated a deal. You would have to assume both sides are hilariously incompetent at business to assume there weren't negotiations of some sort.
The end result was one side decided to walk, and the other found that an acceptable loss.
We live in a country where companies like Walmart will shut down entire megamarts when the workers ask for more cash.
Corporations don't like to look weak.
Walmart doesn't shut down their stores when their suppliers raise prices though, they pass that cost on to the customer. Artists are not employees of Spotify. They are suppliers of a good for redistribution. They are free to not sell their product to Spotify. The best part is? Spotify can't make them sell!
Taylor Swift was paid a pittance at a mere 2 million dollars?
If that is not buying into the language of upper class entitlement, then I don't know what is.
Taylor Swift is a music superstar with tens of millions of fans who all enjoy her music.
What do you think is the proper price tag for that?
We're not talking about a trust fund baby, or some hedge fund manager vulture capitalist. This is an actual creator who produces an actual good that lots of people actually enjoy.
This doesn't address my point either - specifically, whether or not Swift can command a higher pricetag for her catalogue (and if she believes she can do so in this way then she's welcome to whatever ethical negotiating strategy she wishes) does not change the fact that referring to 2 million dollars as a pittance puts you out of the frame of reference of 99% of the world in terms of their remuneration for their labor, claiming it as outrageous can only be born of the entitlements of those levels of society.
That said, I would answer your question with a question of my own - how much does a teacher get paid?
And that has exactly what to do with the point in question? The reason I used the term is because when you look at how her album performed, $2M for what they were asking of her - to allow them to release her album day and date on their ad-supported service, which would have definitely cannibalized her initial sales - was exactly that. Which is why she ultimately told Spotify to go pound sand.
Don't understand your question. Which part of my post is it about?
It was about your comment about how much teachers get paid. It seems like you want to use a frame of reference for this argument that does not really fit.
It was in response to Schrodinger's question about "what I think is the proper price tag?" a question that smuggles in a lot of assumptions, my question was Socratic.
But the greater point, as a whole, is that the pro-Swift side (a name selected for the purposes of simplicity and clarity, not the accuracy of its representation of the issues) buys into the assumptions that the elite and upper classes want us to buy - they deserve the high price tags that they command, through something other than market forces.
No, the point is that Swift deserves the high price tag she commands because she has created a product that a large number of people want. Spotify wanted her to give them day-one access to her brand new album, which has become the #1 performing album for this year, at their standard rates. And when she realized how bad a deal that was and told them that it was not going to happen, that makes her somehow "elite"?
What makes elite is that her net worth is multiple orders of magnitude than greater the average citizen in any country in the developed world let alone the entire world.
She is part of the 1% and all that.
This reminds me of the 2012 election where the Romney crowd accused Obama for being an "elitist" for going to Harvard and for making millions of dollars off his book sales all over again.
Of course, none of this is really about the money at all. It's about perception.
Taylor Swift is okay with being on the paid version of Spotify. But she doesn't want to be on the free version of Spotify, because it creates the perception that music should be free and artists have no value.
She refuses to cave because she wants to let other artists know it's okay to stand up for their value.
That's not an unreasonable request. At all.
So why doesn't Spotify allow her to stay in the paid version but opt-out of the free version? Well, for the same reason Walmart would rather shut down a Megamart at a loss rather than pay higher wages while maintaining a profit.
Spotify is worried that if they cave into Taylor Swift, then other artists will make the same demand. But why is that a problem?
Simple. Because Spotify actually benefits from the idea that music should be free and artists have no value. First, because it justifies screwing the artists over. But second, if they promote the idea that music has no value, then fewer people will actually pay to own the music. Which means that Spotify has more power as the only game in town.
Taylor Swift was paid a pittance at a mere 2 million dollars?
If that is not buying into the language of upper class entitlement, then I don't know what is.
Taylor Swift is a music superstar with tens of millions of fans who all enjoy her music.
What do you think is the proper price tag for that?
We're not talking about a trust fund baby, or some hedge fund manager vulture capitalist. This is an actual creator who produces an actual good that lots of people actually enjoy.
This doesn't address my point either - specifically, whether or not Swift can command a higher pricetag for her catalogue (and if she believes she can do so in this way then she's welcome to whatever ethical negotiating strategy she wishes) does not change the fact that referring to 2 million dollars as a pittance puts you out of the frame of reference of 99% of the world in terms of their remuneration for their labor, claiming it as outrageous can only be born of the entitlements of those levels of society.
That said, I would answer your question with a question of my own - how much does a teacher get paid?
And that has exactly what to do with the point in question? The reason I used the term is because when you look at how her album performed, $2M for what they were asking of her - to allow them to release her album day and date on their ad-supported service, which would have definitely cannibalized her initial sales - was exactly that. Which is why she ultimately told Spotify to go pound sand.
Don't understand your question. Which part of my post is it about?
It was about your comment about how much teachers get paid. It seems like you want to use a frame of reference for this argument that does not really fit.
It was in response to Schrodinger's question about "what I think is the proper price tag?" a question that smuggles in a lot of assumptions, my question was Socratic.
But the greater point, as a whole, is that the pro-Swift side (a name selected for the purposes of simplicity and clarity, not the accuracy of its representation of the issues) buys into the assumptions that the elite and upper classes want us to buy - they deserve the high price tags that they command, through something other than market forces.
No, the point is that Swift deserves the high price tag she commands because she has created a product that a large number of people want. Spotify wanted her to give them day-one access to her brand new album, which has become the #1 performing album for this year, at their standard rates. And when she realized how bad a deal that was and told them that it was not going to happen, that makes her somehow "elite"?
It makes her elitist. Spotify was obviously not so worried about losing her album that they felt the need to offer her a better deal. Swift basically said "You guys don't pay me enough to get access to my work." To which it seemed Spotify's response was "You don't generate enough revenue for us to care." One of the parties then decided to make a huge fuss over this.
This assumption is not supported by the evidence. It is just possible, and far more likely, Spotify's thinking was actually "No one has complained about our low-ball offers before/No one knows it's even a low-ball offer".
The idea that Spotify's payment to Taylor Swift is a function of the revenue it generates rather then the price they think they can get away with is fucking silly given historical trends. Netflix after all got it's start snatching up streaming rights who's value was being hugely underestimated by the rights holders.
If they thought losing her album would impact their bottom line that much, they would have negotiated a deal. You would have to assume both sides are hilariously incompetent at business to assume there weren't negotiations of some sort.
The end result was one side decided to walk, and the other found that an acceptable loss.
This assumes you have any clue how the negotiations went, that they are even concluded or what Taylor Swift's stand on the issue is. All are bad ones.
It's been a matter of weeks. The whole thing is still shaking out. Spotify may not have made a counter offer yet. They may be waiting to see how the album sales pan out. Taylor Swift may view this as a matter of principle and has turned down larger offers. Spotify may not want to make a larger counter-offer because that would indicate to other artists that they could get more if they bargained harder and Spotify may be willing to cut their losses on Taylor Swift so as not to cause issues with other artists on their platform.
You are making alot of very narrow and bad assumptions to make this work.
Who cares?
You do. Because your entire argument has been based on assumptions that ignore everything I just said. Which is completely and utterly silly. As pointed out above in a great example, many entities are extremely willing to cut losses on problematic clients/suppliers in order to maintain control over the rest.
Your current "I don't care" attitude is not consistent with any of your previous argument.
0
Options
Apothe0sisHave you ever questioned the nature of your reality?Registered Userregular
Taylor Swift was paid a pittance at a mere 2 million dollars?
If that is not buying into the language of upper class entitlement, then I don't know what is.
Taylor Swift is a music superstar with tens of millions of fans who all enjoy her music.
What do you think is the proper price tag for that?
We're not talking about a trust fund baby, or some hedge fund manager vulture capitalist. This is an actual creator who produces an actual good that lots of people actually enjoy.
This doesn't address my point either - specifically, whether or not Swift can command a higher pricetag for her catalogue (and if she believes she can do so in this way then she's welcome to whatever ethical negotiating strategy she wishes) does not change the fact that referring to 2 million dollars as a pittance puts you out of the frame of reference of 99% of the world in terms of their remuneration for their labor, claiming it as outrageous can only be born of the entitlements of those levels of society.
That said, I would answer your question with a question of my own - how much does a teacher get paid?
And that has exactly what to do with the point in question? The reason I used the term is because when you look at how her album performed, $2M for what they were asking of her - to allow them to release her album day and date on their ad-supported service, which would have definitely cannibalized her initial sales - was exactly that. Which is why she ultimately told Spotify to go pound sand.
Don't understand your question. Which part of my post is it about?
It was about your comment about how much teachers get paid. It seems like you want to use a frame of reference for this argument that does not really fit.
It was in response to Schrodinger's question about "what I think is the proper price tag?" a question that smuggles in a lot of assumptions, my question was Socratic.
But the greater point, as a whole, is that the pro-Swift side (a name selected for the purposes of simplicity and clarity, not the accuracy of its representation of the issues) buys into the assumptions that the elite and upper classes want us to buy - they deserve the high price tags that they command, through something other than market forces.
Meanwhile, Daniel Ek, CEO of Spotify, has a net worth of $300 million.
Next up: We can't have a $15 minimum wage, because if we do, then we're buying into the elitist assumption that Gordon Gecko deserves to be rich.
As far as I can tell this is either radically incomplete as a rebuttal, entirely disingenuous or entirely absurd.
No, it's pointing out the fact that your argument hinges on us not pulling aside the curtain - you want us to view Swift's side as "eilte", but ignore that the other side in the equation is even moreso by your own standards.
Firstly, I don't deny that Ek is also one of the elite. That's not a zero sum game. I'd be saying the exact same things if you were complaining that Ek's remuneration was a pittance at 2 million dollars per year (though to be direct an analogy we'd have to acknowledge that was only part of his income). As such, it's unclear as to the relevance.
Secondly, I challenge you to be able to paraphrase exactly what my position in fact is.
Taylor Swift was paid a pittance at a mere 2 million dollars?
If that is not buying into the language of upper class entitlement, then I don't know what is.
Taylor Swift is a music superstar with tens of millions of fans who all enjoy her music.
What do you think is the proper price tag for that?
We're not talking about a trust fund baby, or some hedge fund manager vulture capitalist. This is an actual creator who produces an actual good that lots of people actually enjoy.
This doesn't address my point either - specifically, whether or not Swift can command a higher pricetag for her catalogue (and if she believes she can do so in this way then she's welcome to whatever ethical negotiating strategy she wishes) does not change the fact that referring to 2 million dollars as a pittance puts you out of the frame of reference of 99% of the world in terms of their remuneration for their labor, claiming it as outrageous can only be born of the entitlements of those levels of society.
That said, I would answer your question with a question of my own - how much does a teacher get paid?
And that has exactly what to do with the point in question? The reason I used the term is because when you look at how her album performed, $2M for what they were asking of her - to allow them to release her album day and date on their ad-supported service, which would have definitely cannibalized her initial sales - was exactly that. Which is why she ultimately told Spotify to go pound sand.
Don't understand your question. Which part of my post is it about?
It was about your comment about how much teachers get paid. It seems like you want to use a frame of reference for this argument that does not really fit.
It was in response to Schrodinger's question about "what I think is the proper price tag?" a question that smuggles in a lot of assumptions, my question was Socratic.
But the greater point, as a whole, is that the pro-Swift side (a name selected for the purposes of simplicity and clarity, not the accuracy of its representation of the issues) buys into the assumptions that the elite and upper classes want us to buy - they deserve the high price tags that they command, through something other than market forces.
No, the point is that Swift deserves the high price tag she commands because she has created a product that a large number of people want. Spotify wanted her to give them day-one access to her brand new album, which has become the #1 performing album for this year, at their standard rates. And when she realized how bad a deal that was and told them that it was not going to happen, that makes her somehow "elite"?
It makes her elitist. Spotify was obviously not so worried about losing her album that they felt the need to offer her a better deal. Swift basically said "You guys don't pay me enough to get access to my work." To which it seemed Spotify's response was "You don't generate enough revenue for us to care." One of the parties then decided to make a huge fuss over this.
