Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
MaryJanes2ndLastDance

What the Last DJ rallied against

Recommended Posts

But Taylor Swift, it seems, has an entirely new strategy increase her album sales. She’s partnering with Ticketmaster for a promotion known as “Taylor Swift Tix.” It’s framed as a way for fans to “beat the bots” that scalpers use to mass-purchase tickets and jack up resale prices, and requires you to register on her site to get access to tickets. 

 

You pick your preferred city, and then get to choose different opportunities to “boost” your place in line to obtain Taylor Swift concert tickets.

The boosts include things like pre-ordering the album Reputation (labeled as a “high boost”) or posting about it on social media (a low boost.) “Share the news about Taylor Swift Tix and for each share (one per platform, per day) you’ll get a boost,” reads the site.

 

There’s also a bar on the lefthand of the site that will tell you your place in line. (“wait list” on one end and “priority” on the other.) But it’s worth noting that in the fine print, Ticketmaster says “participation does not guarantee access to purchase tickets or the ability to purchase tickets.”

 

And you don’t just have to buy the album once; you can buy the album many times across different retailers and get a boost each time. Which means you can buy Reputation on Taylor Swift’s site, you can buy it at Walmart.com, you can buy it at Target.com, you can buy it on iTunes, and each time you’ll receive a boost. The “pre-order and purchase boosts” are limited to 13 total across retailers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I heard Amazon is going to start selling concert tix too. I wonder what that will do to the ticket industry! I haven't heard any specifics on the Amazon deal yet, but there has to be a catch to get great seats, like join Amazon prime for $100 a year. BUT, how would that work along side of TPATH's club for front seats? This is going to get complicated, but interesting to follow and see how things work out. I'm all for everyone jumping in to sell tix at face value, but I just don't see it working for the fans. Any group or company that will sell tix in the future is ONLY in it for the money, not the public interest. No one cares if you get a ticket for face value, they want their cut. In the end, it's all about the money they make, not the fans that put up the money to buy tix. TS and all are basically scalping their own tix and making you buy their LP's to make even more money. How many Millions of dollars do they need? American Greed at its finist!!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This Taylor Swift thing is a new low. Had not heard about Amazon. I guess I'm glad I don't see a lot of huge acts anymore and don't deal with this garbage and that Pearl Jam fans are generally generous when it comes to helping fans out with tickets, selling at face value, etc.

Good thing local shows don't have these issues.

Still, what a terrible way to gouge people, especially Swift, taking advantage of her audience who perhaps lack self-control.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, nurktwin said:

This is going to get complicated

Yes. And utterly stupid and shameless.

46 minutes ago, nurktwin said:

No one cares if you get a ticket for face value

Right. The ones who should care is the artists, though.

There have always been shades of.. well.. moral mediocrity, to these things. But, the way things have developed in recent years - more pure and reckless, not to say proud greed as lifestyle and all that - it's pretty much a matter of black or white these days. The many old rockers who lurked a long time in the in between, are all soon extinct. (And since they couldn't find it in their heart to stear clear of the muck all together, I'd say that may be as well. Good riddance.)

This is old news. The future is here already. Where we - producers and consumers alike - have to pick our side of the fence. From what seems like a nobrainer, it's not pretty how 99% will end up on the "wrong" side of this, being all to eager to be violated or to violate, for gold painted swag and polished turds.

For anyone with an eye for decency, though, it will soon be plain to see who's in it for the right reasons and who is only small, greedy, pathetic and well... petty.. It's getting increasingly hard not to give up, to just sign away your soul. But in the end it's up to the artist to keep their heart (and art) pure, and to fans not to buy the big lie (or the corrupt tickets).

