This argumentation goes strongly against previous points (talent : commercial success to study). . And I don't agree even in a percent in what you said. In both your comments. Well from what I understand from them (the world is a bad place, it has always been, but let's learn about the formidable lessons Taylor Swift is giving us as she is a "pro" (okay but of what ? I wonder).
Patronage for existence from Michelangelo to Mozart through Da Vinci is the plague for artists. They fought hard to break that curse. Keep them from being free both economicaly and artisticaly (since they depended on the orders of their patrons, first the church then rich families of the Cité). It's different from what we have today, which is not much better and quite a step back from what came between. The Medicis didn't coparticipate in the creation process of Michelangelo. Majors do. . Not just on marketing schemes, or suggesting a title or two. Far from that.
Mozart starts to invent another figure of the artist - I recommand you read Norbert Elias regarding that - (although unfortunately himself staid dependant of patrons) which was developped all the way to Flaubert - for that part I recommand the work of Pierre Bourdieu -, where the artist finally earns a living from selling the art that he/she defines as art. An artist at this point is this dandy sometimes broke sympathetic figure until about the mid-1950s-60 with the emergence of "pop music" (it's not a genre, it comes with technical progress that allow to reduce music to a format that allows itself music to become a product), well at least in the music realm. Until then well an artist is just that. The word matches the reality it describes. But then this stops.
Structurally at this moment the game changed. Probably the artist musician that was built from the Renaissance all the way to that point died.
It stopped being an artistic game to become a commercial one. We're not talking about talent, just plain business.
It's not a matter of illuminatis, hidden agendas and bullshit of this sort that some members of the board enjoy, and you seem to be inclined to place in my brain.
It's a technical matter.Check Benjamin, for those matters. Great writter , gone too soon.
Being able to record, the invention of ingeneering, mastering. Globalization of the distribution circuit, emergence of a globalized "world" (mainly an occidental one but whatever) with cultural convergences around an anglo-saxon cultural background....
It's a pretty complicated process. Don't want to bother you with such difficult matter, and it's not the place for that.
But you know, I can't let someone with limited views on the matter misrepresent what I previously wrote.

So yeah..... Good talk, you know. ;)


Oh and as far as "changing things". Well again problems are structural.
It's like what became of the internet, the education system that renders people ignorant and prone to be manipulated, the obsession for consumerism and materialism, the systematic destruction of the planet to provide for those needs, and I could go on.
For all that to change (and the music problem) well we'll have to all want to change things in their globality - that would imply that people can perceive the problems first - and with people suggesting that we're all going to that warm place anyway and we should all learn a thing or two from the predatorial professionals that are taking us there...Well...You see the problem right ?

 

Last edited: Nov 25, 2018

Obviously there must be some very strong biological imperative behind the whole teenybopper/teen idol relationship. Behind the scenes svengali's been churning out pop idol puppets on a regular basis forever. I don't know if I want to solely place blame on the pop idol but rather the audience whose pre and post pubescent hormones neither want nor care to understand that they are being totally manipulated and exploited.
There's been bands that wrote their own material that had their teen 'hysteria' phase but matured and kept on going. The Beatles and Rolling Stones are obvious examples.

 

Last edited: Nov 25, 2018

Taylor Swift strikes a blow for fellow artists as digital revenues soar

The star’s big new deal with Universal offers a Spotify windfall for all – and remarkable personal terms for herself

Taylor Swift further burnished her image as the saviour of underpaid artists last week when Universal Music Group (UMG) confirmed that as part of her new record deal, it would share proceeds from the eventual sale of its $1bn stake in Spotify with its musicians.

Saint Taylor, as one industry observer wryly calls the 28-year-old, was quick to tell her 113 million Instagram followers that the promised windfall for fellow artists was her central demand in negotiations.