This assumption is not supported by the evidence. It is just possible, and far more likely, Spotify's thinking was actually "No one has complained about our low-ball offers before/No one knows it's even a low-ball offer".
The idea that Spotify's payment to Taylor Swift is a function of the revenue it generates rather then the price they think they can get away with is fucking silly given historical trends. Netflix after all got it's start snatching up streaming rights who's value was being hugely underestimated by the rights holders.
If they thought losing her album would impact their bottom line that much, they would have negotiated a deal. You would have to assume both sides are hilariously incompetent at business to assume there weren't negotiations of some sort.
The end result was one side decided to walk, and the other found that an acceptable loss.
This assumes you have any clue how the negotiations went, that they are even concluded or what Taylor Swift's stand on the issue is. All are bad ones.
It's been a matter of weeks. The whole thing is still shaking out. Spotify may not have made a counter offer yet. They may be waiting to see how the album sales pan out. Taylor Swift may view this as a matter of principle and has turned down larger offers. Spotify may not want to make a larger counter-offer because that would indicate to other artists that they could get more if they bargained harder and Spotify may be willing to cut their losses on Taylor Swift so as not to cause issues with other artists on their platform.
You are making alot of very narrow and bad assumptions to make this work.
Who cares? The net result is the same. Spotify currently doesn't carry Taylor Swift. At some unknown point in the future, they may carry her. Or they may not!
Swift thought it was in her best interest to pull her material. Good for her! Spotify didn't feel compelled to do enough to keep her? Good for them! If other artists decide to follow Swifts lead? Good for them too!
Spotify is under no obligation to pay artists more than they feel is necessary. The artists are free to take this deal or leave it (one just did!).
If it makes you feel better, I will now go take a moment and feel very sad for Taylor Swift not getting her $10 million from Spotify next year.
Here's the thing - when she chose to pull her catalog from Spotify, she was immediately pilloriedfor her choice in the media. Not to mention that many of the articles portrayed her as having pulled her music from all streaming services, when she only pulled it from Spotify because they refused to put her album behind the premium wall.
Taylor Swift was paid a pittance at a mere 2 million dollars?
If that is not buying into the language of upper class entitlement, then I don't know what is.
Taylor Swift is a music superstar with tens of millions of fans who all enjoy her music.
What do you think is the proper price tag for that?
We're not talking about a trust fund baby, or some hedge fund manager vulture capitalist. This is an actual creator who produces an actual good that lots of people actually enjoy.
This doesn't address my point either - specifically, whether or not Swift can command a higher pricetag for her catalogue (and if she believes she can do so in this way then she's welcome to whatever ethical negotiating strategy she wishes) does not change the fact that referring to 2 million dollars as a pittance puts you out of the frame of reference of 99% of the world in terms of their remuneration for their labor, claiming it as outrageous can only be born of the entitlements of those levels of society.
That said, I would answer your question with a question of my own - how much does a teacher get paid?
And that has exactly what to do with the point in question? The reason I used the term is because when you look at how her album performed, $2M for what they were asking of her - to allow them to release her album day and date on their ad-supported service, which would have definitely cannibalized her initial sales - was exactly that. Which is why she ultimately told Spotify to go pound sand.
Don't understand your question. Which part of my post is it about?
It was about your comment about how much teachers get paid. It seems like you want to use a frame of reference for this argument that does not really fit.
It was in response to Schrodinger's question about "what I think is the proper price tag?" a question that smuggles in a lot of assumptions, my question was Socratic.
But the greater point, as a whole, is that the pro-Swift side (a name selected for the purposes of simplicity and clarity, not the accuracy of its representation of the issues) buys into the assumptions that the elite and upper classes want us to buy - they deserve the high price tags that they command, through something other than market forces.
No, the point is that Swift deserves the high price tag she commands because she has created a product that a large number of people want. Spotify wanted her to give them day-one access to her brand new album, which has become the #1 performing album for this year, at their standard rates. And when she realized how bad a deal that was and told them that it was not going to happen, that makes her somehow "elite"?
It makes her elitist. Spotify was obviously not so worried about losing her album that they felt the need to offer her a better deal. Swift basically said "You guys don't pay me enough to get access to my work." To which it seemed Spotify's response was "You don't generate enough revenue for us to care." One of the parties then decided to make a huge fuss over this.
This assumption is not supported by the evidence. It is just possible, and far more likely, Spotify's thinking was actually "No one has complained about our low-ball offers before/No one knows it's even a low-ball offer".
The idea that Spotify's payment to Taylor Swift is a function of the revenue it generates rather then the price they think they can get away with is fucking silly given historical trends. Netflix after all got it's start snatching up streaming rights who's value was being hugely underestimated by the rights holders.
If they thought losing her album would impact their bottom line that much, they would have negotiated a deal. You would have to assume both sides are hilariously incompetent at business to assume there weren't negotiations of some sort.
The end result was one side decided to walk, and the other found that an acceptable loss.
We live in a country where companies like Walmart will shut down entire megamarts when the workers ask for more cash.
Corporations don't like to look weak.
Walmart doesn't shut down their stores when their suppliers raise prices though, they pass that cost on to the customer. Artists are not employees of Spotify. They are suppliers of a good for redistribution. They are free to not sell their product to Spotify. The best part is? Spotify can't make them sell!
No actually, they pick another supplier. (actually Walmart commands what is virtually a monopsony and so dictates the price they pay, not the other way around)
This all ignores the point of the example though and mostly seems to indicate you didn't understand that point.
The point is that Spotify (potentially) walking away from a deal with Taylor Swift does not indicate that her content is not worth that much, as you previously implied. It only implies that Spotify does not want to be seen paying that much for the content. In the same way that Walmart does not want to be seen to allow organized labour and thus higher wages in one of their stores. Because they don't want the idea that they will pay more to start spreading. Better to cut your losses on that one thing and keep the rest of your business going as usual.
+4
Options
Apothe0sisHave you ever questioned the nature of your reality?Registered Userregular
Taylor Swift was paid a pittance at a mere 2 million dollars?
If that is not buying into the language of upper class entitlement, then I don't know what is.
Taylor Swift is a music superstar with tens of millions of fans who all enjoy her music.
What do you think is the proper price tag for that?
We're not talking about a trust fund baby, or some hedge fund manager vulture capitalist. This is an actual creator who produces an actual good that lots of people actually enjoy.
This doesn't address my point either - specifically, whether or not Swift can command a higher pricetag for her catalogue (and if she believes she can do so in this way then she's welcome to whatever ethical negotiating strategy she wishes) does not change the fact that referring to 2 million dollars as a pittance puts you out of the frame of reference of 99% of the world in terms of their remuneration for their labor, claiming it as outrageous can only be born of the entitlements of those levels of society.
That said, I would answer your question with a question of my own - how much does a teacher get paid?
And that has exactly what to do with the point in question? The reason I used the term is because when you look at how her album performed, $2M for what they were asking of her - to allow them to release her album day and date on their ad-supported service, which would have definitely cannibalized her initial sales - was exactly that. Which is why she ultimately told Spotify to go pound sand.
Don't understand your question. Which part of my post is it about?
It was about your comment about how much teachers get paid. It seems like you want to use a frame of reference for this argument that does not really fit.
It was in response to Schrodinger's question about "what I think is the proper price tag?" a question that smuggles in a lot of assumptions, my question was Socratic.
But the greater point, as a whole, is that the pro-Swift side (a name selected for the purposes of simplicity and clarity, not the accuracy of its representation of the issues) buys into the assumptions that the elite and upper classes want us to buy - they deserve the high price tags that they command, through something other than market forces.
No, the point is that Swift deserves the high price tag she commands because she has created a product that a large number of people want. Spotify wanted her to give them day-one access to her brand new album, which has become the #1 performing album for this year, at their standard rates. And when she realized how bad a deal that was and told them that it was not going to happen, that makes her somehow "elite"?
What makes elite is that her net worth is multiple orders of magnitude than greater the average citizen in any country in the developed world let alone the entire world.
She is part of the 1% and all that.
So what?
In a proximal sense, so AngelHedgie was either entirely failed at reading comprehension and basic deduction or responded entirely disingenuously when he styled me as considering her elite because she sought a better deal/walke away from a non-optimal one (which is incoherent).
In terms of the thread as a whole - that 2 million dollars is a lot of money, not a pittance and UNLESS you're part of the elite such that it's a merely quantitative comparison OR you begin with a range of assumptions about appropriate remuneration which I think are false, but useful to those who are part of the upper eschelons of society to proclaim and encourage in the lower ones.
Taylor Swift was paid a pittance at a mere 2 million dollars?
If that is not buying into the language of upper class entitlement, then I don't know what is.
Taylor Swift is a music superstar with tens of millions of fans who all enjoy her music.
What do you think is the proper price tag for that?
We're not talking about a trust fund baby, or some hedge fund manager vulture capitalist. This is an actual creator who produces an actual good that lots of people actually enjoy.
This doesn't address my point either - specifically, whether or not Swift can command a higher pricetag for her catalogue (and if she believes she can do so in this way then she's welcome to whatever ethical negotiating strategy she wishes) does not change the fact that referring to 2 million dollars as a pittance puts you out of the frame of reference of 99% of the world in terms of their remuneration for their labor, claiming it as outrageous can only be born of the entitlements of those levels of society.
That said, I would answer your question with a question of my own - how much does a teacher get paid?
And that has exactly what to do with the point in question? The reason I used the term is because when you look at how her album performed, $2M for what they were asking of her - to allow them to release her album day and date on their ad-supported service, which would have definitely cannibalized her initial sales - was exactly that. Which is why she ultimately told Spotify to go pound sand.
Don't understand your question. Which part of my post is it about?
It was about your comment about how much teachers get paid. It seems like you want to use a frame of reference for this argument that does not really fit.
It was in response to Schrodinger's question about "what I think is the proper price tag?" a question that smuggles in a lot of assumptions, my question was Socratic.
But the greater point, as a whole, is that the pro-Swift side (a name selected for the purposes of simplicity and clarity, not the accuracy of its representation of the issues) buys into the assumptions that the elite and upper classes want us to buy - they deserve the high price tags that they command, through something other than market forces.
No, the point is that Swift deserves the high price tag she commands because she has created a product that a large number of people want. Spotify wanted her to give them day-one access to her brand new album, which has become the #1 performing album for this year, at their standard rates. And when she realized how bad a deal that was and told them that it was not going to happen, that makes her somehow "elite"?
It makes her elitist. Spotify was obviously not so worried about losing her album that they felt the need to offer her a better deal. Swift basically said "You guys don't pay me enough to get access to my work." To which it seemed Spotify's response was "You don't generate enough revenue for us to care." One of the parties then decided to make a huge fuss over this.
This assumption is not supported by the evidence. It is just possible, and far more likely, Spotify's thinking was actually "No one has complained about our low-ball offers before/No one knows it's even a low-ball offer".
The idea that Spotify's payment to Taylor Swift is a function of the revenue it generates rather then the price they think they can get away with is fucking silly given historical trends. Netflix after all got it's start snatching up streaming rights who's value was being hugely underestimated by the rights holders.
If they thought losing her album would impact their bottom line that much, they would have negotiated a deal. You would have to assume both sides are hilariously incompetent at business to assume there weren't negotiations of some sort.
The end result was one side decided to walk, and the other found that an acceptable loss.
This assumes you have any clue how the negotiations went, that they are even concluded or what Taylor Swift's stand on the issue is. All are bad ones.
It's been a matter of weeks. The whole thing is still shaking out. Spotify may not have made a counter offer yet. They may be waiting to see how the album sales pan out. Taylor Swift may view this as a matter of principle and has turned down larger offers. Spotify may not want to make a larger counter-offer because that would indicate to other artists that they could get more if they bargained harder and Spotify may be willing to cut their losses on Taylor Swift so as not to cause issues with other artists on their platform.
You are making alot of very narrow and bad assumptions to make this work.
Who cares? The net result is the same. Spotify currently doesn't carry Taylor Swift. At some unknown point in the future, they may carry her. Or they may not!
Swift thought it was in her best interest to pull her material. Good for her! Spotify didn't feel compelled to do enough to keep her? Good for them! If other artists decide to follow Swifts lead? Good for them too!