After all, the middle man should work according to an invisible contract of sorts, between the artists and the fans, for the sake of the music, but these days the running order is getting increasingly f*cked.. The middle man (dressed to the teeth in money that only free market monopoly companies can bring) lure the artist into being their puppets to hypnotize the masses, from a cultural viewpoint making us comfy slaves that love eating crap and telling everyone on Facebook all about it. (Everybody's talking and nobody's listening, and all that. This post surely being a prime example of that :D )

Don't tell me we don't realize whether it is the artist, the middle man or us fans pulling the shortest straw in the current big league set up.. Nor that it's really up to us to kill this beast, by drawing some kind of a line, stop being cheap and masochistic. I know, it's not rock'n'roll and I don't like it...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Shelter said:

But in the end it's up to the artist to keep their heart (and art) pure, and to fans not to buy the big lie (or the corrupt tickets).

 Right. No one's saying they shouldn't make a good, comfortable living or even be wealthy, but gouging fans is terrible. But the Swift thing is just a more noxious take on this whole system; on top of that, a fine print caveat saying that even "boosting" yourself may not guarantee a ticket. 

Though I suspect this is less from Swift herself and more from her company, but in  this case, it's Money Becomes Queen.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MaryJanes2ndLastDance said:

 No one's saying they shouldn't make a good, comfortable living or even be wealthy

 

Key is, who is "they"? And how rich is "wealthy"? Long since have the meaning of both those words been stretched beyond reason.

1 hour ago, MaryJanes2ndLastDance said:

Though I suspect this is less from Swift herself and more from her company

She IS her company. At least her name, her face and her honour is. Which is precisely the point. You cannot blame the machine when you're it.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Shelter said:

Key is, who is "they"? 

Perhaps it's naive of me but I think the situation is different between Tom and Taylor but who knows, I could be wrong.

 Both could just be the head of some giant corporation that demands profits.

Or maybe Tom is doing this tour not just for the 40th but also for one last paycheck for the crew and his bandmates.

Certainly it's understood for people who viewed Tom as on a different playing field from Hard Promises and to the Last Dj would be disappointed with higher ticket prices. Aren't they higher? I don't know, as I've not seen them play in over ten years. But the sense I get on here, from some, is dissatisfaction beyond the set list, regarding changes in ticket prices, when coupled with the same old set list, makes the whole enterprise seem sadly off.

6 minutes ago, Shelter said:

And how rich is "wealthy"

 I suppose it's relative but I think most would agree that both Tom Petty and Taylor Swift are wealthy. My point is that no one begrudges them their wealth for their talent, but that these levels of "golden circle" tickets, boosting by purchasing swag and such are wrong and are on a whole other level away from being richly rewarded for one's creativity. Wringing every last cent out of the fans; is wrong; see rereleases, high ticket prices and so on, and I mean that in general, not just pointing at Petty or Swift.

7 minutes ago, Shelter said:

She IS her company. At least her name, her face and her honour is. Which is precisely the point. You cannot blame the machine when you're it.

 I don't know. I know maybe two Taylor Swift songs, what she looks like  and that she was interrupted while getting an award a while ago, so it's very much into speculation.

 Perhaps I err on the benefit of the doubt, but my feeling is that she isn't the company, but just the successful figurehead. Does she really know what's going around her?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, MaryJanes2ndLastDance said:

 I could be wrong.

Hey.. I am not arguing with you here. 

I just meant that the more external mouths to feed you will add, the further from rock'n'roll you will get.* 

And whether you know what's happening in your name or not is not an issue here. As I see it. Ignorance may be blizz, but it may also be criminal. Whatever you know, you are responsible for your personal brand. Period. Most people on this level earn the type of money and power that suggest that they can be held responsible for a thing or two, at least themselves and their brand. Yet, on the face of it, most of them are big babies, turning a blind eye.**

 

 

 

---

*Corporation or band? Of course, this has never been an easy line to draw for bands of modest to grand success. But the sad truth is that today, the clearer that line gets, the rougher the game, the more detatched and robotic things get, all around, fewer and fewer bigger acts seem to recognize said line, or, which to me is worse, showing any interest of staying clear of it, any signs of moral doubts. Some try saying one thing and doing another... Not sure if that is better. But most doesn't even stop to think anymore, before signing the check# 

