Taylor Swift - Folklore

Oh sure it’s just that whatever comfortable lifestyle he already has he just got a nice bonus.

Looking at Spotify, just their top 10 songs have had around 400 million streams so I imagine they do ok

Lol, 400 million streams on Spotify probably gets them a sandwich.

Touring is expensive. It's very easy to come back from a big headlining tour having barely broken even, or even lost money.

• You have to pay the road crew, tour manager, publicist, etc. out of pocket
• Visas, travel expenses, hotels, etc.
• Insurance
• If you're not a headliner, if you're opening for a major touring act or on a festival tour (Warped, Knotfest, Ozzfest when that was a thing, etc.), you have often bought that slot

I'm sure the National do well, because they've managed to make it a sustainable business for quite a long time, and Dessner does other stuff, but if he's more than upper-middle-class I'd be really shocked. Run of the mill doctors and lawyers make more money in a given year than highly successful, highly recognizable musicians.

Run of the mill doctors and lawyers kindergarten teachers make more money in a given year than highly successful, highly recognizable musicians.

Yeah, seriously. Just to underscore costs, Swift's Reputation tour reportedly made $266 million, which is a ton of money, but Swift herself is worth somewhere around $350 million, which means she got paid piles of money, of course, but that the bulk of the tour money probably went to the machine. Assuming any of these numbers are even close to accurate, in 2018 she reportedly earned $5 million in record sales, $2.4 million through streaming, and $2 million in publishing royalties. I bet she makes the most through endorsements and stuff, though.

Anyway, I was curious. One estimate has it that Spotify pays $1 for every 229 streams. So barring some special secret negotiation, 400 million streams likely gets the National a little under $2 million. Divided across the band members, minus costs, and yeah, you're doing well but not buying a private island or anything. But if Swift made $ 2.4 million in total streaming, then the National probably make much, much less than annually.

One estimate has it that Spotify pays $1 for every 229 streams. So barring some special secret negotiation, 400 million streams likely gets the National a little under $2 million.

This isn't the thread for this, but a) that seems way higher than I've read elsewhere, and b) Spotify doesn't pay individual artists for how much their music is streamed. A lot of people are very mad about that fact and have been since the beginning. Spotify takes all the money generated by all the songs that are streamed, throws it in a big pot, and divides it up among all the artists and labels.

Oh I'm sure those numbers are totally wrong. Those streaming services are less than transparent at best, and infamously not generous. Didn't Pharrell say that tens of millions of streams of Happy essentially made him peanuts? Point being that 400 million streams seems like a lot, until you realize it pays fractions of a cent per stream.

Lads. The National are a band who still sell rekkids! Middle-aged people buy their cds and expensive double lp’s. Crazy i know. And yes, touring is expensive, but you’re not telling me a band like that isn’t making good money off those hundreds of thousands 60-90 euros per ticket.

Not that it matters but.. Yeah, I don’t think Dessner will be too surprised with what this gig will pay him.

The National are one of the top five most successful indie bands in USA, they own their own houses. Income primarily comes from plum licenses (in commercials, movies), points on hit records ("Folklore", i.e.) and tour revenue. I'd peg Aaron's take on "Folklore"'s sales/streaming profits, assuming he's making 25%, at an average of 500k a year for the next decade. But: these are musicians in the absolute upper echelon of money-makers. Any lawyer practicing corporate law, real estate law, litigation or claims is gonna be making more per annum than a Dessner

I checked and their delayed Europe tour they had two nights at the O2 Academy Brixton which is 5K capacity

I think ilx never gave a fuck about them so you're underestimating how popular they are and how ardent their fanbase is.

It was really just an offhand thought. Here you are, a member of a successful rock band, puttering around at home during quarantine, making music because that's what you do and you have a lot of time on your hands and you're not even sure what the music's for, and then you get a text message and suddenly it's like, "Oh, that's what this music is for — to buy another couple houses and stage my long-dreamt-of puppet musical on a mountain in Norway."

You're thinking of Phil Elverum

I like Ned's most recent posts-- although I feel as if Taylor kind of hit her "Let's Dance" phase a little early.

Thanks! A little early, maybe, but also I might take relative age and 'career' space into account. (Eight years separate the debut album and 1989, eleven years separate Ziggy Stardust and Let's Dance -- and yes, I know that's not when Bowie started etc. etc. but let's phrase it in terms of the US public eye, and also the difference in how careers work now, as such.)

I mean, in between those glam rock and pop albums, he did soul pastiche, ambient collaborations with Eno, art-rock with Fripp,... Do people really see a remotely comparable scope in Taylor Swift's work? Like crut, I am also baffled by "genre hopping" wrt TS.

The album she did with Wolfgang Voight was admittedly pretty unexpected.

I think "Peace" (on the new album) may have the most "soul" of any song Taylor has done?