Spotify is under no obligation to pay artists more than they feel is necessary. The artists are free to take this deal or leave it (one just did!).
If it makes you feel better, I will now go take a moment and feel very sad for Taylor Swift not getting her $10 million from Spotify next year.
Here's the thing - when she chose to pull her catalog from Spotify, she was immediately pilloriedfor her choice in the media. Not to mention that many of the articles portrayed her as having pulled her music from all streaming services, when she only pulled it from Spotify because they refused to put her album behind the premium wall.
That's the problem. Everyone was happy to say that artists could take the deal or leave it - until an artist with enough clout chose to leave it.
The media writing articles about this gets back to the very first thing I said in this thread, which is that this is a banal business decision that we were only made aware because it could be used to pit two internet tribes against each other and draw clicks and comment wars to Gawker and similar sites.
Taylor Swift was paid a pittance at a mere 2 million dollars?
If that is not buying into the language of upper class entitlement, then I don't know what is.
Taylor Swift is a music superstar with tens of millions of fans who all enjoy her music.
What do you think is the proper price tag for that?
We're not talking about a trust fund baby, or some hedge fund manager vulture capitalist. This is an actual creator who produces an actual good that lots of people actually enjoy.
This doesn't address my point either - specifically, whether or not Swift can command a higher pricetag for her catalogue (and if she believes she can do so in this way then she's welcome to whatever ethical negotiating strategy she wishes) does not change the fact that referring to 2 million dollars as a pittance puts you out of the frame of reference of 99% of the world in terms of their remuneration for their labor, claiming it as outrageous can only be born of the entitlements of those levels of society.
That said, I would answer your question with a question of my own - how much does a teacher get paid?
And that has exactly what to do with the point in question? The reason I used the term is because when you look at how her album performed, $2M for what they were asking of her - to allow them to release her album day and date on their ad-supported service, which would have definitely cannibalized her initial sales - was exactly that. Which is why she ultimately told Spotify to go pound sand.
Don't understand your question. Which part of my post is it about?
It was about your comment about how much teachers get paid. It seems like you want to use a frame of reference for this argument that does not really fit.
It was in response to Schrodinger's question about "what I think is the proper price tag?" a question that smuggles in a lot of assumptions, my question was Socratic.
But the greater point, as a whole, is that the pro-Swift side (a name selected for the purposes of simplicity and clarity, not the accuracy of its representation of the issues) buys into the assumptions that the elite and upper classes want us to buy - they deserve the high price tags that they command, through something other than market forces.
No, the point is that Swift deserves the high price tag she commands because she has created a product that a large number of people want. Spotify wanted her to give them day-one access to her brand new album, which has become the #1 performing album for this year, at their standard rates. And when she realized how bad a deal that was and told them that it was not going to happen, that makes her somehow "elite"?
What makes elite is that her net worth is multiple orders of magnitude than greater the average citizen in any country in the developed world let alone the entire world.
She is part of the 1% and all that.
So what?
In a proximal sense, so AngelHedgie was either entirely failed at reading comprehension and basic deduction or responded entirely disingenuously when he styled me as considering her elite because she sought a better deal/walke away from a non-optimal one (which is incoherent).
In terms of the thread as a whole - that 2 million dollars is a lot of money, not a pittance and UNLESS you're part of the elite such that it's a merely quantitative comparison OR you begin with a range of assumptions about appropriate remuneration which I think are false, but useful to those who are part of the upper eschelons of society to proclaim and encourage in the lower ones.
The problem is that you have everything backwards.
Generally, no one has an issue with the idea of, "If you do a better job, then you deserve more money." That makes perfect sense.
That's not why people dislike the upper echelons. The reason people dislike the upper echelons is because the upper echelons promote the reverse of this: "If you make more money, it's because you did a better job."
This is not the same argument. At all.
0
Options
HacksawJ. Duggan Esq.Wrestler at LawRegistered Userregular
Also, the main reason for concern is "If this is how Taylor Swift gets treated, then imagine what it's like for the artists who don't have tens of millions of fans."
This is a big one right here.
A few of you know I'm basically a roadie for the music industry. For those of you who don't know: I'm a roadie for the music industry. In my time in the business, I've seen ticket and merch prices skyrocket to cover for the universal decline of album sales across all genres. Wanna know why a Muse (example act) concert t-shirt costs $30 these days instead of the ~$10-15 it used to, back in the day? No, it's not inflation; it's because no one wants to buy albums anymore when they can just stream them for free. Can't stream a t-shirt, though, so you gotta shell out for that. Wanna know why ticket prices have gone through the roof? Because you can't stream a live concert to a satisfying effect.
Merch and live shows have gone from vehicles of promotion and keepsake to the primary profit generation methods for artists in the music industry (merch especially, because it's the one place artists don't have to fork over ANY profit to the record labels). So the next time anyone tisk tisks about concerts being so expensive these days, I just want you to remember that the price is your fault. Knock it off with the damn Youtube playlists and streaming services.
What figures are we talking about here with "cover the decline?" Artists no longer making enough to survive? Or just no longer making seven figures every 2-3 years because they put out an album?
Think of it like this:
The creative industries have traditionally been one of the best ways for people to jump from poverty (and such) to celebrity/monetary fortune through little more than good looks and excellent effort. The arrival of Napster/the internet has severely curtailed that for the people (primarily artists) in the music business because of the ease/ready availability of nabbing services (stuff that gets you music for free, basically permanently, a la Napster and its progeny). Millennials and Gen Xers are a cheap bunch, and while I can't necessarily fault them for that, their reluctance to buy artist's stuff (and this includes porn fyi, which is also in decline/shifting to differently monetized entertainment models) has directly led to the decline/rejiggering of the culture/economic profit model of the music industry as a whole.
Big ticket musicians, like movie stars, want to get paid well for their work. I can't say I fault them for that sentiment, being as their success ultimately determines the fate of my success in many ways, as well.
That's nice. So do a lot of people. I say this as a guy that went to school for animation and wound up doing almost anything but because of how fucking cut throat that field was, which still has absolutely nothing on other entertainment industries. I played the starving artist gig, and you know what?
As a society we are under no obligation to provide an avenue for certain people to become, or remain millionaires just because they really, really want to be.
That is not to say that I in any way support theft of intellectual property. I actually think there is a case to be made that musical play lists on Youtube is a legitimate issue for artists since there is no way for them to monetize other people uploading their songs. But for other distribution efforts? They are making money off them. Whether they are making enough to satisfy themselves? That, ultimately, is not societies problem.
So you don't want to pay Musical Act X the [blank] number of [currency numbers] they want for their album, but you are willing to pay for the computer and software to run it on, and the internet connection necessary to obtain it?
Cry me a river when Musical Act X pulls their music off of your favorite streaming service.
Artwork, son. It's art, but it's also work, as generated primarily by an artist. If you don't think they shouldn't get the best deal possible for their efforts, I don't know what to tell you.
+3
Options
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
@Apothe0sis I think the root of the issue here, oddly enough, is that "pittance" is a word with two meanings:
1. small
2. inadequate
If Swift's music is worth $10 million but she is paid $2 million for them, that is a pittance (2) but not a pittance (1) because it is a large-but-not-large-enough-under-the-circumstances pile of money. It would be charitable to assume that the original statement intended the second meaning, not the first.
Taylor Swift was paid a pittance at a mere 2 million dollars?
If that is not buying into the language of upper class entitlement, then I don't know what is.
Taylor Swift is a music superstar with tens of millions of fans who all enjoy her music.
What do you think is the proper price tag for that?
We're not talking about a trust fund baby, or some hedge fund manager vulture capitalist. This is an actual creator who produces an actual good that lots of people actually enjoy.
This doesn't address my point either - specifically, whether or not Swift can command a higher pricetag for her catalogue (and if she believes she can do so in this way then she's welcome to whatever ethical negotiating strategy she wishes) does not change the fact that referring to 2 million dollars as a pittance puts you out of the frame of reference of 99% of the world in terms of their remuneration for their labor, claiming it as outrageous can only be born of the entitlements of those levels of society.
That said, I would answer your question with a question of my own - how much does a teacher get paid?
And that has exactly what to do with the point in question? The reason I used the term is because when you look at how her album performed, $2M for what they were asking of her - to allow them to release her album day and date on their ad-supported service, which would have definitely cannibalized her initial sales - was exactly that. Which is why she ultimately told Spotify to go pound sand.
Don't understand your question. Which part of my post is it about?
It was about your comment about how much teachers get paid. It seems like you want to use a frame of reference for this argument that does not really fit.
It was in response to Schrodinger's question about "what I think is the proper price tag?" a question that smuggles in a lot of assumptions, my question was Socratic.
But the greater point, as a whole, is that the pro-Swift side (a name selected for the purposes of simplicity and clarity, not the accuracy of its representation of the issues) buys into the assumptions that the elite and upper classes want us to buy - they deserve the high price tags that they command, through something other than market forces.
No, the point is that Swift deserves the high price tag she commands because she has created a product that a large number of people want. Spotify wanted her to give them day-one access to her brand new album, which has become the #1 performing album for this year, at their standard rates. And when she realized how bad a deal that was and told them that it was not going to happen, that makes her somehow "elite"?
It makes her elitist. Spotify was obviously not so worried about losing her album that they felt the need to offer her a better deal. Swift basically said "You guys don't pay me enough to get access to my work." To which it seemed Spotify's response was "You don't generate enough revenue for us to care." One of the parties then decided to make a huge fuss over this.
This assumption is not supported by the evidence. It is just possible, and far more likely, Spotify's thinking was actually "No one has complained about our low-ball offers before/No one knows it's even a low-ball offer".
The idea that Spotify's payment to Taylor Swift is a function of the revenue it generates rather then the price they think they can get away with is fucking silly given historical trends. Netflix after all got it's start snatching up streaming rights who's value was being hugely underestimated by the rights holders.
If they thought losing her album would impact their bottom line that much, they would have negotiated a deal. You would have to assume both sides are hilariously incompetent at business to assume there weren't negotiations of some sort.
The end result was one side decided to walk, and the other found that an acceptable loss.
We live in a country where companies like Walmart will shut down entire megamarts when the workers ask for more cash.
Corporations don't like to look weak.
Walmart doesn't shut down their stores when their suppliers raise prices though, they pass that cost on to the customer. Artists are not employees of Spotify. They are suppliers of a good for redistribution. They are free to not sell their product to Spotify. The best part is? Spotify can't make them sell!
No actually, they pick another supplier. (actually Walmart commands what is virtually a monopsony and so dictates the price they pay, not the other way around)
This all ignores the point of the example though and mostly seems to indicate you didn't understand that point.
The point is that Spotify (potentially) walking away from a deal with Taylor Swift does not indicate that her content is not worth that much, as you previously implied. It only implies that Spotify does not want to be seen paying that much for the content. In the same way that Walmart does not want to be seen to allow organized labour and thus higher wages in one of their stores. Because they don't want the idea that they will pay more to start spreading. Better to cut your losses on that one thing and keep the rest of your business going as usual.
I'm not sure what is more laughable, the idea that you are trying to compare someone in Swifts tax bracket to workers being screwed by Walmart, or that you are trying to indicate Spotify has a monopsony on music distribution. Whether they did it out of pure profit, or to maintain their business model doesn't actually matter.
I mean, what is your end game Hedgie? Spotify is evil and should be grouped in with DeBeers? Spotify exploits artists and they are helpless against it (which Swift proved isn't actually the case!)? What is the end goal besides "What used to be a mutually beneficial business deal went south. Lets get OUTRAGED over it?"
Also, the main reason for concern is "If this is how Taylor Swift gets treated, then imagine what it's like for the artists who don't have tens of millions of fans."
This is a big one right here.
A few of you know I'm basically a roadie for the music industry. For those of you who don't know: I'm a roadie for the music industry. In my time in the business, I've seen ticket and merch prices skyrocket to cover for the universal decline of album sales across all genres. Wanna know why a Muse (example act) concert t-shirt costs $30 these days instead of the ~$10-15 it used to, back in the day? No, it's not inflation; it's because no one wants to buy albums anymore when they can just stream them for free. Can't stream a t-shirt, though, so you gotta shell out for that. Wanna know why ticket prices have gone through the roof? Because you can't stream a live concert to a satisfying effect.
