Taylor Swift made $80MM last year...

[JoeWras]

Quote:

Originally Posted by rayinpenn Funny but with all that money so few seem really happy.... Small wonder. 1)they change spouses like we change slacks. 2)zero privacy 3)the media is in your face dying to catch you in an unflattering position. Then there's the tabloids: Stars Who Aged Poorly, Stars who gained weight, stars who are desperate for their next gig. Really dumb stars... Stars who cheat...

SongWRITER. SongWRITER. Be the songwriter! Who can pick Bernie Taupin out of a crowd? Makes boatloads, even when Elton is in concert, Bernie can be on the beach in LA pulling in the royalty.

Do you know Holly Knight? No. But you've heard her songs. Lots of them. My favorite Holly Knight story is when Aerosmith's producer encouraged them to get outside writing to help, and Holly came in and changed one word ("Time" to "Doll") and, BAM, 25% royalty worth at least $1M.

Nice.

[RobbieB]

In a market economy nothing is "overpriced", it may be over valued but the price is what people are willing to pay.

As to Madonna being "stale" do you really think she cares?

Madonna Net Worth - TheRichest

[Spanky]

Whether Taylor is talented or not is highly debatable and subjective. It does not matter anyway. I personally do not listen to her songs. However, she definitely has a huge fan base that adores her and loves her songs. She's very successful in marketing herself and making money. That's good for her.

[youbet]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spanky Whether Taylor is talented or not is highly debatable and subjective. It does not matter anyway. I personally do not listen to her songs. However, she definitely has a huge fan base that adores her and loves her songs. She's very successful in marketing herself and making money. That's good for her.

Well said and spot on!

[Texas Proud]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spanky Whether Taylor is talented or not is highly debatable and subjective. It does not matter anyway. I personally do not listen to her songs. However, she definitely has a huge fan base that adores her and loves her songs. She's very successful in marketing herself and making money. That's good for her.

I know this is about Taylor etc... and we had mentioned CEO salaries as something that is not always related to talent...

What about the people who make over $1 million doing youtube or other online things.... are they really that talented? Not IMO...

[Clone]

I remember a few years back-

My son had been running tractor on the farm. Out in the sticks, not a good selection of radio stations. I took supper out to him. He said-

"If Taylor Swift can't find some better boyfriends, I'm going to have to start listening to Classic Rock again!"

[Fermion]

The wildest one is Judge Judy. She makes around $45 million a year for that 30 minute TV show. And she is like older than my Grandma.

[haha]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Music Lover As to Taylor Swift...I have nothing against her, but she is a mediocre guitarist at best with average vocals. She's popular because a lot of people like her songs, not because she is extraordinarily talented.

Agree. To me her music along with most popular music is boring in the extreme. I could not possibly listen to even one whole song. Contrast her boring drivel with the late Merle Haggard. That man had human feeling in his songs.

Ha

[Gone4Good]

I'm curious how we define talent, especially as it relates to art.

Is talent just stuff we like?

People didn't like Van Gogh's work when he lived. And now they do. So was he not talented then but became talented posthumously?

Sure he eventually had a huge influence on other artists and that's a big reason why he's considered talented today. But isn't that just another way of saying "Van Gogh became popular among other artists?"

And if someone produces art that no one ever appreciates can they still be said to have talent? In Van Gogh's case, I think we'd just consider him eccentric.

MusicLover mentioned technical skill. But is the application of technical skill talent or is it simply craftmanship? Truly talented people seem to push beyond the limits of old techniques or even completely upend them to create something new.

On the other hand, if artists are creating things that are popular but not particularly new, innovative or technically impressive does that mean they have no talent? The early Beatles could be described this way.

And if talent is just stuff we like, then wouldn't the fact that a lot of people like an artist be evidence of talent whether we appreciate it or not? Or is something else required?

[FIREmenow]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gone4Good I'm curious how we define talent, especially as it relates to art. Is talent just stuff we like? People didn't like Van Gogh's work when he lived. And now they do. So was he not talented then but became talented posthumously? Sure he had a huge influence on other artists and that's a big reason why he's considered talented today. But isn't that just another way of saying "Van Gogh became popular among other artists?" MusicLover mentioned technical skill. But is the application of technical skill talent or is it simply craftmanship? Truly talented people seem to push beyond the limits of old techniques or even completely upend them to create something new. And if someone produces art that no one ever appreciates can they still said to be talented? In Van Gogh's case, I think he'd just be considered eccentric. On the other hand, if artists are creating things that are popular but not particularly new, innovative or technically impressive does that mean they have no talent? The early Beatles could be described this way. And if talent is just stuff we like, than wouldn't the fact that a lot of people like an artist be evidence of talent? Or is something else required?

Thanks for that. That's exactly what I was thinking.

Not that it is so, but isn't there "talent" in lucratively manipulating media and a fan-base even though you might only be mediocre entertainer?

I certainly think so.

[Senator]

Quote:

Originally Posted by FIREmenow Thanks for that. That's exactly what I was thinking. Not that it is so, but isn't there "talent" in lucratively manipulating media and a fan-base even though you might only be mediocre entertainer? I certainly think so.

