|
|
|
| | ||||
|
Weekender: Old Navy shows off activewear with Lindsay Lohan in ‘80s-inspired spot
Swift?
From: Gerard Kinzelmann
Subject: Taylor and Rolling Stone article
WTF not a puff piece but a hurricane. I laughed out loud at some
sentences. Tayor's publicists probably wrote this. How far RS
www.rollingstone.com/music/music-features/how-taylor-swift-won-commentary-1235351833/
_________________________________
That article is behind a paywall. Not that the news that Taylor Swift has reacquired her catalog of recordings is hidden, I saw it on my phone within moments of waking it up.
But that's not the story that impressed me most today. Here's what I read in the "Wall Street Journal":
"E.l.f. Buys Hailey Bieber's Rhode Cosmetics Brand in $1 Billion Deal - Acquisition unites brands popular with Gen Z and helps buyer diversify its supply chain outside of China"
shorturl.at/7H5tS
Now this article too is behind a paywall, but if you Google the story...it comes up in spades, there are tons of references.
So I ask you, if you want to get rich which path are you going to take, become a musician or a model/influencer who is famous for nothing?
Not that all of Bieber's billion is net. Then again, the billion plus that Taylor Swift earned on her last tour was far from net. Talk about costs...
So Taylor Swift reacquired her catalog. Kudos. But let's be clear, SHE PAID FOR IT!
She paid less for it than she would have if she hadn't rerecorded her initial albums, but she wrote a big check, it was too big a number to Zelle.
As far as a breakthrough for all artists, a pivot point in the music business?
Nothing could be further from the truth.
If anything, labels now insert clauses that make it so you can't rerecord your albums, not until a long period of time passes, if at all.
And if you think the labels are the most important entities in today's music business, you'd be talking about how much money Swift made from her recordings as opposed to her tour, and that's not the number thrown around.
However, since the labels no longer know how to create a hit, you have to do this yourself. And therefore you negotiate a deal on your terms. And ultimate ownership of the recordings is negotiable.
Actually, the big story here is "Sinners," the blockbuster movie directed by Ryan Coogler. The rights revert to him after twenty five years, and Hollywood is FREAKING!
But Coogler had leverage. A history of success. And a studio desperate for hits.
Now if you subscribe to Apple News+ you can read the above-referenced "Rolling Stone" story here:
"How Taylor Won - Swift owning her life's work is a historic victory with enormous ramifications for other artists, and the entire music world"
apple.news/A3nFtjqN1QrmVlEeAzKSCCA
It is hagiography, but it's also not completely accurate.
Prince's beef with Warner Bros. wasn't about ownership of his masters, but how often he could release albums! Mo wanted to build and milk one album before he put out another. Also, every time Warner put out an album they had to pay Prince, and they didn't want to do this, if for no other reason thank the most recent albums hadn't sold as well as the previous ones.
And if you think Scott Borchetta and Scooter Braun are evil, not only do you not know the men, but you don't know business. Taylor could have bought her masters at multiple points along the way, BUT SHE DIDN'T WANT TO PAY FAIR MARKET VALUE FOR THEM!
I really don't want to make this about Swift. It's great that she owns her records. Everybody should. And I could go deep into an analysis of costs and royalties and the way the labels screw you, but...
How could this guy Rob Sheffield drink the kool-aid? I won't say he got it wrong so much as he's caught up in the hysteria, believing there is meaning here when there is very little. Everything is negotiable and everything is for sale. Period. It's just a matter of the number.
But the same people reading Sheffield's article are the same people raging against Live Nation about ticket prices, when the reason they're high is because of market demand, and the prices are set by the acts!
But the acts can't be guilty.
And neither can Taylor Swift.
It's considered to be black and white, when almost always it's chiaroscuro.
Sans Scott Borchetta the odds of Taylor Swift having made it are slim to none. Borchetta is an ace promotion person who was committed nearly full time to breaking Swift. Acts don't become worldwide phenomena without help. Of course at the core there's Taylor's talent (along with Liz Rose's and Max Martin's and other players/creators), but let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater.
But once again, it's the Bieber story that caught my eye.