Merch and live shows have gone from vehicles of promotion and keepsake to the primary profit generation methods for artists in the music industry (merch especially, because it's the one place artists don't have to fork over ANY profit to the record labels). So the next time anyone tisk tisks about concerts being so expensive these days, I just want you to remember that the price is your fault. Knock it off with the damn Youtube playlists and streaming services.
What figures are we talking about here with "cover the decline?" Artists no longer making enough to survive? Or just no longer making seven figures every 2-3 years because they put out an album?
Think of it like this:
The creative industries have traditionally been one of the best ways for people to jump from poverty (and such) to celebrity/monetary fortune through little more than good looks and excellent effort. The arrival of Napster/the internet has severely curtailed that for the people (primarily artists) in the music business because of the ease/ready availability of nabbing services (stuff that gets you music for free, basically permanently, a la Napster and its progeny). Millennials and Gen Xers are a cheap bunch, and while I can't necessarily fault them for that, their reluctance to buy artist's stuff (and this includes porn fyi, which is also in decline/shifting to differently monetized entertainment models) has directly led to the decline/rejiggering of the culture/economic profit model of the music industry as a whole.
Big ticket musicians, like movie stars, want to get paid well for their work. I can't say I fault them for that sentiment, being as their success ultimately determines the fate of my success in many ways, as well.
That's nice. So do a lot of people. I say this as a guy that went to school for animation and wound up doing almost anything but because of how fucking cut throat that field was, which still has absolutely nothing on other entertainment industries. I played the starving artist gig, and you know what?
As a society we are under no obligation to provide an avenue for certain people to become, or remain millionaires just because they really, really want to be.
That is not to say that I in any way support theft of intellectual property. I actually think there is a case to be made that musical play lists on Youtube is a legitimate issue for artists since there is no way for them to monetize other people uploading their songs. But for other distribution efforts? They are making money off them. Whether they are making enough to satisfy themselves? That, ultimately, is not societies problem.
So you don't want to pay Musical Act X the [blank] number of [currency numbers] they want for their album, but you are willing to pay for the computer and software to run it on, and the internet connection necessary to obtain it?
Cry me a river when Musical Act X pulls their music off of your favorite streaming service.
Artwork, son. It's art, but it's also work, as generated primarily by an artist. If you don't think they shouldn't get the best deal possible for their efforts, I don't know what to tell you.
I don't actually pay for Spotify or any other streaming service. I am a musical heathen for the most part.
But as to your bolded, I don't believe the artist gets 100% say as to what the best deal is for them. Sucks for the artists, but that's also why my animation degree is gathering dust and I'm working as a web developer instead!
Edit: As to the "cry me a river" comment, somehow you've missed that I fully support artists pulling from services they don't think is benefiting them! I just don't see how I should care on a societal level.
Double edit: @Hacksaw On another re-read, how the fuck did you get from anything at all I wrote to that last line? That is a hell of a goddamned straw man and a lot of fake outrage you just created whole cloth dude.
Taylor Swift was paid a pittance at a mere 2 million dollars?
If that is not buying into the language of upper class entitlement, then I don't know what is.
Taylor Swift is a music superstar with tens of millions of fans who all enjoy her music.
What do you think is the proper price tag for that?
We're not talking about a trust fund baby, or some hedge fund manager vulture capitalist. This is an actual creator who produces an actual good that lots of people actually enjoy.
This doesn't address my point either - specifically, whether or not Swift can command a higher pricetag for her catalogue (and if she believes she can do so in this way then she's welcome to whatever ethical negotiating strategy she wishes) does not change the fact that referring to 2 million dollars as a pittance puts you out of the frame of reference of 99% of the world in terms of their remuneration for their labor, claiming it as outrageous can only be born of the entitlements of those levels of society.
That said, I would answer your question with a question of my own - how much does a teacher get paid?
And that has exactly what to do with the point in question? The reason I used the term is because when you look at how her album performed, $2M for what they were asking of her - to allow them to release her album day and date on their ad-supported service, which would have definitely cannibalized her initial sales - was exactly that. Which is why she ultimately told Spotify to go pound sand.
Don't understand your question. Which part of my post is it about?
It was about your comment about how much teachers get paid. It seems like you want to use a frame of reference for this argument that does not really fit.
It was in response to Schrodinger's question about "what I think is the proper price tag?" a question that smuggles in a lot of assumptions, my question was Socratic.
But the greater point, as a whole, is that the pro-Swift side (a name selected for the purposes of simplicity and clarity, not the accuracy of its representation of the issues) buys into the assumptions that the elite and upper classes want us to buy - they deserve the high price tags that they command, through something other than market forces.
No, the point is that Swift deserves the high price tag she commands because she has created a product that a large number of people want. Spotify wanted her to give them day-one access to her brand new album, which has become the #1 performing album for this year, at their standard rates. And when she realized how bad a deal that was and told them that it was not going to happen, that makes her somehow "elite"?
What makes elite is that her net worth is multiple orders of magnitude than greater the average citizen in any country in the developed world let alone the entire world.
She is part of the 1% and all that.
So what?
In a proximal sense, so AngelHedgie was either entirely failed at reading comprehension and basic deduction or responded entirely disingenuously when he styled me as considering her elite because she sought a better deal/walke away from a non-optimal one (which is incoherent).
In terms of the thread as a whole - that 2 million dollars is a lot of money, not a pittance and UNLESS you're part of the elite such that it's a merely quantitative comparison OR you begin with a range of assumptions about appropriate remuneration which I think are false, but useful to those who are part of the upper eschelons of society to proclaim and encourage in the lower ones.
Uh huh.
That 2 million dollars is alot of money is irrelevant to whether or not the product is question is worth that much or not. Your entire argument, such as it is, seems to be built on saying otherwise though.
It's either unclear what you think the relevance of your statement here to the thread's topic is or what your argument actually is.
Also, the main reason for concern is "If this is how Taylor Swift gets treated, then imagine what it's like for the artists who don't have tens of millions of fans."
This is a big one right here.
A few of you know I'm basically a roadie for the music industry. For those of you who don't know: I'm a roadie for the music industry. In my time in the business, I've seen ticket and merch prices skyrocket to cover for the universal decline of album sales across all genres. Wanna know why a Muse (example act) concert t-shirt costs $30 these days instead of the ~$10-15 it used to, back in the day? No, it's not inflation; it's because no one wants to buy albums anymore when they can just stream them for free. Can't stream a t-shirt, though, so you gotta shell out for that. Wanna know why ticket prices have gone through the roof? Because you can't stream a live concert to a satisfying effect.
Merch and live shows have gone from vehicles of promotion and keepsake to the primary profit generation methods for artists in the music industry (merch especially, because it's the one place artists don't have to fork over ANY profit to the record labels). So the next time anyone tisk tisks about concerts being so expensive these days, I just want you to remember that the price is your fault. Knock it off with the damn Youtube playlists and streaming services.
What figures are we talking about here with "cover the decline?" Artists no longer making enough to survive? Or just no longer making seven figures every 2-3 years because they put out an album?
Think of it like this:
The creative industries have traditionally been one of the best ways for people to jump from poverty (and such) to celebrity/monetary fortune through little more than good looks and excellent effort. The arrival of Napster/the internet has severely curtailed that for the people (primarily artists) in the music business because of the ease/ready availability of nabbing services (stuff that gets you music for free, basically permanently, a la Napster and its progeny). Millennials and Gen Xers are a cheap bunch, and while I can't necessarily fault them for that, their reluctance to buy artist's stuff (and this includes porn fyi, which is also in decline/shifting to differently monetized entertainment models) has directly led to the decline/rejiggering of the culture/economic profit model of the music industry as a whole.
Big ticket musicians, like movie stars, want to get paid well for their work. I can't say I fault them for that sentiment, being as their success ultimately determines the fate of my success in many ways, as well.
That's nice. So do a lot of people. I say this as a guy that went to school for animation and wound up doing almost anything but because of how fucking cut throat that field was, which still has absolutely nothing on other entertainment industries. I played the starving artist gig, and you know what?
As a society we are under no obligation to provide an avenue for certain people to become, or remain millionaires just because they really, really want to be.
That is not to say that I in any way support theft of intellectual property. I actually think there is a case to be made that musical play lists on Youtube is a legitimate issue for artists since there is no way for them to monetize other people uploading their songs. But for other distribution efforts? They are making money off them. Whether they are making enough to satisfy themselves? That, ultimately, is not societies problem.
So you don't want to pay Musical Act X the [blank] number of [currency numbers] they want for their album, but you are willing to pay for the computer and software to run it on, and the internet connection necessary to obtain it?
Cry me a river when Musical Act X pulls their music off of your favorite streaming service.
Artwork, son. It's art, but it's also work, as generated primarily by an artist. If you don't think they shouldn't get the best deal possible for their efforts, I don't know what to tell you.
This trend also isn't exclusive to the music industry. Pretty much every creative field has been struggling since too many people assume that art should be free.
Taylor Swift is using her clout to reach out to a generation that's not used to paying for things, and standing up for the rights of artists everywhere. Good for her.
In a proximal sense, so AngelHedgie was either entirely failed at reading comprehension and basic deduction or responded entirely disingenuously when he styled me as considering her elite because she sought a better deal/walke away from a non-optimal one (which is incoherent).
In terms of the thread as a whole - that 2 million dollars is a lot of money, not a pittance and UNLESS you're part of the elite such that it's a merely quantitative comparison OR you begin with a range of assumptions about appropriate remuneration which I think are false, but useful to those who are part of the upper eschelons of society to proclaim and encourage in the lower ones.
Here's the original context of her statement:
“Obviously this is the future, and it’s not gonna change, but as far as content providers, there’s this danger that content providers — music and writing — that we become this servant class that provides content for a pittance,” she says with a rueful laugh. “And people who wouldn’t think of stealing an apple in a grocery store will happily steal an album online without thinking of the ramifications of that. And I know a lot of musicians feel really devalued, and I know young musicians who’ve had to get other jobs, who couldn’t survive. It’s heartbreaking, it’s just heartbreaking.”
Taylor Swift was paid a pittance at a mere 2 million dollars?
If that is not buying into the language of upper class entitlement, then I don't know what is.
Taylor Swift is a music superstar with tens of millions of fans who all enjoy her music.
What do you think is the proper price tag for that?
We're not talking about a trust fund baby, or some hedge fund manager vulture capitalist. This is an actual creator who produces an actual good that lots of people actually enjoy.
This doesn't address my point either - specifically, whether or not Swift can command a higher pricetag for her catalogue (and if she believes she can do so in this way then she's welcome to whatever ethical negotiating strategy she wishes) does not change the fact that referring to 2 million dollars as a pittance puts you out of the frame of reference of 99% of the world in terms of their remuneration for their labor, claiming it as outrageous can only be born of the entitlements of those levels of society.
That said, I would answer your question with a question of my own - how much does a teacher get paid?
And that has exactly what to do with the point in question? The reason I used the term is because when you look at how her album performed, $2M for what they were asking of her - to allow them to release her album day and date on their ad-supported service, which would have definitely cannibalized her initial sales - was exactly that. Which is why she ultimately told Spotify to go pound sand.
Don't understand your question. Which part of my post is it about?
It was about your comment about how much teachers get paid. It seems like you want to use a frame of reference for this argument that does not really fit.
It was in response to Schrodinger's question about "what I think is the proper price tag?" a question that smuggles in a lot of assumptions, my question was Socratic.
But the greater point, as a whole, is that the pro-Swift side (a name selected for the purposes of simplicity and clarity, not the accuracy of its representation of the issues) buys into the assumptions that the elite and upper classes want us to buy - they deserve the high price tags that they command, through something other than market forces.
No, the point is that Swift deserves the high price tag she commands because she has created a product that a large number of people want. Spotify wanted her to give them day-one access to her brand new album, which has become the #1 performing album for this year, at their standard rates. And when she realized how bad a deal that was and told them that it was not going to happen, that makes her somehow "elite"?