Swift’s victory appears to relate to the terms of the distribution of the proceeds, because UMG had already announced an intention to share out the Spotify money back in March – two years after rivals Sony and Warner had made similar moves. Swift’s social media post makes a vague reference to Universal’s payout being on “much better terms” than that offered by rivals. But with Universal’s French parent company, Vivendi, readying a sale of up to half of the $30bn UMG, a repetition of the pledge, as part of a deal for one of the world’s biggest artists, is likely to impress potential investors.

And the deal allows the business-savvy Swift to leverage leaving the firm that has been her musical home since she was 14 – Nashville-based Big Machine Records – to extract lucrative terms from the contest to sign her up.

Spotify aside, the deal strikes another blow for artist power – albeit just for Swift. She has clawed back the rights to own and exploit the master recordings of any music she makes from now on. If she keeps churning out the hits, the earnings potential from that is huge: Swift’s previous six albums have sold 40 million copies worldwide.

“It is a rare deal, uncommon for a really big artist at the peak of their career to be able to take control,” says Mark Mulligan, analyst at MIDiA Research, adding that Swift was “setting a precedent for other major-label artists at the peak of their career”. As he points out, “the record label would always prefer to own those rights.”

The rise of streaming via Spotify, Apple and Amazon has put a music industry once racked by plummeting CD sales back in rude health. That transformation has been seized on by Swift, who has led the fight for artists to get a better share of revenues in the age of the digital giants.

https://www.theguardian.com/busines...sts-streaming-revenues-soar-universal-spotify

 

Those are indeed the first pop hysteria phenomenon comparable to what we see here. It's half a century old versus humanity (and music) history which is several thousand years old.
There is no imperative, even biological. It's purely linked to societies that build and allow such phenomenon.
The idea of "pre pub teenagers" is a modern idea it's something that we've built recently around both the gain of time and recreation for kids and the fact that we socially built them as "kids" with right and protections as such (no more working in the factoy starting at 5 yo), which well are good things.
On top of that you put what neoliberal societies are all about...And yes you get those kids. Mass consumerism began with the production structures that allowed it, after WW2 and yes it began around the time when the Beattles the Stones came around. But they were still infused with the artistry need that belonged to the past, which meant that they were never bands that lacked artistical identity, the whole derived products didn't even exist yet, it was not imaginable that musicians sold anything else but live performances and a few records before those bands.
But obviously they didn't create this, the just came around when it was structuraly possible for such phenomenon to emerge.

Now that's where we are.

You read anything about her music here ?
People are wowed because she signed a deal. Wow. And she knows, as shows the article, how to makes herself looks good despite the fact that Universal is only doing what Sony and Warner had already done (2 years before) and that was already plannned in those exact terms before Swift signed her deal. She suggests that her deal is going to bring money to other artists ! What a fucking joke. If majors didn't put so much money on one single artist....Well where the f do you think the money would go ?
She didn't do squat but she sells the story that she did, and some fanatic's of her comes here to show what a good little business genius she's supposed to be.
That's something I never disagreed on.
She is a great business woman. She defends her own interest, at the depend of others, like a freaking diva. She sucks at music but who cares huh ?! We are apparently not in the music business anymore.

At the end of the day this is the kind of crap you admire.

Look at what you make me do. I hate to do this but well.
Drink your own crappy medicine. Hope you don't choke on it.

Take her to the billion views on youtube.
That probably means she is an artistic genius, and this is a great piece of music. No doubt.

 

Last edited: Nov 25, 2018

I'm not quite sure what this even mean.. But IF you're implying that I contradict myself.. I never said talent is any guarantee for success (in any form). Everybody knows there are millions of talented people around the world that don't get any recognition. Just let me add that, on the other hand, someone successful can of course be talented. Or a moron.. (..but where was that my argument?? - never said anything regarding talent)

Oh, so Medici just paid for... well, something? I will state here one example, just to make fool of myself. When Giovanni de Medici (Pope Leo X) wanted to finish the façade on his family’s church San Lorenzo, Michelangelo only got approval after showing the woodcut he made.. just google "Michelangelo and the Medici" before you write down something like that, if you care, that is..