We no longer live in the Beatle/classic rock era and we no longer live in the MTV era, when not only were acts and their material known around the world, but they became richer than almost every other citizen. Now a ton of people make more money than musicians. Certainly techies and other entrepreneurs, and then there are managers who make it on salary and stock options.
But usually to make it in that monied world you have to have portfolio...education, smarts, experience. To make it as a model/influencer you don't need any skills at all, other than hunger and your wiles. Once again, it's easier to make money as an influencer than it is as a musician. You just wake up one day and call yourself an influencer and start. Starting in music is hard, it usually requires paying your dues off the radar screen for years.
And that's too long for most people.
So who is going to go into music?
Oh, we know that everybody seems to be making a record now, with nearly a hundred thousand tracks added to Spotify every day. And what is the main complaint of the uploaders? THEY'RE NOT RICH! As for getting paid at YouTube, they don't even give you a chance unless you reach a certain number of views.
And makeup and perfume? Cosmetics? Talk about evanescent... Taylor's music will be listened to long after people forget what brand Hailey Bieber even began.
And the scuttlebutt online is that Justin Bieber, her husband, had to sell his rights as a result of overspending. He's a lot less savvy than Swift, and does not have a financier as a father.
So what does this say about our culture? That young people would rather be famous for nothing because it pays better than trying to become a musician?
We can't blame the people who pay them. These influencers earned the money.
And to compare social media to Spotify... The biggest streamer in TV is not Netflix, but YouTube...the internet is a juggernaut!
And speaking of the internet, it's the root of the dissension in the world today. But rather than dig deep, Democrats would rather deny it, telling potential voters to put the phone down. What next, stop having sex?
So if you're in music for the money...
There are easier ways to make cash.
So you have to ask yourself, why you are doing it?
Now many are doing it for the cash. Undercutting their credibility all the while. Gaining traction so they can branch out into perfume and clothing and alcohol...all of which have nothing to do with music. It's almost laughable, the more you sell your soul, the less your impact/the shorter your career. But the people making the deals get a cut, so they're going to tell you to do it.
It's like selling your publishing. Do you think Blackstone is in the business of losing money? They bought Hipgnosis because they think it's a good deal. As did all the rest of the financial entities in that space. In many ways they're no different from the labels, you make a deal today and lose out in the future. Which is what Swift is avoiding...but never forget the costs involved, she did not get those rights back for free.
And they keep inventing new ways to monetize music. Revenues are going UP on a percentage basis, from 7% per annum to 10% per annum. You can't get that return putting your money in a CD, no, you have to shoulder risk. But there's no risk in owning a song, it pays out better than a slot machine, year after year after year.
So what's a poor boy to do?
Certainly not play in a rock and roll band.
But the power of music today, more than ever...IS THE MUSIC ITSELF!
That's what you're selling, your right to affect people, to speak truth to power. But we have very few doing this. Everybody is looking for a way to monetize.
So what's forever, "Desperado" or "We Are Never Ever Getting Back Together"? "Hotel California" or "Cruel Summer"?
You may hate the Eagles, but the numbers tell us most people love to listen to them, year after year. And the Eagles don't sell out, with brand extensions and advertisements. They don't own their early records, then again the amount of money they make from recordings is a pittance compared to what they make on the road. The game changes, but the music remains the same.
Speaking of which, Peter Grant sold Led Zeppelin's rights to Atlantic and the only reason they got paid again is because the contract didn't have provisions for new media, i.e. the CD, never mind streaming. But believe me, the labels closed that loophole shortly thereafter.
However, if you're an influencer, you owe nobody.
So what choice do you think today's young 'uns are taking?
Ask around, you'll find out, and the answer is clear.
And it ain't music.
--
Visit the archive: lefsetz.com/wordpress/
--
Listen to the podcast:
-iHeart: ihr.fm/2Gi5PFj
-Apple: apple.co/2ndmpvp
--
www.twitter.com/lefsetz
--
If you would like to subscribe to the LefsetzLetter,
www.lefsetz.com/lists/?p=subscribe&id=1
If you do not want to receive any more LefsetzLetters, Unsubscribe
To change your email address this link
Subject: Taylor and Rolling Stone article
WTF not a puff piece but a hurricane. I laughed out loud at some
sentences. Tayor's publicists probably wrote this. How far RS
www.rollingstone.com/music/music-features/how-taylor-swift-won-commentary-1235351833/
_________________________________
That article is behind a paywall. Not that the news that Taylor Swift has reacquired her catalog of recordings is hidden, I saw it on my phone within moments of waking it up.