It makes her elitist. Spotify was obviously not so worried about losing her album that they felt the need to offer her a better deal. Swift basically said "You guys don't pay me enough to get access to my work." To which it seemed Spotify's response was "You don't generate enough revenue for us to care." One of the parties then decided to make a huge fuss over this.
This assumption is not supported by the evidence. It is just possible, and far more likely, Spotify's thinking was actually "No one has complained about our low-ball offers before/No one knows it's even a low-ball offer".
The idea that Spotify's payment to Taylor Swift is a function of the revenue it generates rather then the price they think they can get away with is fucking silly given historical trends. Netflix after all got it's start snatching up streaming rights who's value was being hugely underestimated by the rights holders.
If they thought losing her album would impact their bottom line that much, they would have negotiated a deal. You would have to assume both sides are hilariously incompetent at business to assume there weren't negotiations of some sort.
The end result was one side decided to walk, and the other found that an acceptable loss.
We live in a country where companies like Walmart will shut down entire megamarts when the workers ask for more cash.
Corporations don't like to look weak.
Walmart doesn't shut down their stores when their suppliers raise prices though, they pass that cost on to the customer. Artists are not employees of Spotify. They are suppliers of a good for redistribution. They are free to not sell their product to Spotify. The best part is? Spotify can't make them sell!
No actually, they pick another supplier. (actually Walmart commands what is virtually a monopsony and so dictates the price they pay, not the other way around)
This all ignores the point of the example though and mostly seems to indicate you didn't understand that point.
The point is that Spotify (potentially) walking away from a deal with Taylor Swift does not indicate that her content is not worth that much, as you previously implied. It only implies that Spotify does not want to be seen paying that much for the content. In the same way that Walmart does not want to be seen to allow organized labour and thus higher wages in one of their stores. Because they don't want the idea that they will pay more to start spreading. Better to cut your losses on that one thing and keep the rest of your business going as usual.
I'm not sure what is more laughable, the idea that you are trying to compare someone in Swifts tax bracket to workers being screwed by Walmart, or that you are trying to indicate Spotify has a monopsony on music distribution. Whether they did it out of pure profit, or to maintain their business model doesn't actually matter.
I mean, what is your end game Hedgie? Spotify is evil and should be grouped in with DeBeers? Spotify exploits artists and they are helpless against it (which Swift proved isn't actually the case!)? What is the end goal besides "What used to be a mutually beneficial business deal went south. Lets get OUTRAGED over it?"
I never said that Spotify had a monopsony on music distribution.
And the comparison works for exactly the reasons I've already given that you have ignored in your continued attempts to not converse in any sort of good faith in this thread.
The point was, of course, to show the problems in your initial framing of the thread's topic.
The end goal is a discussion on how this entire incident is a reflection on the current state of the music industry, specifically as it relates to the streaming media services that are becoming a large part of the emerging business model. Or isn't if you want to argue otherwise of course.
Now how about you stop being such a silly goose and actually read what people are posting and respond to it, eh?
haha no, this is never how it was, at least in the radio era. The entire distribution model was based on relentlessly promoting 30-40 artists and marginalizing everything else.
The best argument the Lowery article makes is that under the 'old' model, the recording industry assumed (some of) the risk of creating new music. But they also assumed a much larger share of the reward reaped by a 'mid-tier' artist than the artist can potentially retain today, and also much more creative control.
There is a market for music right now; it's working fine, and taylor swift choosing to withdraw from spotify in favor of other distribution is evidence that it's working.
Yes and no. Swift, along with a mere handful of others, are an exceptional case.
well of course; swift is obviously very popular. Artists with her popularity/sales potential obviously will not have her leverage to extract concessions from (say) spotify, but that doesn't mean the market isn't working.
the 'long tail' phenomenon has been written about forever, and we've seen it play out over the last decade. Music sales on a per-unit basis have steadily increased, while revenue has fallen. The public is buying more music, for less money, than it ever has since the dawn of mass media.
What's happened is that the 'traditional' music industry's leverage over distribution has eroded. They are able to extract less profit from the creation of content. This isn't only because of the reduced cost of media; it's because now I can buy the single I want for two bucks without having to buy a whole (frequently mediocre) album to get it, and I can choose between more artists being distributed in more ways.
media products are worth what the market will pay for them, and it turns out there's a lot of competition in music. I mean, am I supposed to apologize that it's now harder for the music industry to seek rents than it was previously?
New entrants, in any field, are always willing to discount their services for a while in an attempt to establish a base from which they can build. But in media (games, music, film, youtube channels, whatever) many find that it's not sustainable and drop out, only to be replaced by next year's class of new entrants trying the same thing. A few achieve lasting success, and good for them, but given the permanence of media these days consumers can still derive benefit from that work years after the artist has moved on to other things - the "Long Tail" as it were, except since it was given away for practically nothing when it was created the artist still continues not to profit. They're no longer competing for revenue from their current cohort, but last year's cohort, last decade's cohort - hell, when was Trololo released? It's competing within an ever-growing library of content, for fewer and fewer dollars spent on the library as a whole.
I actually sort of agree with you about the phenomenon with owned catalogs; it's one of the main reasons to support short copyright durations.
What? No, that's not my point at all - irrespective of the copyright the content still exists, especially in music where there are minimal platform issues compared to (for example) games. Short copyright hardly impacts this at all, in fact it probably makes it HARDER for a new artist who is competing against artists like Beatles, Elvis, Pink Floyd, Led Zeppelin - for which ad-supported music sites will be paying NOTHING, so whose music do you imagine they'll be promoting?
In general though, the market can only support so many artists in whatever field; painters, classical musicians, sculptors, whatever. How should we decide which those are, if not on the basis of what sells?
The problem is that the market has been demonstrated to provide more support in pure dollar terms, but especially in the music industry the decision is not between which artist to support but which distribution channel - because the artist can try to charge their own price, but they are competing against people who are offering the artist's own content for cheaper or even for free. Competitors who in many cases are acting blatantly illegally, and whom the public responds by saying "See, content creators need to provide better service for cheaper or I'm going to take your content anyway".
It's not "What sells", it's "What is priced so low it marginally outweighs the guilt of just downloading it for free".
Taylor Swift was paid a pittance at a mere 2 million dollars?
If that is not buying into the language of upper class entitlement, then I don't know what is.
Taylor Swift is a music superstar with tens of millions of fans who all enjoy her music.
What do you think is the proper price tag for that?
We're not talking about a trust fund baby, or some hedge fund manager vulture capitalist. This is an actual creator who produces an actual good that lots of people actually enjoy.
This doesn't address my point either - specifically, whether or not Swift can command a higher pricetag for her catalogue (and if she believes she can do so in this way then she's welcome to whatever ethical negotiating strategy she wishes) does not change the fact that referring to 2 million dollars as a pittance puts you out of the frame of reference of 99% of the world in terms of their remuneration for their labor, claiming it as outrageous can only be born of the entitlements of those levels of society.
That said, I would answer your question with a question of my own - how much does a teacher get paid?
And that has exactly what to do with the point in question? The reason I used the term is because when you look at how her album performed, $2M for what they were asking of her - to allow them to release her album day and date on their ad-supported service, which would have definitely cannibalized her initial sales - was exactly that. Which is why she ultimately told Spotify to go pound sand.
Don't understand your question. Which part of my post is it about?
It was about your comment about how much teachers get paid. It seems like you want to use a frame of reference for this argument that does not really fit.
It was in response to Schrodinger's question about "what I think is the proper price tag?" a question that smuggles in a lot of assumptions, my question was Socratic.
But the greater point, as a whole, is that the pro-Swift side (a name selected for the purposes of simplicity and clarity, not the accuracy of its representation of the issues) buys into the assumptions that the elite and upper classes want us to buy - they deserve the high price tags that they command, through something other than market forces.
No, the point is that Swift deserves the high price tag she commands because she has created a product that a large number of people want. Spotify wanted her to give them day-one access to her brand new album, which has become the #1 performing album for this year, at their standard rates. And when she realized how bad a deal that was and told them that it was not going to happen, that makes her somehow "elite"?
It makes her elitist. Spotify was obviously not so worried about losing her album that they felt the need to offer her a better deal. Swift basically said "You guys don't pay me enough to get access to my work." To which it seemed Spotify's response was "You don't generate enough revenue for us to care." One of the parties then decided to make a huge fuss over this.
This assumption is not supported by the evidence. It is just possible, and far more likely, Spotify's thinking was actually "No one has complained about our low-ball offers before/No one knows it's even a low-ball offer".
The idea that Spotify's payment to Taylor Swift is a function of the revenue it generates rather then the price they think they can get away with is fucking silly given historical trends. Netflix after all got it's start snatching up streaming rights who's value was being hugely underestimated by the rights holders.
If they thought losing her album would impact their bottom line that much, they would have negotiated a deal. You would have to assume both sides are hilariously incompetent at business to assume there weren't negotiations of some sort.
The end result was one side decided to walk, and the other found that an acceptable loss.
We live in a country where companies like Walmart will shut down entire megamarts when the workers ask for more cash.
Corporations don't like to look weak.
Walmart doesn't shut down their stores when their suppliers raise prices though, they pass that cost on to the customer. Artists are not employees of Spotify. They are suppliers of a good for redistribution. They are free to not sell their product to Spotify. The best part is? Spotify can't make them sell!
No actually, they pick another supplier. (actually Walmart commands what is virtually a monopsony and so dictates the price they pay, not the other way around)
This all ignores the point of the example though and mostly seems to indicate you didn't understand that point.
The point is that Spotify (potentially) walking away from a deal with Taylor Swift does not indicate that her content is not worth that much, as you previously implied. It only implies that Spotify does not want to be seen paying that much for the content. In the same way that Walmart does not want to be seen to allow organized labour and thus higher wages in one of their stores. Because they don't want the idea that they will pay more to start spreading. Better to cut your losses on that one thing and keep the rest of your business going as usual.
I'm not sure what is more laughable, the idea that you are trying to compare someone in Swifts tax bracket to workers being screwed by Walmart, or that you are trying to indicate Spotify has a monopsony on music distribution. Whether they did it out of pure profit, or to maintain their business model doesn't actually matter.
I mean, what is your end game Hedgie? Spotify is evil and should be grouped in with DeBeers? Spotify exploits artists and they are helpless against it (which Swift proved isn't actually the case!)? What is the end goal besides "What used to be a mutually beneficial business deal went south. Lets get OUTRAGED over it?"
I never said that Spotify had a monopsony on music distribution.
And the comparison works for exactly the reasons I've already given that you have ignored in your continued attempts to not converse in any sort of good faith in this thread.
The point was, of course, to show the problems in your initial framing of the thread's topic.
The end goal is a discussion on how this entire incident is a reflection on the current state of the music industry, specifically as it relates to the streaming media services that are becoming a large part of the emerging business model. Or isn't if you want to argue otherwise of course.
Now how about you stop being such a silly goose and actually read what people are posting and respond to it, eh?
Streaming services are an overall net good for artists, and only devalue the highest end acts that thrived under the older system of private labels and no realistic way to self publish.
Whether someone who is well enough off to shrug off a potential $10 million dollar check for her content next year agrees with me or not is not relevant in my mind, because she's so far past the point of needing a service like this that it isn't funny. Now, if you can dig up someone like Lindsay Stirling who thinks Spotify and Pandora are killing her ability to produce quality art and make a lively hood out of it, I would consider that a bit more, seeing as she performs in an extremely niche genre of music and is likely very dependent on digital distribution for all her musical income.
And just to be absolutely clear, as far as I know Lindsay Stirling has made no comments on digital distribution or streaming services and I am not implying her position in one way or another with my hypothetical!
Streaming services are an overall net good for artists, and only devalue the highest end acts that thrived under the older system of private labels and no realistic way to self publish.
Are we discussing streaming services in general, or are we discussing Spotify?
Streaming services are an overall net good for artists, and only devalue the highest end acts that thrived under the older system of private labels and no realistic way to self publish.
Are we discussing streaming services in general, or are we discussing Spotify?
Taylor Swift was paid a pittance at a mere 2 million dollars?