#The check that pays one of many assistants who next are gonna sign a check for one of the even more accountants, who, in turn, are gonna sign one check for the tour gardener, for his great job ("he's such a wonderful, humble person, he's like family, really!!") another check for the tour gardener's assistant (the guy who sprays the roses with gold barrel aged gin every morning) , one check for the gardnerer's assistant's hair dresser (the one we all call "mama"), one for the gardener's assistant's hairdresser's dog keeper (Chucky), the dog keeper's pedicurist (Lana), and the perdicurist's champagne cellar butler ("I forget his name, but he's like my best friend!"), and so on... until that poor first mentioned accountant runs out of checks and has to call (or tweet?) the first assistant back, who in turn has to talk (or instagram?) the manager's staff and admit that yes, now "the family" is starving and that the manager has to make the artist to play bigger arenas, bigger hits, release yet another remaster of the old stuff, return to the studio and record (but only if it is a nr one record and a youtube record breaking single video type song) and just generally work harder. Cause who wants his extended family of hundreds to live such miserable lives of poverty... If this keeps on, they all won't be able to keep their private yets any more. Yet, of course, if the artist cut the pension plan for his butler's butler's second cousin's beluga caviar retailer (we call him "White Russian"), the whole bloody mess risks start come crumbling down. With less hired hands he/she may have to wipe his own behind (at least on weekends) all these wonderful people will not be able to support their lifestyles anymore, or to survive at all, come far out enough in the organisation.. The artist will cut his golden inflow and not be able to secure quite as many billion dollars for the future of their grandkids. Sad story that. Seriously. It's obvious that already when you roll with a quite modest organisation around you, you are richer and more successful than most, and you will be able to survive and offer a good living for all of your actual family, in at least a couple of generations (which is a questionable good, if ever I saw one, by the way), for your actual necessary staff and your band and families. But it's funny how enough never seem enough to some artists, is all I am saying. And, for the record, TP is obviously not who I am primarily talking about here. I am not talking about anyone specific. I'm talking about the model for modern music business and stardom.

**My suggestion? Don't sign anything that you can't live with. Minimize casualties. Try to make your deeds in the music business primarily about music. Shoveling papers, statistics and money around in order to create profit, has nothing to do with rock'n'roll. But whether it is something necessary and minor or your main concern and driving force (or something in between) it is nothing that goes on in secret and nothing that you can avoid being responsible for, just casuse you hired 9 layers of suits to hold the pens for you.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel bad for how the industry has turned out (especially for big acts).

I'm a huge economics nerd... and I find the whole situation pretty interesting. I mean, Ticketmaster almost ends up being the middle man.
I'll admit, I had seen stuff about the Swift Tix stuff... but hadn't looked into it or how it works.
By the time you buy multiple albums and what not, you might as well have bought a scalped ticket... LOL.
No--but really, I can't imagine what scalped TS tickets go for. Or other big acts like her.

I wonder if any other artists will follow suit? ^
It will be interesting to see.

I don't like paying $55 or whatever it is for a membership just to get TP tickets on presale. It isn't really worth it, TBH. Even with the $20 off. Especially when the membership benefits are so crappy. I renewed the day before the tour was announced and I didn't even get the 2017 package! I was pissed off.

Honestly, I'm thankful I hate going to concerts. I will go see TPATH because that's special to me, but outside of that--the crowds and everything else that goes along with live music is all that I hate!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder how deep Tom and his peers look into the modern mechanisms of marketing their music (lots of „m“s in this sentence!). Are they glad that they are what one could consider established acts? I remember some interviews where Tom said – I’m paraphrasing here – he wouldn’t know where to start if he was a young artist nowadays and that it’s all much more difficult than it was back then. But does that mean that being an established act in the sense that you’ve been a successful artist for many, many years makes it easier for you to sell tickets? And/or your music? Or is it just as hard as it is for younger artists like Swift, but in a different way?