But that's not the story that impressed me most today. Here's what I read in the "Wall Street Journal":
"E.l.f. Buys Hailey Bieber's Rhode Cosmetics Brand in $1 Billion Deal - Acquisition unites brands popular with Gen Z and helps buyer diversify its supply chain outside of China"
shorturl.at/7H5tS
Now this article too is behind a paywall, but if you Google the story...it comes up in spades, there are tons of references.
So I ask you, if you want to get rich which path are you going to take, become a musician or a model/influencer who is famous for nothing?
Not that all of Bieber's billion is net. Then again, the billion plus that Taylor Swift earned on her last tour was far from net. Talk about costs...
So Taylor Swift reacquired her catalog. Kudos. But let's be clear, SHE PAID FOR IT!
She paid less for it than she would have if she hadn't rerecorded her initial albums, but she wrote a big check, it was too big a number to Zelle.
As far as a breakthrough for all artists, a pivot point in the music business?
Nothing could be further from the truth.
If anything, labels now insert clauses that make it so you can't rerecord your albums, not until a long period of time passes, if at all.
And if you think the labels are the most important entities in today's music business, you'd be talking about how much money Swift made from her recordings as opposed to her tour, and that's not the number thrown around.
However, since the labels no longer know how to create a hit, you have to do this yourself. And therefore you negotiate a deal on your terms. And ultimate ownership of the recordings is negotiable.
Actually, the big story here is "Sinners," the blockbuster movie directed by Ryan Coogler. The rights revert to him after twenty five years, and Hollywood is FREAKING!
But Coogler had leverage. A history of success. And a studio desperate for hits.
Now if you subscribe to Apple News+ you can read the above-referenced "Rolling Stone" story here:
"How Taylor Won - Swift owning her life's work is a historic victory with enormous ramifications for other artists, and the entire music world"
apple.news/A3nFtjqN1QrmVlEeAzKSCCA
It is hagiography, but it's also not completely accurate.
Prince's beef with Warner Bros. wasn't about ownership of his masters, but how often he could release albums! Mo wanted to build and milk one album before he put out another. Also, every time Warner put out an album they had to pay Prince, and they didn't want to do this, if for no other reason thank the most recent albums hadn't sold as well as the previous ones.
And if you think Scott Borchetta and Scooter Braun are evil, not only do you not know the men, but you don't know business. Taylor could have bought her masters at multiple points along the way, BUT SHE DIDN'T WANT TO PAY FAIR MARKET VALUE FOR THEM!
I really don't want to make this about Swift. It's great that she owns her records. Everybody should. And I could go deep into an analysis of costs and royalties and the way the labels screw you, but...
How could this guy Rob Sheffield drink the kool-aid? I won't say he got it wrong so much as he's caught up in the hysteria, believing there is meaning here when there is very little. Everything is negotiable and everything is for sale. Period. It's just a matter of the number.
But the same people reading Sheffield's article are the same people raging against Live Nation about ticket prices, when the reason they're high is because of market demand, and the prices are set by the acts!
But the acts can't be guilty.
And neither can Taylor Swift.
It's considered to be black and white, when almost always it's chiaroscuro.
Sans Scott Borchetta the odds of Taylor Swift having made it are slim to none. Borchetta is an ace promotion person who was committed nearly full time to breaking Swift. Acts don't become worldwide phenomena without help. Of course at the core there's Taylor's talent (along with Liz Rose's and Max Martin's and other players/creators), but let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater.
But once again, it's the Bieber story that caught my eye.
We no longer live in the Beatle/classic rock era and we no longer live in the MTV era, when not only were acts and their material known around the world, but they became richer than almost every other citizen. Now a ton of people make more money than musicians. Certainly techies and other entrepreneurs, and then there are managers who make it on salary and stock options.