If that is not buying into the language of upper class entitlement, then I don't know what is.
Taylor Swift is a music superstar with tens of millions of fans who all enjoy her music.
What do you think is the proper price tag for that?
We're not talking about a trust fund baby, or some hedge fund manager vulture capitalist. This is an actual creator who produces an actual good that lots of people actually enjoy.
This doesn't address my point either - specifically, whether or not Swift can command a higher pricetag for her catalogue (and if she believes she can do so in this way then she's welcome to whatever ethical negotiating strategy she wishes) does not change the fact that referring to 2 million dollars as a pittance puts you out of the frame of reference of 99% of the world in terms of their remuneration for their labor, claiming it as outrageous can only be born of the entitlements of those levels of society.
That said, I would answer your question with a question of my own - how much does a teacher get paid?
And that has exactly what to do with the point in question? The reason I used the term is because when you look at how her album performed, $2M for what they were asking of her - to allow them to release her album day and date on their ad-supported service, which would have definitely cannibalized her initial sales - was exactly that. Which is why she ultimately told Spotify to go pound sand.
Don't understand your question. Which part of my post is it about?
It was about your comment about how much teachers get paid. It seems like you want to use a frame of reference for this argument that does not really fit.
It was in response to Schrodinger's question about "what I think is the proper price tag?" a question that smuggles in a lot of assumptions, my question was Socratic.
But the greater point, as a whole, is that the pro-Swift side (a name selected for the purposes of simplicity and clarity, not the accuracy of its representation of the issues) buys into the assumptions that the elite and upper classes want us to buy - they deserve the high price tags that they command, through something other than market forces.
No, the point is that Swift deserves the high price tag she commands because she has created a product that a large number of people want. Spotify wanted her to give them day-one access to her brand new album, which has become the #1 performing album for this year, at their standard rates. And when she realized how bad a deal that was and told them that it was not going to happen, that makes her somehow "elite"?
It makes her elitist. Spotify was obviously not so worried about losing her album that they felt the need to offer her a better deal. Swift basically said "You guys don't pay me enough to get access to my work." To which it seemed Spotify's response was "You don't generate enough revenue for us to care." One of the parties then decided to make a huge fuss over this.
This assumption is not supported by the evidence. It is just possible, and far more likely, Spotify's thinking was actually "No one has complained about our low-ball offers before/No one knows it's even a low-ball offer".
The idea that Spotify's payment to Taylor Swift is a function of the revenue it generates rather then the price they think they can get away with is fucking silly given historical trends. Netflix after all got it's start snatching up streaming rights who's value was being hugely underestimated by the rights holders.
If they thought losing her album would impact their bottom line that much, they would have negotiated a deal. You would have to assume both sides are hilariously incompetent at business to assume there weren't negotiations of some sort.
The end result was one side decided to walk, and the other found that an acceptable loss.
We live in a country where companies like Walmart will shut down entire megamarts when the workers ask for more cash.
Corporations don't like to look weak.
Walmart doesn't shut down their stores when their suppliers raise prices though, they pass that cost on to the customer. Artists are not employees of Spotify. They are suppliers of a good for redistribution. They are free to not sell their product to Spotify. The best part is? Spotify can't make them sell!
No actually, they pick another supplier. (actually Walmart commands what is virtually a monopsony and so dictates the price they pay, not the other way around)
This all ignores the point of the example though and mostly seems to indicate you didn't understand that point.
The point is that Spotify (potentially) walking away from a deal with Taylor Swift does not indicate that her content is not worth that much, as you previously implied. It only implies that Spotify does not want to be seen paying that much for the content. In the same way that Walmart does not want to be seen to allow organized labour and thus higher wages in one of their stores. Because they don't want the idea that they will pay more to start spreading. Better to cut your losses on that one thing and keep the rest of your business going as usual.
I'm not sure what is more laughable, the idea that you are trying to compare someone in Swifts tax bracket to workers being screwed by Walmart, or that you are trying to indicate Spotify has a monopsony on music distribution. Whether they did it out of pure profit, or to maintain their business model doesn't actually matter.
I mean, what is your end game Hedgie? Spotify is evil and should be grouped in with DeBeers? Spotify exploits artists and they are helpless against it (which Swift proved isn't actually the case!)? What is the end goal besides "What used to be a mutually beneficial business deal went south. Lets get OUTRAGED over it?"
I never said that Spotify had a monopsony on music distribution.
And the comparison works for exactly the reasons I've already given that you have ignored in your continued attempts to not converse in any sort of good faith in this thread.
The point was, of course, to show the problems in your initial framing of the thread's topic.
The end goal is a discussion on how this entire incident is a reflection on the current state of the music industry, specifically as it relates to the streaming media services that are becoming a large part of the emerging business model. Or isn't if you want to argue otherwise of course.
Now how about you stop being such a silly goose and actually read what people are posting and respond to it, eh?
Streaming services are an overall net good for artists, and only devalue the highest end acts that thrived under the older system of private labels and no realistic way to self publish.
Whether someone who is well enough off to shrug off a potential $10 million dollar check for her content next year agrees with me or not is not relevant in my mind, because she's so far past the point of needing a service like this that it isn't funny. Now, if you can dig up someone like Lindsay Stirling who thinks Spotify and Pandora are killing her ability to produce quality art and make a lively hood out of it, I would consider that a bit more, seeing as she performs in an extremely niche genre of music and is likely very dependent on digital distribution for all her musical income.
And just to be absolutely clear, as far as I know Lindsay Stirling has made no comments on digital distribution or streaming services and I am not implying her position in one way or another with my hypothetical!
Taylor Swift was paid a pittance at a mere 2 million dollars?
If that is not buying into the language of upper class entitlement, then I don't know what is.
Taylor Swift is a music superstar with tens of millions of fans who all enjoy her music.
What do you think is the proper price tag for that?
We're not talking about a trust fund baby, or some hedge fund manager vulture capitalist. This is an actual creator who produces an actual good that lots of people actually enjoy.
This doesn't address my point either - specifically, whether or not Swift can command a higher pricetag for her catalogue (and if she believes she can do so in this way then she's welcome to whatever ethical negotiating strategy she wishes) does not change the fact that referring to 2 million dollars as a pittance puts you out of the frame of reference of 99% of the world in terms of their remuneration for their labor, claiming it as outrageous can only be born of the entitlements of those levels of society.
That said, I would answer your question with a question of my own - how much does a teacher get paid?
And that has exactly what to do with the point in question? The reason I used the term is because when you look at how her album performed, $2M for what they were asking of her - to allow them to release her album day and date on their ad-supported service, which would have definitely cannibalized her initial sales - was exactly that. Which is why she ultimately told Spotify to go pound sand.
Don't understand your question. Which part of my post is it about?
It was about your comment about how much teachers get paid. It seems like you want to use a frame of reference for this argument that does not really fit.
It was in response to Schrodinger's question about "what I think is the proper price tag?" a question that smuggles in a lot of assumptions, my question was Socratic.
But the greater point, as a whole, is that the pro-Swift side (a name selected for the purposes of simplicity and clarity, not the accuracy of its representation of the issues) buys into the assumptions that the elite and upper classes want us to buy - they deserve the high price tags that they command, through something other than market forces.
No, the point is that Swift deserves the high price tag she commands because she has created a product that a large number of people want. Spotify wanted her to give them day-one access to her brand new album, which has become the #1 performing album for this year, at their standard rates. And when she realized how bad a deal that was and told them that it was not going to happen, that makes her somehow "elite"?
It makes her elitist. Spotify was obviously not so worried about losing her album that they felt the need to offer her a better deal. Swift basically said "You guys don't pay me enough to get access to my work." To which it seemed Spotify's response was "You don't generate enough revenue for us to care." One of the parties then decided to make a huge fuss over this.
This assumption is not supported by the evidence. It is just possible, and far more likely, Spotify's thinking was actually "No one has complained about our low-ball offers before/No one knows it's even a low-ball offer".
The idea that Spotify's payment to Taylor Swift is a function of the revenue it generates rather then the price they think they can get away with is fucking silly given historical trends. Netflix after all got it's start snatching up streaming rights who's value was being hugely underestimated by the rights holders.
If they thought losing her album would impact their bottom line that much, they would have negotiated a deal. You would have to assume both sides are hilariously incompetent at business to assume there weren't negotiations of some sort.
The end result was one side decided to walk, and the other found that an acceptable loss.
We live in a country where companies like Walmart will shut down entire megamarts when the workers ask for more cash.
Corporations don't like to look weak.
Walmart doesn't shut down their stores when their suppliers raise prices though, they pass that cost on to the customer. Artists are not employees of Spotify. They are suppliers of a good for redistribution. They are free to not sell their product to Spotify. The best part is? Spotify can't make them sell!
No actually, they pick another supplier. (actually Walmart commands what is virtually a monopsony and so dictates the price they pay, not the other way around)
This all ignores the point of the example though and mostly seems to indicate you didn't understand that point.
The point is that Spotify (potentially) walking away from a deal with Taylor Swift does not indicate that her content is not worth that much, as you previously implied. It only implies that Spotify does not want to be seen paying that much for the content. In the same way that Walmart does not want to be seen to allow organized labour and thus higher wages in one of their stores. Because they don't want the idea that they will pay more to start spreading. Better to cut your losses on that one thing and keep the rest of your business going as usual.
I'm not sure what is more laughable, the idea that you are trying to compare someone in Swifts tax bracket to workers being screwed by Walmart, or that you are trying to indicate Spotify has a monopsony on music distribution. Whether they did it out of pure profit, or to maintain their business model doesn't actually matter.
I mean, what is your end game Hedgie? Spotify is evil and should be grouped in with DeBeers? Spotify exploits artists and they are helpless against it (which Swift proved isn't actually the case!)? What is the end goal besides "What used to be a mutually beneficial business deal went south. Lets get OUTRAGED over it?"
I never said that Spotify had a monopsony on music distribution.
And the comparison works for exactly the reasons I've already given that you have ignored in your continued attempts to not converse in any sort of good faith in this thread.
The point was, of course, to show the problems in your initial framing of the thread's topic.
The end goal is a discussion on how this entire incident is a reflection on the current state of the music industry, specifically as it relates to the streaming media services that are becoming a large part of the emerging business model. Or isn't if you want to argue otherwise of course.
Now how about you stop being such a silly goose and actually read what people are posting and respond to it, eh?
Streaming services are an overall net good for artists, and only devalue the highest end acts that thrived under the older system of private labels and no realistic way to self publish.
Whether someone who is well enough off to shrug off a potential $10 million dollar check for her content next year agrees with me or not is not relevant in my mind, because she's so far past the point of needing a service like this that it isn't funny. Now, if you can dig up someone like Lindsay Stirling who thinks Spotify and Pandora are killing her ability to produce quality art and make a lively hood out of it, I would consider that a bit more, seeing as she performs in an extremely niche genre of music and is likely very dependent on digital distribution for all her musical income.
And just to be absolutely clear, as far as I know Lindsay Stirling has made no comments on digital distribution or streaming services and I am not implying her position in one way or another with my hypothetical!
Based on?
Like, I'm really not certain this is actually true. It's why the thread topic interests me.
shryke on
+1
Options
HacksawJ. Duggan Esq.Wrestler at LawRegistered Userregular
But as to your bolded, I don't believe the artist gets 100% say as to what the best deal is for them. Sucks for the artists, but that's also why my animation degree is gathering dust and I'm working as a web developer instead!
Yeah I don't think you're going to win any friends with the "Sucks that you got the short end of the stick on your negotiations with the general public vis a vis compensation for your artwork BUT HEY THEM'S THE BREAKS" line of reasoning, mainly because it's an unsatisfying shrug.jpg towards the very real problem of people not wanting to pay for entertainment consumption if they can get away with it, be it even if that "get away with it" method is skirting a serious legal and moral grey area.
And I'm sorry that your animation degree is worthless. But that is not the fault of the general media-consuming public; it's the fault of global market forces and capital executives at the tops of movies studios not wanting to pay American money for American labor.
We didn't Napster away your profit model. But the American public did Napster away the heretofore general profit structure of the music industry et al.