If you ever heard Bob Dylan, or Steven Tyler, you would think marketing plays a larger impact than any vocal talent...

[ponyboy]

More power to her. She's providing something that a lot of people want/desire.

Im sure all of us listen to music...they're very talented people who have a skill that millions of people will pay for.

I always find it odd when people try to make the argument that athletes/actors/musicians are paid too much. What they fail to understand is its the average joes that pay their salaries. We all vote with our money...if no one pays to see a movie or attend a concert these people would not make that much.

[ponyboy]

Also..for those talking about who has talent and who doesnt...it doesnt matter. Regardless of talent those individuals are tuned into a frequency that you and I cannot see/hear. That frequency is being picked up by the millions of people who support these people. Talent has no meaning in terms of success...its irrelevant.

[Tadpole]

Wikipedia says she started working at age 14 so it isn't surprising that she is making more than I was at her age.

[FIREmenow]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ponyboy More power to her. She's providing something that a lot of people want/desire. Im sure all of us listen to music...they're very talented people who have a skill that millions of people will pay for. I always find it odd when people try to make the argument that athletes/actors/musicians are paid too much. What they fail to understand is its the average joes that pay their salaries. We all vote with our money...if no one pays to see a movie or attend a concert these people would not make that much.

Bingo! And, in essence, setting their "salary" in the first place.

[Music Lover]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ponyboy I always find it odd when people try to make the argument that athletes/actors/musicians are paid too much. What they fail to understand is its the average joes that pay their salaries. We all vote with our money...if no one pays to see a movie or attend a concert these people would not make that much.

The difference with athletes is that the taxpayer is often forced to pay for their workplaces (stadiums and arenas), whether they want to or not.

[ERD50]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gone4Good I'm curious how we define talent, especially as it relates to art. ... MusicLover mentioned technical skill. But is the application of technical skill talent or is it simply craftmanship? Truly talented people seem to push beyond the limits of old techniques or even completely upend them to create something new. .... And if talent is just stuff we like, then wouldn't the fact that a lot of people like an artist be evidence of talent whether we appreciate it or not? Or is something else required?

I'd say that for the most part, it doesn't matter how we define it. As others have said, her fans like her music/performance/personality/looks (the whole package), isn't that enough?

I asked earlier "- is she talented, music-wise?", but I should have worded that more like MusicLover did, and ask about technical skill and craftsmanship. Again, it doesn't really matter, it was just something I was curious about.

Technical skill and craftsmanship are still somewhat subjective, but certainly more objective than 'talent' (I like what I like). I'm pretty sure that 100 experienced guitar players would have judged her playing along the lines that I did - adequate for the song, mixes up the strumming (not just 1-2-3&4) but doesn't throw in any embellishments. Pretty simple playing.

Technical skill and craftsmanship doesn't cover it all either. There is that less definable 'feeling/soul/emotion'. I love much of Joe Cocker's work, some of Rod Stewart's early work, yet their voices are almost hard to take. But they get a message across with what they have. So maybe that is 'craftsmanship'?

And whatever I think doesn't matter to anyone else. Everyone is free to enjoy whatever they like. But if someone wanted to claim that Swift is an accomplished guitar or piano player, I would take issue with that, and say she is adequate.

OTOH, a favorite movie clip of mine is from "School of Rock" - Jack Black asks the kids who their favorite artists are, a kid yells out "Puff Daddy", and Black yells out "WRONG!".

-ERD50

[ziggy29]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Senator If you ever heard Bob Dylan, or Steven Tyler, you would think marketing plays a larger impact than any vocal talent...

Bob Dylan is one of the greatest songwriters of all time.... but that voice... I just can't get into that.

[Senator]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Music Lover The difference with athletes is that the taxpayer is often forced to pay for their workplaces (stadiums and arenas), whether they want to or not.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ponyboy I always find it odd when people try to make the argument that athletes/actors/musicians are paid too much. What they fail to understand is its the average joes that pay their salaries. We all vote with our money...if no one pays to see a movie or attend a concert these people would not make that much.

I am sure Taylor Swift plays in many publicly financed arenas as well. And even the movie stars here in MN, get a 25% rebate for expenses paid in MN... Many other states have the same.

If I could get a 25% rebate for my expenses, I would be rich too. The system is stacked against the common person, especially if they are just a W2 wage slave.

Quote:

Rebates have increased to up to 25% of qualified MN expenditures, above the line talent (non-resident) will be included as an eligible rebate cost (cap $100K per person), and a production that spends more than $1M in MN will automatically qualify at 25% and will be audited by an independent auditor paid for by MN Film and TV.

https://mnfilmtv.org/incentives/snowbate/

[Gone4Good]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Senator I am sure Taylor Swift plays in many publicly financed arenas as well. And even the movie stars here in MN, get a 25% rebate for expenses paid in MN... Many other states have the same. If I could get a 25% rebate for my expenses, I would be rich too. The system is stacked against the common person, especially if they are just a W2 wage slave.

I'd say it's an equal opportunity fleecing.

Half the money Louisiana should have collected in corporate taxes between 2005 and 2010 was instead written off due to tax credits,

As bad as the whole stadium racket is, I doubt they're collectively the largest recipients of public largess.