
For Taylor Swift, the Future of Music Is a Love Story - prostoalex
http://online.wsj.com/articles/for-taylor-swift-the-future-of-music-is-a-love-story-1404763219
======
fpgeek
Interesting counterpoint: [http://www.vox.com/2014/7/7/5878603/taylor-swift-
doesnt-unde...](http://www.vox.com/2014/7/7/5878603/taylor-swift-doesnt-
understand-supply-and-demand)

~~~
memonkey
I'm curious what kinds of solutions are in the works in a post scarce music
industry? I'm skeptical of the authors solutions. I'm also ignorant of the
music industry but if I understand correctly, things like Spotify and Youtube
are a broken model, usually only paying out the label and disregarding the
artist or paying them in change. What kind of business model can/will focus on
the artist, or are artists and their fans on their own in the future?

~~~
btown
Ignoring blips like Google's current bender of destruction of advertising
revenue streams for small labels, I can see larger labels becoming a thing of
the past. What is the purpose of a label in the digital age, now that it can
no longer include physical manufacturing and physical distribution in its
value proposition? To consumers, it's quickly becoming no more than a
guarantee that associated artists are curated and are of "high enough" quality
to the ears and eyes of some hidden tastemaker. And to producers, they're
increasingly a glorified PR firm. The largest labels' business models don't
match up with these value propositions; they function as gatekeepers in an age
where unlocked gates are plentiful. This is not to say that all labels will
disappear; smaller, niche labels such as Monstercat, Neon Gold, and even
Roadrunner Records (in the 90s) function[ed] like well-branded aggregators,
exactly meeting those needs and having a well-defined target audience. Perhaps
we'll see small labels turn to subscription models, allowing access to
exclusive content from their members? Imagine iTunes with tons of small label-
run channels one could subscribe to for a monthly fee, and get access to all
the music within? Lots of chicken-egg problems here, but it's interesting to
think about.

~~~
louhike
Labels are useful for recording,, mixing and marketing. They are not just
factories of CDs. Artists may manage without them but it is quite complicated
as it costs a lot.

~~~
Exenith
When it comes to a lot of electronic music, there is no recording necessary
and the artist is the person who mixes/masters. No need for money there

Side ramble: I've never understood why people paint "real" bands as being lo-
fi, guttural, punk and romantic. It's a goddamn privelege to afford all that
equipment. Here's your true punk: pirate Ableton and upload a tune to YouTube
for free.

Back to the point, for a lot of styles, the _only_ point of a label is
marketing. But this can be a very useful tool -- even just acting as a quality
filter is useful.

~~~
louhike
You are wrong on the fact that musicians doing electro do the mix/master.

I know people doing electro, and they pay people to do this job. It is really
hard to do it correctly.

Even people like DeadMau5 and Daft Punk do not do the mix/master by
themselves. They just monitor the people doing it (look at some of their
interviews).

------
bobbles
It's interesting how she mentions the point of taking a recorded performance
and keeping it fresh by introducing guests on stage with each set.

Reminds me of how Louis CK under advise from George Carlin (I believe) throws
out his material and starts fresh every year.

For creative people now, the key will be those who continue to be creative,
not those attempting to ride on one creation to the end.

The same is happening in the mobile world in app stores now. People expect to
get the initial offering, and then see continuous improvement through their
free updates for life.

How will people manage to get their continuing creativity and effort supported
in this market?

~~~
aikah
> The same is happening in the mobile world in app stores now. People expect
> to get the initial offering, and then see continuous improvement through
> their free updates for life.

What's happening in the mobile world is in-app purchase.Where you are coerced
into buying digital goods one way or another. And it's coming to non-gaming
apps,trust me.That's the future.

As for Taylor Swift,she represents everything that is wrong with the music
industry.She is a mass market product,not an artist.

~~~
gr2020
> As for Taylor Swift,she represents everything that is wrong with the music
> industry.She is a mass market product,not an artist.

Not a fair characterization, IMHO. She writes her own songs, and manages her
own career. She might have mass market appeal, but I don't see how you can
argue she's not a legitimate artist.

~~~
soganess
Because he believes what she is producing does not meet the threshold
requirement of being deemed as art?

Just because she is referred to as an artist by an industry attempting to
profit from her production does not defacto her as such. Perhaps Taylor is
just a shrewd business person who has a natural understanding of what has
strong social appeal. What if she openly admit that was her intent? Would you
still call her an artist? I would not, and I imagine a great many others
wouldn't either. There is a lot to being an artist and this automatic labeling
is misleading and perhaps, if you are extra paranoid, nefarious in intent.

------
7Figures2Commas
> Music is art, and art is important and rare. Important, rare things are
> valuable. Valuable things should be paid for. It's my opinion that music
> should not be free, and my prediction is that individual artists and their
> labels will someday decide what an album's price point is. I hope they don't
> underestimate themselves or undervalue their art.

Music in the form of a physical or digital copy of a recorded track is not
rare. Album pricing is based on supply and demand. The latter has decreased
significantly in the past decade. Short of pulling a Wu-Tang[1], it would be
futile for artists to try to fight market forces.

If Swift really wants to discuss the value of music in the context of music as
an important, rare art form, focusing on what consumers pay for physical and
digital copies of recorded music makes about as much sense as valuing Monet's
Water Lilies series based on how much Water Lilies posters sell for.

There are several rights associated with music and people have been buying and
selling these rights for decades. Royalty Exchange[2] is an online marketplace
for these transactions, and there are even focused funds[3] that essentially
give investors the ability to treat these rights as an asset class.

Savvy artists focus first and foremost on ownership, not what consumers pay
for a song or album.

[1]
[http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/05/for-5-mi...](http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/05/for-5-million-
one-person-will-get-to-own-the-only-copy-of-the-new-wu-tang-album/371020/)

[2] [http://www.royaltyexchange.com/](http://www.royaltyexchange.com/)

[3] [http://rhmusicroyaltypartners.com/](http://rhmusicroyaltypartners.com/)

~~~
ch
I'm confused by your post. What makes these royalties valuable is that they
are tied to the revenues generated by the sales of the same physical and
digital copies of the music that you point out are technically not rare. But
without the false scarcity created by copyright and the associated
constellation of laws which surround it, these artifacts would not create
revenue and then wouldn't the royalties also be worthless?

~~~
7Figures2Commas
First, while it's true that the rights I refer to are generally valued based
on the strength of the royalty streams, this does not mean that buyers and
sellers value these rights in a strictly formulaic manner. As with any asset,
there are a variety of factors that might result in buyers paying a premium.
An investor with the ability to purchase rights associated with an Elvis
Presley song, for instance, would probably pay substantially more for each
dollar in royalties than they would for rights associated with a song by a
less famous artist.

Second, and most importantly, not all royalties are tied to CD and digital
music sales. These are mechanical royalties. There are also performance and
synchronization royalties, which can be significant. It's is entirely
possible, for instance, for a song that generates little in the way of
mechanical royalties to generate eye-popping performance or synchronization
royalties.

~~~
dobbsbob
The guy who wrote the Cheers sitcom TV theme song never had to work again and
lives off royalties.

------
hitchhiker999
She seems nice. The tone was more remarkable than the content (the content was
also interesting). It seems we've been inundated with this grotesque idea that
every single young artist is a boring dark repetition of the same old paradigm
('wilder' than the last).

Her point re: 'people bonding with an artist over a lifetime' may well be
salient. I must admit a touch of that with zeppelin / prodigy etc.