Streaming services are an overall net good for artists, and only devalue the highest end acts that thrived under the older system of private labels and no realistic way to self publish.
Whether someone who is well enough off to shrug off a potential $10 million dollar check for her content next year agrees with me or not is not relevant in my mind, because she's so far past the point of needing a service like this that it isn't funny. Now, if you can dig up someone like Lindsay Stirling who thinks Spotify and Pandora are killing her ability to produce quality art and make a lively hood out of it, I would consider that a bit more, seeing as she performs in an extremely niche genre of music and is likely very dependent on digital distribution for all her musical income.
And just to be absolutely clear, as far as I know Lindsay Stirling has made no comments on digital distribution or streaming services and I am not implying her position in one way or another with my hypothetical!
1) It seems like Zoe does awesome work, thank you for introducing me to her.
2) Her article is 2 years old, do we have any indication of whether her complaints about granularity in the data have been addressed (besides the update that ASCAP had the granular data)?
3) I agree with her that that data absolutely should be provided. Detailed analytics for content producers should be made available by the streaming services. If they are intentionally with holding that data, that is a shitty thing, because you know they are collecting it for their own ends.
4) In the article itself she says that streaming royalties may be too high! Now it's worth noting that she is in a very different place artistically than I think we've been discussing in general. She only has a single solo album, and seems to primarily be concerned with composing or performing as sound track pieces, not attempting to record and publish as a solo artist with the traditional single format. This could change her opinion slightly more in favor of streaming services, since it is much more likely supplemental income for her than a primary career driver.
However, short of the lack of data (in what is a two year old article), there's not a whole lot of statement there with her decrying streaming services.
Streaming services are an overall net good for artists, and only devalue the highest end acts that thrived under the older system of private labels and no realistic way to self publish.
Whether someone who is well enough off to shrug off a potential $10 million dollar check for her content next year agrees with me or not is not relevant in my mind, because she's so far past the point of needing a service like this that it isn't funny. Now, if you can dig up someone like Lindsay Stirling who thinks Spotify and Pandora are killing her ability to produce quality art and make a lively hood out of it, I would consider that a bit more, seeing as she performs in an extremely niche genre of music and is likely very dependent on digital distribution for all her musical income.
And just to be absolutely clear, as far as I know Lindsay Stirling has made no comments on digital distribution or streaming services and I am not implying her position in one way or another with my hypothetical!
1) It seems like Zoe does awesome work, thank you for introducing me to her.
2) Her article is 2 years old, do we have any indication of whether her complaints about granularity in the data have been addressed (besides the update that ASCAP had the granular data)?
3) I agree with her that that data absolutely should be provided. Detailed analytics for content producers should be made available by the streaming services. If they are intentionally with holding that data, that is a shitty thing, because you know they are collecting it for their own ends.
4) In the article itself she says that streaming royalties may be too high! Now it's worth noting that she is in a very different place artistically than I think we've been discussing in general. She only has a single solo album, and seems to primarily be concerned with composing or performing as sound track pieces, not attempting to record and publish as a solo artist with the traditional single format. This could change her opinion slightly more in favor of streaming services, since it is much more likely supplemental income for her than a primary career driver.
However, short of the lack of data (in what is a two year old article), there's not a whole lot of statement there with her decrying streaming services.
Here's her followup piece. This is the point that I think is salient:
To ask for listener stats in lieu of statutory royalties doesn’t seem that extreme but I understand that in some circles it is considered too much for artists to ask for anything other than they be listened to….and even that might be too much. However, I do believe my music is worth something, if only because I’ve been supporting my family with music sales for 6 years. I never take that for granted and I’m lucky and profoundly grateful that convincing listeners to buy my music has not been hard. What has been hard is finding out where those purchasers are.
...
Again, my blog was in reference to compulsory licensing, where in exchange for playing my music without a direct agreement with me, certain types of services pay me per-play at a rate determined by law. I’m saying that listener data is more valuable to me than those tiny royalties. What kinds of data? A bunch, but let’s start with the same kind of listener data I get from iTunes: randomized customer IDs attached to postal codes for avid listeners (i.e. ones who choose to listen more than a certain number of times). I’d also like this for on-demand services like Spotify, which is not internet radio, but the financial result for my purposes is roughly the same.
Here’s what I’m concerned about: as we move into a world where music consumers will supposedly not own any music and will stream it rather than purchase it, musicians will supposedly be making a living by touring. How can we help them figure out where to perform? Google analytics can only help you when a listener comes to find you on your website, and every service does everything it can to make sure listeners never leave their playground.
Taylor Swift was paid a pittance at a mere 2 million dollars?
If that is not buying into the language of upper class entitlement, then I don't know what is.
Taylor Swift is a music superstar with tens of millions of fans who all enjoy her music.
What do you think is the proper price tag for that?
We're not talking about a trust fund baby, or some hedge fund manager vulture capitalist. This is an actual creator who produces an actual good that lots of people actually enjoy.
This doesn't address my point either - specifically, whether or not Swift can command a higher pricetag for her catalogue (and if she believes she can do so in this way then she's welcome to whatever ethical negotiating strategy she wishes) does not change the fact that referring to 2 million dollars as a pittance puts you out of the frame of reference of 99% of the world in terms of their remuneration for their labor, claiming it as outrageous can only be born of the entitlements of those levels of society.
That said, I would answer your question with a question of my own - how much does a teacher get paid?
And that has exactly what to do with the point in question? The reason I used the term is because when you look at how her album performed, $2M for what they were asking of her - to allow them to release her album day and date on their ad-supported service, which would have definitely cannibalized her initial sales - was exactly that. Which is why she ultimately told Spotify to go pound sand.
Don't understand your question. Which part of my post is it about?
It was about your comment about how much teachers get paid. It seems like you want to use a frame of reference for this argument that does not really fit.
It was in response to Schrodinger's question about "what I think is the proper price tag?" a question that smuggles in a lot of assumptions, my question was Socratic.
But the greater point, as a whole, is that the pro-Swift side (a name selected for the purposes of simplicity and clarity, not the accuracy of its representation of the issues) buys into the assumptions that the elite and upper classes want us to buy - they deserve the high price tags that they command, through something other than market forces.
No, the point is that Swift deserves the high price tag she commands because she has created a product that a large number of people want. Spotify wanted her to give them day-one access to her brand new album, which has become the #1 performing album for this year, at their standard rates. And when she realized how bad a deal that was and told them that it was not going to happen, that makes her somehow "elite"?
What makes elite is that her net worth is multiple orders of magnitude than greater the average citizen in any country in the developed world let alone the entire world.
She is part of the 1% and all that.
So what?
In a proximal sense, so AngelHedgie was either entirely failed at reading comprehension and basic deduction or responded entirely disingenuously when he styled me as considering her elite because she sought a better deal/walke away from a non-optimal one (which is incoherent).
In terms of the thread as a whole - that 2 million dollars is a lot of money, not a pittance and UNLESS you're part of the elite such that it's a merely quantitative comparison OR you begin with a range of assumptions about appropriate remuneration which I think are false, but useful to those who are part of the upper eschelons of society to proclaim and encourage in the lower ones.
Or, it could be a pittance because of the scales that are being discussed, such as a a major headliner music artist being asked to give a multi-billion dollar corporation first day access to her new and highly anticipated album on their ad-supported service, knowing full well that doing so would cannibalize her sales.
Streaming services are an overall net good for artists, and only devalue the highest end acts that thrived under the older system of private labels and no realistic way to self publish.
Whether someone who is well enough off to shrug off a potential $10 million dollar check for her content next year agrees with me or not is not relevant in my mind, because she's so far past the point of needing a service like this that it isn't funny. Now, if you can dig up someone like Lindsay Stirling who thinks Spotify and Pandora are killing her ability to produce quality art and make a lively hood out of it, I would consider that a bit more, seeing as she performs in an extremely niche genre of music and is likely very dependent on digital distribution for all her musical income.
And just to be absolutely clear, as far as I know Lindsay Stirling has made no comments on digital distribution or streaming services and I am not implying her position in one way or another with my hypothetical!
1) It seems like Zoe does awesome work, thank you for introducing me to her.
2) Her article is 2 years old, do we have any indication of whether her complaints about granularity in the data have been addressed (besides the update that ASCAP had the granular data)?
3) I agree with her that that data absolutely should be provided. Detailed analytics for content producers should be made available by the streaming services. If they are intentionally with holding that data, that is a shitty thing, because you know they are collecting it for their own ends.
4) In the article itself she says that streaming royalties may be too high! Now it's worth noting that she is in a very different place artistically than I think we've been discussing in general. She only has a single solo album, and seems to primarily be concerned with composing or performing as sound track pieces, not attempting to record and publish as a solo artist with the traditional single format. This could change her opinion slightly more in favor of streaming services, since it is much more likely supplemental income for her than a primary career driver.
However, short of the lack of data (in what is a two year old article), there's not a whole lot of statement there with her decrying streaming services.
Here's her followup piece. This is the point that I think is salient:
To ask for listener stats in lieu of statutory royalties doesn’t seem that extreme but I understand that in some circles it is considered too much for artists to ask for anything other than they be listened to….and even that might be too much. However, I do believe my music is worth something, if only because I’ve been supporting my family with music sales for 6 years. I never take that for granted and I’m lucky and profoundly grateful that convincing listeners to buy my music has not been hard. What has been hard is finding out where those purchasers are.
...
Again, my blog was in reference to compulsory licensing, where in exchange for playing my music without a direct agreement with me, certain types of services pay me per-play at a rate determined by law. I’m saying that listener data is more valuable to me than those tiny royalties. What kinds of data? A bunch, but let’s start with the same kind of listener data I get from iTunes: randomized customer IDs attached to postal codes for avid listeners (i.e. ones who choose to listen more than a certain number of times). I’d also like this for on-demand services like Spotify, which is not internet radio, but the financial result for my purposes is roughly the same.
Here’s what I’m concerned about: as we move into a world where music consumers will supposedly not own any music and will stream it rather than purchase it, musicians will supposedly be making a living by touring. How can we help them figure out where to perform? Google analytics can only help you when a listener comes to find you on your website, and every service does everything it can to make sure listeners never leave their playground.
Which is all well and great, but still two years old. Now, she is absolutely justified in wanting that data. I would absolutely support laws requiring it be available if it is still not being provided by the streaming services, but the end of her article implied that it was just discussed at a conference and may have been in the works (besides having already been adopted by iTunes and CDBaby).
So, after doing some number crunching, Keating had the following (extrapolated) figures for 2012 from Sound Exchange (she never included her granular ASCAP data she says she received):
June: 631k listens.
September: 900k listens.
December: 846k listens (extrapolated from previous years 6% decline from Sept to Dec.)
March: 981k (again, extrapolated by previous years growth).
From what I can tell of her discography, the only substantial work Keating did in 2012 was produce music for Elementary, which was almost assuredly not what she was being payed royalties on, since she wouldn't have received the Master royalties on a shows soundtrack. This means the content achieved almost a 50% growth from streaming services in about a year, despite her having put out no new content in that time period. Could she even hope to dream to get that kind of growth under the old system on a two year old album? I very highly doubt it.
Streaming services provide a longevity to under exposed content that didn't exist before using only terrestrial radio.
Posts
she didn't get a raw deal! She got offered what she perceived to be a raw deal, so she walked away from it. She has the ability to do that as a direct result of multiple available distribution networks.
If this is 1985 and she decided she was getting a raw deal, she maybe could get a better one from a different label, if she hadn't already signed the rights to her work away in functional perpetuity for a development advance.
that's why we call it the struggle, you're supposed to sweat
That's nice. So do a lot of people. I say this as a guy that went to school for animation and wound up doing almost anything but because of how fucking cut throat that field was, which still has absolutely nothing on other entertainment industries. I played the starving artist gig, and you know what?
As a society we are under no obligation to provide an avenue for certain people to become, or remain millionaires just because they really, really want to be.
That is not to say that I in any way support theft of intellectual property. I actually think there is a case to be made that musical play lists on Youtube is a legitimate issue for artists since there is no way for them to monetize other people uploading their songs. But for other distribution efforts? They are making money off them. Whether they are making enough to satisfy themselves? That, ultimately, is not societies problem.
