>"I think there should be an inherent value placed on art. “I didn’t see that happening, perception-wise, when I put my music on Spotify. Everybody’s complaining about how music sales are shrinking, but nobody’s changing the way they’re doing things."
money grabbing and greedy to be honest
Other urls found in this thread:
youtube.com
twitter.com
greed is good
Do you feel the same way about Thom Yorke?
Because the reaction to their nearly identical thoughts on streaming services has been pretty radically different
yeah, i don't even like radiohead that much
also you can hear Radiohead on Spotify, not Taylor Swift
Radiohead is still on Spotify though
>taylor swift
>art worth paying for
wew
This, she makes throwaway pop music. She's a cunt who hates poor people.
I certainly agree that we should get rid of streaming, which is essentially a huge corporation makes a fuckload of money off of a bunch of underpaid artists. It's essentially legalised piracy, except someone that hasn't made the art is making money off of it. May as well make piracy completely legal
And? Who the fuck cares about poor people. Only poor people care about other people.
Exactly, so we don't give a fuck either when we're spending your tax money, so YOU go fuck yourselves too and stop fucking whining about the little bit we get. You owe us.
Thom Yorke isn't as overtly devoted to money as Ms. Swift is, though.
only the albums that are owned by EMI, In Rainbows and his solo albums aren't on spotify
That is not true. All Radiohead albums are on spotify, including IR. Thom's full solo albums are not on spotify, but he does have a couple songs. Either way, he is available to listen to on spotify, unlike tay tay.
I agree with the sentiment, (my favorite label doesn't even use streaming services at all) but yeah it just comes off as wildly disingenuous from someone who is more or less the biggest pop star in the world. I mean the streaming model is pretty much entirely designed to benefit those with her level of fame, she doesn't give a shit about "arts inherent value", she just knows she can make more bank by forcefully bypassing the system (which again, only benefits her).
Then again I don't know why I'm saying "her". I doubt she has an actual opinion on it, its just whatever her PR or marketing team is telling her to say. Going after the product when its faults are a result of the industry is kinda futile.
oh sorry that must have recently changed. for a while thom had all his stuff off of spotify
the problem with taylor swift is that she does ABSOLUTE NOTHING for lesser artist
Have you ever heard of taylor swift giving up 5 grand to help some indie band make an album
get with the times you overrated cunt, streaming is here to stay
>inherent value
>mfw
stirner's a spook
Based user
You haven't heard to any of her art if you think that.
what do you find good about taylor swift's work
How is she wrong?
value is inherently relative. whether there should or should not be an inherent value on art is meaningless, nobody is capable of placing inherent value on subjective media
>middle class owes the leaching class
woah nelly
Her music is simple and charming. If you don't believe me you can try and listen to her album 'Red'. At least the first five songs that are quite lovely.
>nobody is capable of placing inherent value on subjective media
Actually you can, art sometimes is not as subjective as you think.
>value is inherently relative
Not really. The art costs a specific amount to create and distribute, thus it has a concrete value.
What you feel about the art or it's quality is irrelevant
Wow. I'm sure this is a totally original thought and not the words her label is feeding her after an exclusive agreement with Apple.
taylor swift has fascist-esque views
yeah it cost an amount to make and distribute, but whether that amount is worth it is relative. if you want to ask people to spend money for your art you can't say how they value the art is irrelevant.
>dictating the terms of her own music?
>WOW what a fascist!!!
>but whether that amount is worth it is relative
Don't break your back shifting goalposts user!
>if you want to ask people to spend money for your art you can't say how they value
>they value
Your perceived value is really not relevant to what it actually is.
god does not come down from the heavens and say the new single is inherently worth 2 bucks, user. all there is with music is perceived value, music predates the concept of money
>god does not come down from the heavens and say the new single is inherently worth 2 bucks
Yes, the artist dictates the cost of his/her art
>all there is with music is perceived value
See >music predates the concept of money
When was that?
>Yes, the artist dictates the cost of his/her art
the artist ask, and the customer answers. neither is inherently justified in whatever their asking as people's value systems are relative.
>When was that?
the origin of our species.
The real issue is copyright terms.
Copyright should never, ever extend past the author's death. The fact that books by Jack Kerauc and albums by Elvis Presley, important, influential cultural documents dating back to more than 50 years ago are still owned by someone is outrageous.
If copyright is meant to promote learning, then it should extend at most 20 years so we can properly document, preserve, and learn from history.
>neither is inherently justified
The artist, the creator of the art.
>people's value systems are relative.
Sure, but the cost of the art is not.
>the origin of our species.
Have fun listening to nothing but free neanderthal tribal music then
lol not him but you're a tard
I'm sure she's money-grabbing and greedy, but the statement doesn't necessarily reflect that, and your tone would change if those words were coming out of the mouth of an independent or smaller artist opposed to streaming.
Nice argument
What perception are we talking about, is it the one where she makes hundreds of millions a year
Though she still should have a right over her own music it doesn't make her sound less like a cunt.
>the only conclusion i can draw from someone thinking taylor swift's art is bad is that they must not have listened to taylor swift
not who you were talking to but this is pretty arrogant desu, regardless of the quality of her music
>I didn’t see that happening, perception-wise,
>perception-wise,
Yeah, thanks, we know what "didn't see" means.
But everyone likes at least one Taylor song, user.
what a bold and almost certainly false statement to make
Actually it's like this:
the only conclusion I can draw from someone posting that Taylor swift's art is bad in Sup Forums is that they must not have listened to taylor swift
Leave it up to a rich pop star to give a huge fuck about homey.
>homey
Fuck, money.
i guess that's a more fair assumption to make, but things like this always rub me the wrong way and i, personally, am very wary about making such claims. oh well, agree to disagree i guess.
lol
>artists are not allowed to put value in their craft
Would you rather them make half-assed art?