We cannot know for sure, of course. Just wondering.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ Right. Quite complicated stuff, I'm sure. But being an "established act" in the sense that you've been around a long time at a certain level, chances, of course, are that you have fans that has been around a long time too.. that is their relationship to the artist, how they listen to the music, where they buy it and so on, are set according to some kinda standard procedures that are likely easier for the artist to navigate and comply to, than trying to invent him or herself from scratch, finding new platforms and so on. Not that you don't have to do that as well, to some degree, but older artist have part of their back coveredso to speak. In that sense it's "starting up" always been more difficult than being experienced. (D'uh!) That said, the market, the soul less consumer focus of everything is bound to make any artistic profession quite a hopeless deal these days, and starting out today, with the ambition to keep your heart in it must indeed mean it's difficult to know how and "where to start". He's certainly got a point there. But the times changing is probably just part that. It's always easier speaking from hindsight. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I took it as Tom referring to the guy, Danny Cordell (?) who let them learn together as a band at the start of their career, offering them support when perhaps now they'd have been dumped before they could even record a first or second album. Perhaps he meant how some of the businessmen had more savvy to foster a group with potential, or at least just in their case alone. 

Ciao.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On September 3, 2017 at 2:07 AM, Liberty said:

By the time you buy multiple albums and what not, you might as well have bought a scalped ticket... LOL.

 Yes, and often you can get a ticket at the box office or from a fan with an extra the day of the show, but I realize that may not be a good gamble for everyone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎11‎.‎09‎.‎2017 at 5:52 PM, MaryJanes2ndLastDance said:

I took it as Tom referring to the guy, Danny Cordell (?) who let them learn together as a band at the start of their career, offering them support when perhaps now they'd have been dumped before they could even record a first or second album. Perhaps he meant how some of the businessmen had more savvy to foster a group with potential, or at least just in their case alone. 

Ciao.

You might find that book interesting, in case you don't already know it...

https://www.amazon.com/Cowboys-Indies-History-Record-Industry/dp/1250043379

The author Gareth Murphy shows pretty well how, over the decades of the past century, the role of what he calls "record men" all but vanished from the industry. People like John Hammond, who discovered Billie Holiday, Aretha Franklin, Bob Dylan AND Bruce Springsteen, to name just a few, had the ears and knowledge to find interesting, promising artists who might have had to learn a thing or two, but in the long run guaranteed not only high sales, but also evolved as artists. Murphy argues that Rick Rubin could probably be the last "record man" in that more old-fashioned sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, TwoGunslingers said:

but also evolved as artists. Murphy argues that Rick Rubin could probably be the last "record man" in that more old-fashioned sense.

 That's been my impression of what Tom's talking about when he says how different it is for bands now. Lots of things are different but this is a big one. Granted, not everyone got a supporter like this and still made it, but in TPATH's case who knows what would've happened?

cheers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, TwoGunslingers said:

Murphy argues that Rick Rubin could probably be the last "record man" in that more old-fashioned sense.

Like some of us may be the last "listeners" in a way.

Great book, that! Have to admit I never finished it, but now I really have to! A few good anecdotes and plausible theories in there, I seem to recall.. History and Records combined, how could that not be interesting? Thank you for the reminder! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Shelter said:

Thank you for the reminder! 

You're welcome! I had difficulties staying focused in the first chapters... where it's getting really interesting is the birth of rock and roll, obviously.

12 hours ago, Shelter said:

Like some of us may be the last "listeners" in a way.

This is a really, really sad thought.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/20/2017 at 8:36 AM, TwoGunslingers said:

I had difficulties staying focused in the first chapters... where it's getting really interesting is the birth of rock and roll, obviously.

Myself, I actually find that pre-rock era to be very interesting, back when the whole machine surrounding recorded music was rather small and regional, with traveling talent hunters roaming the land with suits and ties and a case of strange equipment. Yet, despite the small scale and hands-on methods of those days, getting to be recorded, and especially distributed, was a way more exlusive thing compared to the big label hey days, or to compared to today, when theoretically we are all our own record label. To hear recorded music back then, really was a big deal, not to say a relgious experience. The myths that was born out of hearing those records, stuff conserning the voices and players heard, was wild and existential things to people.  

 

On 9/20/2017 at 8:36 AM, TwoGunslingers said:

This is a really, really sad thought.

 

Well..  but have a look around. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

×