And your only point so far has been to imply that because the cost is so much that the matter of proper compensation from one multi-million dollar party to another in this deal is irrelevant. Which is ludicrous. Especially when the implications apply to all levels of artists.
We live in a country where companies like Walmart will shut down entire megamarts when the workers ask for more cash.
Corporations don't like to look weak.
No, it's pointing out the fact that your argument hinges on us not pulling aside the curtain - you want us to view Swift's side as "eilte", but ignore that the other side in the equation is even moreso by your own standards.
She is part of the 1% and all that.
And guess what - so is Ek.
So what is your point again? Because it really seems like you have a genuine problem with her making money.
So what?
Who cares? The net result is the same. Spotify currently doesn't carry Taylor Swift. At some unknown point in the future, they may carry her. Or they may not!
Swift thought it was in her best interest to pull her material. Good for her! Spotify didn't feel compelled to do enough to keep her? Good for them! If other artists decide to follow Swifts lead? Good for them too!
Spotify is under no obligation to pay artists more than they feel is necessary. The artists are free to take this deal or leave it (one just did!).
If it makes you feel better, I will now go take a moment and feel very sad for Taylor Swift not getting her $10 million from Spotify next year.
Walmart doesn't shut down their stores when their suppliers raise prices though, they pass that cost on to the customer. Artists are not employees of Spotify. They are suppliers of a good for redistribution. They are free to not sell their product to Spotify. The best part is? Spotify can't make them sell!
This reminds me of the 2012 election where the Romney crowd accused Obama for being an "elitist" for going to Harvard and for making millions of dollars off his book sales all over again.
Of course, none of this is really about the money at all. It's about perception.
Taylor Swift is okay with being on the paid version of Spotify. But she doesn't want to be on the free version of Spotify, because it creates the perception that music should be free and artists have no value.
She refuses to cave because she wants to let other artists know it's okay to stand up for their value.
That's not an unreasonable request. At all.
So why doesn't Spotify allow her to stay in the paid version but opt-out of the free version? Well, for the same reason Walmart would rather shut down a Megamart at a loss rather than pay higher wages while maintaining a profit.
Spotify is worried that if they cave into Taylor Swift, then other artists will make the same demand. But why is that a problem?
Simple. Because Spotify actually benefits from the idea that music should be free and artists have no value. First, because it justifies screwing the artists over. But second, if they promote the idea that music has no value, then fewer people will actually pay to own the music. Which means that Spotify has more power as the only game in town.
You do. Because your entire argument has been based on assumptions that ignore everything I just said. Which is completely and utterly silly. As pointed out above in a great example, many entities are extremely willing to cut losses on problematic clients/suppliers in order to maintain control over the rest.
Your current "I don't care" attitude is not consistent with any of your previous argument.
Secondly, I challenge you to be able to paraphrase exactly what my position in fact is.
Here's the thing - when she chose to pull her catalog from Spotify, she was immediately pilloried for her choice in the media. Not to mention that many of the articles portrayed her as having pulled her music from all streaming services, when she only pulled it from Spotify because they refused to put her album behind the premium wall.
Oh, and then there's Spotify's rather offensive public response to Swift. (Seriously, treating your potential business partner like a teenager?)
That's the problem. Everyone was happy to say that artists could take the deal or leave it - until an artist with enough clout chose to leave it.
No actually, they pick another supplier. (actually Walmart commands what is virtually a monopsony and so dictates the price they pay, not the other way around)
This all ignores the point of the example though and mostly seems to indicate you didn't understand that point.
The point is that Spotify (potentially) walking away from a deal with Taylor Swift does not indicate that her content is not worth that much, as you previously implied. It only implies that Spotify does not want to be seen paying that much for the content. In the same way that Walmart does not want to be seen to allow organized labour and thus higher wages in one of their stores. Because they don't want the idea that they will pay more to start spreading. Better to cut your losses on that one thing and keep the rest of your business going as usual.
In a proximal sense, so AngelHedgie was either entirely failed at reading comprehension and basic deduction or responded entirely disingenuously when he styled me as considering her elite because she sought a better deal/walke away from a non-optimal one (which is incoherent).
In terms of the thread as a whole - that 2 million dollars is a lot of money, not a pittance and UNLESS you're part of the elite such that it's a merely quantitative comparison OR you begin with a range of assumptions about appropriate remuneration which I think are false, but useful to those who are part of the upper eschelons of society to proclaim and encourage in the lower ones.
The media writing articles about this gets back to the very first thing I said in this thread, which is that this is a banal business decision that we were only made aware because it could be used to pit two internet tribes against each other and draw clicks and comment wars to Gawker and similar sites.
Looks like you fell for it?
The problem is that you have everything backwards.
Generally, no one has an issue with the idea of, "If you do a better job, then you deserve more money." That makes perfect sense.
That's not why people dislike the upper echelons. The reason people dislike the upper echelons is because the upper echelons promote the reverse of this: "If you make more money, it's because you did a better job."
This is not the same argument. At all.
So you don't want to pay Musical Act X the [blank] number of [currency numbers] they want for their album, but you are willing to pay for the computer and software to run it on, and the internet connection necessary to obtain it?
Cry me a river when Musical Act X pulls their music off of your favorite streaming service.
Artwork, son. It's art, but it's also work, as generated primarily by an artist. If you don't think they shouldn't get the best deal possible for their efforts, I don't know what to tell you.
1. small
2. inadequate
If Swift's music is worth $10 million but she is paid $2 million for them, that is a pittance (2) but not a pittance (1) because it is a large-but-not-large-enough-under-the-circumstances pile of money. It would be charitable to assume that the original statement intended the second meaning, not the first.
I'm not sure what is more laughable, the idea that you are trying to compare someone in Swifts tax bracket to workers being screwed by Walmart, or that you are trying to indicate Spotify has a monopsony on music distribution. Whether they did it out of pure profit, or to maintain their business model doesn't actually matter.
I mean, what is your end game Hedgie? Spotify is evil and should be grouped in with DeBeers? Spotify exploits artists and they are helpless against it (which Swift proved isn't actually the case!)? What is the end goal besides "What used to be a mutually beneficial business deal went south. Lets get OUTRAGED over it?"
I don't actually pay for Spotify or any other streaming service. I am a musical heathen for the most part.
But as to your bolded, I don't believe the artist gets 100% say as to what the best deal is for them. Sucks for the artists, but that's also why my animation degree is gathering dust and I'm working as a web developer instead!
Edit: As to the "cry me a river" comment, somehow you've missed that I fully support artists pulling from services they don't think is benefiting them! I just don't see how I should care on a societal level.
Double edit: @Hacksaw On another re-read, how the fuck did you get from anything at all I wrote to that last line? That is a hell of a goddamned straw man and a lot of fake outrage you just created whole cloth dude.
Uh huh.
That 2 million dollars is alot of money is irrelevant to whether or not the product is question is worth that much or not. Your entire argument, such as it is, seems to be built on saying otherwise though.
It's either unclear what you think the relevance of your statement here to the thread's topic is or what your argument actually is.
This trend also isn't exclusive to the music industry. Pretty much every creative field has been struggling since too many people assume that art should be free.
http://mic.com/articles/96170/an-artist-s-response-to-showtime-will-delight-anyone-who-s-been-asked-to-work-for-free
Taylor Swift is using her clout to reach out to a generation that's not used to paying for things, and standing up for the rights of artists everywhere. Good for her.
Here's the original context of her statement:
So she's not referring to herself specifically.
She's referring to artists in general.
Once the work is being priced in the millions, I don't think you can say it's 'worth' ten million or two. It's worth what someone will pay for it.
This is just the media making a business negotiation into a fight, and some of you falling into that trap.
I never said that Spotify had a monopsony on music distribution.
And the comparison works for exactly the reasons I've already given that you have ignored in your continued attempts to not converse in any sort of good faith in this thread.
The point was, of course, to show the problems in your initial framing of the thread's topic.
The end goal is a discussion on how this entire incident is a reflection on the current state of the music industry, specifically as it relates to the streaming media services that are becoming a large part of the emerging business model. Or isn't if you want to argue otherwise of course.
Now how about you stop being such a silly goose and actually read what people are posting and respond to it, eh?
It's not "What sells", it's "What is priced so low it marginally outweighs the guilt of just downloading it for free".
Why?
I can price a jet or a building, I can assure you.
No, this is a business negotiation that is an illustration of large overall changing trends in the industry in question. That we are discussing.
Streaming services are an overall net good for artists, and only devalue the highest end acts that thrived under the older system of private labels and no realistic way to self publish.
Whether someone who is well enough off to shrug off a potential $10 million dollar check for her content next year agrees with me or not is not relevant in my mind, because she's so far past the point of needing a service like this that it isn't funny. Now, if you can dig up someone like Lindsay Stirling who thinks Spotify and Pandora are killing her ability to produce quality art and make a lively hood out of it, I would consider that a bit more, seeing as she performs in an extremely niche genre of music and is likely very dependent on digital distribution for all her musical income.
And just to be absolutely clear, as far as I know Lindsay Stirling has made no comments on digital distribution or streaming services and I am not implying her position in one way or another with my hypothetical!
Are we discussing streaming services in general, or are we discussing Spotify?
There's a difference.
According to Hedgie, streaming media services.
Then here you go.
Based on?
Like, I'm really not certain this is actually true. It's why the thread topic interests me.
Yeah I don't think you're going to win any friends with the "Sucks that you got the short end of the stick on your negotiations with the general public vis a vis compensation for your artwork BUT HEY THEM'S THE BREAKS" line of reasoning, mainly because it's an unsatisfying shrug.jpg towards the very real problem of people not wanting to pay for entertainment consumption if they can get away with it, be it even if that "get away with it" method is skirting a serious legal and moral grey area.
And I'm sorry that your animation degree is worthless. But that is not the fault of the general media-consuming public; it's the fault of global market forces and capital executives at the tops of movies studios not wanting to pay American money for American labor.
We didn't Napster away your profit model. But the American public did Napster away the heretofore general profit structure of the music industry et al.
A couple of things:
1) It seems like Zoe does awesome work, thank you for introducing me to her.
2) Her article is 2 years old, do we have any indication of whether her complaints about granularity in the data have been addressed (besides the update that ASCAP had the granular data)?
3) I agree with her that that data absolutely should be provided. Detailed analytics for content producers should be made available by the streaming services. If they are intentionally with holding that data, that is a shitty thing, because you know they are collecting it for their own ends.
4) In the article itself she says that streaming royalties may be too high! Now it's worth noting that she is in a very different place artistically than I think we've been discussing in general. She only has a single solo album, and seems to primarily be concerned with composing or performing as sound track pieces, not attempting to record and publish as a solo artist with the traditional single format. This could change her opinion slightly more in favor of streaming services, since it is much more likely supplemental income for her than a primary career driver.
However, short of the lack of data (in what is a two year old article), there's not a whole lot of statement there with her decrying streaming services.
Here's her followup piece. This is the point that I think is salient:
Or, it could be a pittance because of the scales that are being discussed, such as a a major headliner music artist being asked to give a multi-billion dollar corporation first day access to her new and highly anticipated album on their ad-supported service, knowing full well that doing so would cannibalize her sales.
Which is all well and great, but still two years old. Now, she is absolutely justified in wanting that data. I would absolutely support laws requiring it be available if it is still not being provided by the streaming services, but the end of her article implied that it was just discussed at a conference and may have been in the works (besides having already been adopted by iTunes and CDBaby).
June: 631k listens.
September: 900k listens.
December: 846k listens (extrapolated from previous years 6% decline from Sept to Dec.)
March: 981k (again, extrapolated by previous years growth).
From what I can tell of her discography, the only substantial work Keating did in 2012 was produce music for Elementary, which was almost assuredly not what she was being payed royalties on, since she wouldn't have received the Master royalties on a shows soundtrack. This means the content achieved almost a 50% growth from streaming services in about a year, despite her having put out no new content in that time period. Could she even hope to dream to get that kind of growth under the old system on a two year old album? I very highly doubt it.
Streaming services provide a longevity to under exposed content that didn't exist before using only terrestrial radio.