This is called using offensive language against a single member, which I think is against the forum rules. So please, don't do it! Plus, don't underestimate the intelligence of the others. They don't need me to "(mis)represent" your posts.

I only asked for one concrete suggestion:

And I think you adressed that one in the last paragraph. A whole paragraph full of arguments that we hear and read every day, everywhere - mostly from politicians. And then the idea that "we'll have to all want to change things in their globality", which is plain impossible. And even if in some utopian scenario it would be, we are (scientifically) too late.. not a year or two, but decades. This vision is also not on the agenda of those who run the world. So don't blame me for being a bit realistic.. and don't worry, my view is not going to ruin a solid, concrete plan.. that you, I bet, just don't have.

For the record: I am not giving Taylor Swift as any example anyone should follow, because all I know about her are three tunes, that I hear here and there, what OP posted, and some things that I read afterwards.. She seems to be a PRO performer, and she also wrote some songs AFAIK. Probably also a PRO in the studio (meaning, she knows what to do.. and if you managed a proper studio session you know the value of that)

If my arguments are in contradiction, this is mathematically impossible. But I see where you are going with this one. Remember, you quoted my post first, I just responded and made some observations. I wasn't even addressing you personally. I offered 90% agreement, you say that there is 0%. You also changed your last post (where you quoted myself) 5 times in 45 mins, and that makes it difficult to respond to. I also find your last post unnecessarily offensive, and I realize that this response is defensive! In regard to all this we don't stand a chance to come to 50/50% ;) and I really think it's best for us (and others) that we just ignore each other. No need to do anything, this is the last from me to you. (Just take it seriously)

Now, if you don't mind, I'm going to listen to this Taylor chick, maybe do a remix or a mashup ..you know, just to shake it off

 

Well your whole propaganda is the fact of the majority of our politicians. They are the majority and you have the right to side with the politicaly correct. To each their own.
It's probably Trump modo.
And actually I answered to you calling me out.
Yes I did as usual edit my text because I'm thorough.

No it's not. It's not offensive to state a fact. Specially when this fact is just saying that you are uninformed. Offensive ? You have obviously no knowledge on all those matter. Just an uninformed opinion. Which I trully respect, but disagree with.
The rules forbid offensive langage not to disagree with people and tell them they don't know what they are talking about.
Read those authors I gave you.
And call the mods to tell them that I used offensive langage with you, we'll see if that stands.

Have fun with Taylor.

 

Please Taylor Swift refrain to promote your music in this forum, you are not allowed! this is a warning... after that I'll ask moderator to ban your account!

 

It wasn't clear but I used the 'down through the ages' thing in the broadest general sense that human nature is human nature.
Yes, the modern conception of the pop idol is a fairly recent phenomenon but I would roughly extend its range back to the 1920's and the creation of the matinee idols. Make no mistake, those hollywood studios were as manipulative and behind the scenes controlling of their talents images as any today. However I suppose if one would even bother to research, though this bit of forum discussion doesn't warrant that amount of detail, that much of history had 'celebrity' personalities along with their cadre of fawning admirers. ;-D

While strong intentional targeted audience manipulation has been going on for the past, I would say, 20-25 years, but with a gradual realization in 'how can we exploit and maximize the most profits from this phenomenon' has been going on since the 20's in modern history. Make no mistake, teens screaming at movie idols, and the likes of Sinatra, Presley and Beatles for example were all spontaneously generated and not manipulations. It was only afterwards did all the money changers take notice and scheme to exploit to full advantage.

More to the point though... you have to admit their is in fact a biological component involved that stokes the whole being in love, fantasy partner/husband/mate, thing. I'm also gonna assume pop idol adulation lies mostly in the domain of preteen/teen girls, which I believe it does. Girls will scream for their pop idol regardless of gender apparently.
Boys do it but I'd guess for reasons if my own experience with music from a kid through my teens is any guide.