(Great song, btw - probably should have ended the album? I still can't get into "Hoax," or ever really hear the melody.)

i see that this thread is gonna get to 1000 comments before i get a chance to listen

Yeah sund4r you're kinda right-- less in common with a Robert Palmer and more in common with "a rock band who had their disco moment". I hope that's the case, anyway! I have no taste for Taylor-the-pop-musician. I like her best when she sounds like Jann Arden

i'm two listens in, + tho i'm enjoying it i'm also not sure if my interest will sustain for much beyond that. it's very nice and a smart/refreshing departure for her, but it is also so ceaselessly subdued in mood that i do struggle to take it all in as an ~album~ at times. the instrumentation is polite and refined, for better and worse, + i enjoy the hypnotic electronic touches. i found myself wishing that the hazy instrumental opening to "epiphany" would just continue uninterrupted for awhile like a stars of the lid record or something but nope, had to jump right back into tay's vocals. unlikely to become my fav ts record, but pretty good!

i enthusiastically welcome her not releasing a tragic, labored attempt at a 'pop hit' prior to dropping the album

have personally been wondering if the subdued mood is a feature and not a bug. i look at what's working on streaming and i don't see a lot of big/bombastic/uptempo/maximalist pop music

i see sad ballads from the pop artists who do manage to fit through the bottleneck and reach the masses, and i see songs that are advance scouts from rap and r&b records that in a lot of ways, resemble folklore more than they resemble reputation or 1989. long, tonally melancholy/subdued, lyrically focused at least compared to the max martin school of "if it sounds good, who cares what it means?"

the single that worked from lover was the title track. the single that worked from reputation was delicate. either of those songs could show up on folklore and fit right in. what if this just is the sound of pop now? what if the smaller, more subtle gradient of moods this record displays from track to track are just more relatable and enticing to a generation of listeners that isn't interested in the traditional sugar rush of bubblegum because they literally have cut actual sugar out of their actual diets and therefore mistrust any product, cultural or otherwise, that's trying to give them too much too soon?

screaming at the thought of this album's tracks getting slotted into the popular 'peaceful piano' 'mood' playlists

sounding more depressed/pensive does not automatically make your music more sophisticated or subtle. imo that this is swift's best album is nothing to do with the (admittedly au courant) glumness or mood greydient and more to do with the fact that it feels less dead-eyed than usual & she (eventually) starts doing more interesting things with the instrumentals than before. it's reductive to say that pop music itself is becoming less maximalist. pop music is becoming more of everything and you can choose to listen to whatever bits of it you're told to you like

All fair, but this is also her first album in four albums not preceded by a particularly obnoxious, very not subtle lead single. Definitely a choice.

“Shake It Off” wasn’t obnoxious (and neither was “We Are Never...,” if you’re counting back that far). This is veering into “pop is bad” territory!

I mean, different strokes, I guess.

shake it off was foully obnoxious, we are never was iconic, rip terrace house

"we are never" was the last decent one, it was all sharply downhill from there leading to the unmitigated abomination that is "me!"

i assume "look what you made me do" hasn't come up bc it's the best lead single of those three albums and it's great

i fully admit i was not read for the taylor swift heel turn at the time and now i think it's so campy and arch and delightful

i was not ready*

arch(er)

Yeah, whatever you think LWYMMD was, laboured attempted at an obnoxious pop hit doesn’t seem like a good description.

“Shake It Off” and “Me!” are really the only two - in both cases they don’t even seem to fit in with the rest of the album that produced them.

I remember being on a date the first time I heard "Shake it Off" and immediately knowing I'd hear it several hundred more times whether I liked it or not

i still don't think lwymmd was good but it's at least entertaining and the video really helped sell it

"shake it off" isn't bad but also not at all good either. "me!" on the other hand is one of the worst things she's ever done

imo "cardigan" is a bad choice for first single and it would have been a massive error to drop it in advance of the album rather than on the same day

we live in a world where the post-LDR sadcore continuum is producing monster chart hits like "someone you loved", and "cardigan" to me feels just as targeted towards mainstream trends as "me!" felt targeted at pop radio playlists during the era of "high hopes" and the jonas brothers

ah the "look what you made me do" video........ cinema

what would have been a better lead single from it though, "exile"? "cardigan" seems like as good as it gets as far as lead single choices go here

yes it really had to be a choice between two of the worst songs on the album

"cardigan" is great and "exile" at least has a fantastic bridge

Yeah, actually, "We are Never ..." has grown on me.

I really like Exile and I say that as someone who has been deeply allergic to Bon Iver for virtually his entire career. Would love to hear an entire album of duets, in that vein (as opposed to the godawful Brendon Urie vein).

I don't care for that song or like the Bon Iver records much, but he has a good voice and I'm not mad when he shows up in things (eg the Hadestown studio album, Bonny Light Horseman, Yeezus)

surely monsieur iver will be duetting with tay at whichever grammy ceremony this album will be competing in

grammy wouldn't be the same without albums like taylor or bomb ivor in them

bon (h)iver? more like mauvais été, amirite?

c'est vrai

I don't care for that song or like the Bon Iver records much, but he has a good voice and I'm not mad when he shows up in things (eg the Hadestown studio album, Bonny Light Horseman, Yeezus)

― the quar on drugs (Simon H.), Sunday, 26 July 2020 23:31 (yesterday) link

One of the upshots of Hadestown is that I wasn't at all surprised to hear him sing in baritone.

I bet Taylor would just love that album if she heard it.