But usually to make it in that monied world you have to have portfolio...education, smarts, experience. To make it as a model/influencer you don't need any skills at all, other than hunger and your wiles. Once again, it's easier to make money as an influencer than it is as a musician. You just wake up one day and call yourself an influencer and start. Starting in music is hard, it usually requires paying your dues off the radar screen for years.
And that's too long for most people.
So who is going to go into music?
Oh, we know that everybody seems to be making a record now, with nearly a hundred thousand tracks added to Spotify every day. And what is the main complaint of the uploaders? THEY'RE NOT RICH! As for getting paid at YouTube, they don't even give you a chance unless you reach a certain number of views.
And makeup and perfume? Cosmetics? Talk about evanescent... Taylor's music will be listened to long after people forget what brand Hailey Bieber even began.
And the scuttlebutt online is that Justin Bieber, her husband, had to sell his rights as a result of overspending. He's a lot less savvy than Swift, and does not have a financier as a father.
So what does this say about our culture? That young people would rather be famous for nothing because it pays better than trying to become a musician?
We can't blame the people who pay them. These influencers earned the money.
And to compare social media to Spotify... The biggest streamer in TV is not Netflix, but YouTube...the internet is a juggernaut!
And speaking of the internet, it's the root of the dissension in the world today. But rather than dig deep, Democrats would rather deny it, telling potential voters to put the phone down. What next, stop having sex?
So if you're in music for the money...
There are easier ways to make cash.
So you have to ask yourself, why you are doing it?
Now many are doing it for the cash. Undercutting their credibility all the while. Gaining traction so they can branch out into perfume and clothing and alcohol...all of which have nothing to do with music. It's almost laughable, the more you sell your soul, the less your impact/the shorter your career. But the people making the deals get a cut, so they're going to tell you to do it.
It's like selling your publishing. Do you think Blackstone is in the business of losing money? They bought Hipgnosis because they think it's a good deal. As did all the rest of the financial entities in that space. In many ways they're no different from the labels, you make a deal today and lose out in the future. Which is what Swift is avoiding...but never forget the costs involved, she did not get those rights back for free.
And they keep inventing new ways to monetize music. Revenues are going UP on a percentage basis, from 7% per annum to 10% per annum. You can't get that return putting your money in a CD, no, you have to shoulder risk. But there's no risk in owning a song, it pays out better than a slot machine, year after year after year.
So what's a poor boy to do?
Certainly not play in a rock and roll band.
But the power of music today, more than ever...IS THE MUSIC ITSELF!
That's what you're selling, your right to affect people, to speak truth to power. But we have very few doing this. Everybody is looking for a way to monetize.
So what's forever, "Desperado" or "We Are Never Ever Getting Back Together"? "Hotel California" or "Cruel Summer"?
You may hate the Eagles, but the numbers tell us most people love to listen to them, year after year. And the Eagles don't sell out, with brand extensions and advertisements. They don't own their early records, then again the amount of money they make from recordings is a pittance compared to what they make on the road. The game changes, but the music remains the same.
Speaking of which, Peter Grant sold Led Zeppelin's rights to Atlantic and the only reason they got paid again is because the contract didn't have provisions for new media, i.e. the CD, never mind streaming. But believe me, the labels closed that loophole shortly thereafter.
However, if you're an influencer, you owe nobody.
So what choice do you think today's young 'uns are taking?
Ask around, you'll find out, and the answer is clear.
And it ain't music.
--
Visit the archive: lefsetz.com/wordpress/
--
Listen to the podcast:
-iHeart: ihr.fm/2Gi5PFj
-Apple: apple.co/2ndmpvp
--
www.twitter.com/lefsetz
--
If you would like to subscribe to the LefsetzLetter,
www.lefsetz.com/lists/?p=subscribe&id=1
If you do not want to receive any more LefsetzLetters, Unsubscribe
To change your email address this link
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Lightnin' Strikes
Spotify: rb.gy/sqfyaf YouTube: rb.gy/2xe2yn 1 We knew the record, we knew the name, but we couldn't pick Lou Christie out of a lin...
-
Excited to launch our first large format escape room for 4-10 players.͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏...
-
What is your brand's strategy for expanding your loyal base, even in a landscape where consumers face economic pressures? ͏ ͏ ...