 

Last edited: Nov 25, 2018

Far from me the idea to give an exact date to the phenomenon.It's not something unique to music, and indeed even in the movie domain we find relative similar things there indeed since the 20s. First propaganda movies ? Well go ask Adolf..
The fascination itself from people (preteens or not) and the idolization that you point out regarding people like Sinatra or Presley, before indeed ways to profit from it evolved (and I have a slight disagreement here with you, even before the phenomenon described arose, moneytization was in order with already sales and "marketing" strategies) is also something that should be analized as "new" and related to technical and sociological evolutions.
Sinatra and Presley were put on screens and people radios, it became possible to have an "audience" through technical means, to have people converged in their cultural habbits through means of mass distribution which wasn't possible until the 20th century, for technical reasons.
The cultural activities were done live, localy, it was impossible to be exposed to the same artist all at the same time with tv, theater or radio. Guys like Mozart or Beethoven were known in some circles who had the means to go see them and the education (in music) to know what was going on. The "masses" weren't at all public of those artists.
The mass consomation of "culture", the massive diffusion of it, the pre teens thingy, none of that was possible even in a nightmare before the 20th c.
It came with political propaganda btw, which is widely what most of the technics of mass distribution and exposition come from. Most of what we are exposed was first experimented by regimes like the 3rd reich and the fascist Italy. Hollywood only came third. Sorry.

 

OK dearie, have you used Spotify before? Would you describe yourself are moderately expert, generally familiar or a complete beginner?

 

Money begets money
Swift, swifter, and swifter still
Always trudging forward
Always has and always will

 

This is the industry news section. Now that's not a neutral label.
Industry indeed. At the beginning of the XXth, end of the XIXth, a certain number of domains will be deeply affected by several technical and historical evolutions.
Music is one of those domains that was deeply impacted by those evolutions, and not in the theory area (although that changed too indirectly influenced), but indeed it's not all.

Conflicts between nations weren't industrials until the first French German war in 1870. It was an artisanal game. Losses were there but not in...well...industrial amounts. The "progress" in weaponery through human ingeniousity and discoveries helped a lot. But what really made a difference, specially starting with WW1 was the use of discoveries made for the industry in chemical applications, now applied to war games. Now that really rose the bar. The extreme illustration of that definitly was witnessable in camps located in Poland and Germany during WW2. The U.S greatly benefited after WW2 from the knowledge german researchers brought to them when they secretly extracted them from Germany after their crimes.

The mobilization of the soldiers itself was certainly made through the instumentalization of patriotism and nationalist feelings (which for the nationalism part were new) but those calls to defend the nations were only possible to diffused because communications at the scale of a country in every household became possible. That also send us back to century long process of centralized control - by the birthing centralized state in the birthing nations of Europe - of fiscality, langage, customs and laws. That only became effective in the most centralized states of Europe in the mid XIXth century (so at the scale of human history it's very new). Oh and also the monopoly of the exercice of violence (through the use of public police forces).

So at the end I'm not even talking about how uncommon and extrordinary the historical possibilities of an international market for "cultural" goods are - which in itself is something not only not obvious and extremely new and without precedent of any kind in human history but that required a lot of work to be possible - and although in the end this market is the logical fruit of several identifiable historical processes (those can widely explain how it is in its concrete incarnations, and why it's not different), those processes themselves are far from being "natural" and for most only came to be through the actions of a few acting for their own interests.

What isn't new regarding music is the pleasure it brings to its creator and to the people exposed to it.

But that's not relevant to the industry. It doesn't belong in the industry news section which talks about the industry of distributing music.

 

Respect

 

The reason performing arts reproduction rights are called mechanicals.

 

for the fanboys
background always in index color 666 or red , like...
https://www4.fmovies.to/film/taylor-swift-reputation-stadium-tour.mqpxz/xmkqp3