Taylor Swift is horrible.

DdBob said:
I don't blame the decline of cd's (or the loss of digital downloads to pirating) I blame the changing job description of musician that popstars have taken. It goes back a long way to hip hop artists selling clothes, shoes, rock groups licensing their music for tv commercials , etc....Gene simmons selling Kiss Coffins.
It's the evolution of the pop star into a media figure or a marketing PRODUCT rather than an artiste. It's greed and get as much as you can because you can...kinda like the price gougers in texas...you know the people will pay for it so why not, only morals are in the way if you got good ones *spits*
Click to expand...

XDbSMa3.gif
 
Is TS giving fans a chance to get good seats at face value (by having them buy something of value such as fan club membership, new album, etc. . .) worse than that fan being required to pay inflated prices for tickets from a scalper in order to see the TS show?

The fan gets nothing of value from the scalper, and may ultimately pay far more to the scalper than the fan would to TS.

Unfortunately, there doesn't appear to be a perfect solution for ticket sales for in-demand performers.

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk
 
wigorfa.jpg
DdBob said:
I don't blame the decline of cd's (or the loss of digital downloads to pirating) I blame the changing job description of musician that popstars have taken. It goes back a long way to hip hop artists selling clothes, shoes, rock groups licensing their music for tv commercials , etc....Gene simmons selling Kiss Coffins.
It's the evolution of the pop star into a media figure or a marketing PRODUCT rather than an artiste. It's greed and get as much as you can because you can...kinda like the price gougers in texas...you know the people will pay for it so why not, only morals are in the way if you got good ones *spits*
Click to expand...
 
DdBob said:
I don't blame the decline of cd's (or the loss of digital downloads to pirating) I blame the changing job description of musician that popstars have taken. It goes back a long way to hip hop artists selling clothes, shoes, rock groups licensing their music for tv commercials , etc....Gene simmons selling Kiss Coffins.
It's the evolution of the pop star into a media figure or a marketing PRODUCT rather than an artiste. It's greed and get as much as you can because you can...kinda like the price gougers in texas...you know the people will pay for it so why not, only morals are in the way if you got good ones *spits*
Click to expand...



There is a big difference between price gouging in an emergency situation for something people desperately NEED and entertainment that we WANT. Many things we buy are priced based on what we are willing to pay. I'm not willing to pay for Taylor's tickets or merch so I don't. Although I have to admit I saw her back toward the beginning when she was opening for Brad Paisley and she was actually pretty good fun. And I would rather little girls love Taylor than Miley. We can't help that our kids, or even we look up to famous people and in a world of people famous for being famous (or making sex tapes), I'm ok with the girl that writes sappy songs.

Regardless, I don't think it makes the artist, singer, musician, actor, athlete etc. greedy. I used to have to have this argument about athletes all the time because people knew I played some ball. My response was usually that the money was being generated because we were willing to pay it (in sports a lot of the money is from tv contracts though). I'd rather the players get it than the team owners, agents, lawyers, etc. etc. And I'm not sure any of us would turn down a raise because our moral compass told us it was too much.

And I think there is some credibility to the idea that the stealing of music (talk about morals) has caused the shift in strategies. Sure, everyone has always sold merch but the techniques have been ramped up and new revenue streams exist probably because of the decline of other streams. Whatever pop stars have become, we have created.
 
Deep Eddy said:
Is TS giving fans a chance to get good seats at face value (by having them buy something of value such as fan club membership, new album, etc. . .) worse than that fan being required to pay inflated prices for tickets from a scalper in order to see the TS show?

The fan gets nothing of value from the scalper, and may ultimately pay far more to the scalper than the fan would to TS.

Unfortunately, there doesn't appear to be a perfect solution for ticket sales for in-demand performers.
Click to expand...

or more as regards the NFL, purchasing a seat license in order to purchase season tix.

I have no problem with an artist doing whatever to keep the tix out of the hands of Ace and StubHub and everyone else using bots to superorder tickets before the fans even have a chance.
 
Peen Simmons said:
I get that Swift is trying to own her bad rep and show the haters. (Shades of King Trump?) But the whole thing is tedious. I don't get the sense that Swift has a rich interior life or a lot of things she wants to explore and express.

She's a very successful privileged person whose parents bought her a dream job and she can't seem to handle people not loving her for that. Which is understandable in a 22 year old.

Taylor Swift is now as old as Kurt Cobain, Janis Joplin, Jim Morrison, or Jimi Hendrix ever were. She's as old as John Lennon was when Sgt. Pepper came out. She's older than Prince was when Purple Rain came out.

She should really be doing better work at this stage if she expects to be great.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't put money on her making it to that level.
 
Johnny N. said:
There is a big difference between price gouging in an emergency situation for something people desperately NEED and entertainment that we WANT. Many things we buy are priced based on what we are willing to pay. I'm not willing to pay for Taylor's tickets or merch so I don't. Although I have to admit I saw her back toward the beginning when she was opening for Brad Paisley and she was actually pretty good fun. And I would rather little girls love Taylor than Miley. We can't help that our kids, or even we look up to famous people and in a world of people famous for being famous (or making sex tapes), I'm ok with the girl that writes sappy songs.

Regardless, I don't think it makes the artist, singer, musician, actor, athlete etc. greedy. I used to have to have this argument about athletes all the time because people knew I played some ball. My response was usually that the money was being generated because we were willing to pay it (in sports a lot of the money is from tv contracts though). I'd rather the players get it than the team owners, agents, lawyers, etc. etc. And I'm not sure any of us would turn down a raise because our moral compass told us it was too much.

And I think there is some credibility to the idea that the stealing of music (talk about morals) has caused the shift in strategies. Sure, everyone has always sold merch but the techniques have been ramped up and new revenue streams exist probably because of the decline of other streams. Whatever pop stars have become, we have created.
Click to expand...

Sports and players is a different ballgame (pun) because the players are on a "salary" and the Musician is not...

I do still think it's greed though a Google search shows her net worth for 2017 at 280 million...that ain't bad. I doubt she is ever up at night worring about making the house payment or where her next meal is coming from ?
 
CBHScott said:
My only caveat would be that if she were to drop "her team" to establish any kind of cred, she would be truly exposed for the fraud that she is; of course, that hasn't stopped her, yet.
Click to expand...

I don't understand why she needs or would want 'cred'. She's an entertainer who raked in, what? 170 mill last year and is immensely popular by any reasonable standard.
 
DdBob said:
Sports and players is a different ballgame (pun) because the players are on a "salary" and the Musician is not...

I do still think it's greed though a Google search shows her net worth for 2017 at 280 million...that ain't bad. I doubt she is ever up at night worring about making the house payment or where her next meal is coming from ?
Click to expand...


I'm guessing she's not either but I don't know enough about her to be able to say she is greedy. She may use a lot of money to help others, for example. All I'm saying is that in my review next week, if my boss says they have decided to pay me $27 million for the next 4 years because I'm so awesome, I'm probably going to take it. And I know that is a simplistic example but sounded funny. Another way to look at it is that each of these performers is a business. And pretty much every for-profit business I'm aware of is interested in making profit. And to those ends, there are always discussions about how to increase profitability whether by introducing new products, making the manufacturing process more efficient, cutting costs, creating new revenue streams, expanding locations etc. The owners or principles make more money and the employees hopefully benefit. Entertainers have employees who benefit as well.

It is a strange world where people with talent in a given entertainment area have an opportunity to make so much more money than people who serve their society like teachers, police officers, municipal government employees :mad:. But that is the world we live in. I had a very small opportunity to make a run at baseball as a career and fell short but I don't resent the guys who pulled it off. I don't resent musicians or actors for that reason either unless they start spewing their political views as if it holds more weight because they are famous. Different discussion though.

Would I like it better if concerts were cheaper? Sure. But I blame it on those of us willing to pay the prices and not the band/performer.
 
DdBob said:
I would bet though that teh wig in question was an item by an unafiliated marketer....oddly enough it was made in USA whereas now it would be made in china :embarrassed:
Click to expand...

Remember that time the actual Beatles themselves opened a boutique in London to sell clothes and whatnot?
 
The music business is just that...a business. Yes, merchandising began quite a while ago. Taylor does it, but so does just about every other artist. I bet Jason Isbell sells t-shirts along with his signature Martin. Is Taylor Swift a great artist? Does it matter? She had devoted fans who love what she does. The fans are happy, Swift is happy, and I will not judge either one.
 
Peen Simmons said:
Remember that time the actual Beatles themselves opened a boutique in London to sell clothes and whatnot?
Click to expand...
Remember when they started their own record label so they wouldn't have to share with EMI?

Bands and artists being "greedy" (for lack of a better word) is nothing new...and the public is entitled to pay for their entertainment at their own discretion...

I think it was John Paul Jones of Led Zeppelin who said "it's not about making money as fast as you can, it's about making money fast WHILE you can"...
 
She's musician as product distilled to it's purest form. If you removed the kinkiness from Madonna, the Chris Gaines genome from Garth Brooks, or everything from Michael Jackson outside the Pepsi commercials you might get close. She is so uninteresting as to almost circle back to interesting. She is a blank slate as Rorschach test - she has almost no image, so people can project whatever they want onto her. She is a human slot machine - people pour money in, rarely getting anything of real value in return. This may sound like an insult, but it is not.
 
Gary Blanchard said:
The music business is just that...a business. Yes, merchandising began quite a while ago. Taylor does it, but so does just about every other artist. I bet Jason Isbell sells t-shirts along with his signature Martin. Is Taylor Swift a great artist? Does it matter? She had devoted fans who love what she does. The fans are happy, Swift is happy, and I will not judge either one.
Click to expand...

Is Taylor Swift happy? Is this something a happy person makes?



For comparison...



How dare you judge someone's happiness, Gary?!?
 
Devil is Dill said:
She's musician as product distilled to it's purest form. If you removed the kinkiness from Madonna, the Chris Gaines genome from Garth Brooks, or everything from Michael Jackson outside the Pepsi commercials you might get close. She is so uninteresting as to almost circle back to interesting. She is a blank slate as Rorschach test - she has almost no image, so people can project whatever they want onto her. She is a human slot machine - people pour money in, rarely getting anything of real value in return. This may sound like an insult, but it is not.
Click to expand...

Pretty much. Her sole distinguishing feature as an artist is her nuturing of grievance and grudges. Her hate game is Nixonian. I suspect that actually being Taylor Swift is not particularly fun. She seems like she's trying to be life's valedictorian.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top