What worries Taylor Swift doesn’t worry me.

In case you haven’t noticed, this Taylor Swift girl is going somewhere.  She’s got a future, that one.  You heard it here on TheProducersPerspective.com first.  Mark my blog.

Taylor has always been a star, but her wattage amplified to the nth power last week when her new album “1989” sold over 1 million albums in 7 days.  That’s a lot of downloads, yo.

She also made news when she yanked her music from the super-streamin’ Spotify music service, which allows users to stream any song they want for free.  Don’t misunderstand . . . the artists do get a few shekels when someone streams their song, but Taylor argued that it was like, totally, way less than it should be.  So she dumped Spot, just like she’s gotten dumped so many times over the years (something tells me those dumpers are regrettin’ it about now).

What Swift and so many musicians (and movie makers for that matter) are worried about is people gettin’ their stuff for free.  Free streamin’, illegal piracy, it’s all the same sort of thing to these folks . . . because what they produce is the exact same whether it’s paid for or not.  Because recorded music or recorded film is the same, whether it’s paid for or not.

See where I’m going with this?

Live entertainment can’t be pirated.

The experience of listening to or even watching a recorded “live” event doesn’t compare to seeing the live event.  So we don’t have to worry about what worries Taylor and all of Hollywood.  That’s why I encourage the telecast of plays and musicals in movie theaters around the country – because we’re not threatened by piracy.  In fact, recording our stuff only encourages audiences to attend it live.  Because it’s not a replacement like it is in the other industries.

So, rejoice and be glad!  Because when you think (or blog) about it, we, in the theater, are the lucky ones.  As more music and movies can be downloaded and streamed and seen through osmosis, the live event becomes more rare, more special and worth more money.


(Got a comment? I love ‘em, so comment below! Email Subscribers, click here then scroll down to say what’s on your mind!)

– – – – –


– Get started producing with Producing 101. Click here.

– Like the blog? Like me on Facebook.

– Win two tickets to Blank! The Musical Off-Broadway! Click here.

  • Carvanpool says:


    Free Broadway via TV, or widely distributed in movie theaters, not good for live Broadway.

    The vast majority of viewers on TV have never been to a real Broadway show. After seeing some crappy small screen production, you’ll find that these folks will find it “good enough”. They will have no need or reason to shell out beaucoup bucks for the real thing. They’ll have seen it on TV, why pay now? Just wait for the next freebie courtesy of NBC. That’s no way to build full price audiences.

    That’s why “good enough” trumps higher quality. VHS beats Betamax, mp3 beats lossless compression, LCD beats plasma. Make your own list.

    Don’t forget to put Broadway on the list either. It will have been smothered by inept and incompetent stewardship of the Broadway brand.

  • Steven Conners says:

    Dropping those ‘g’s, are you? Goin’ country, Ken? Well, your take on “live” vs ‘recorded live’ has one flaw. Remember that it all (music and theatre) started live and then came records and movies and TV which replaced live for Memorex. Music is a very big market, lots of artists and songs. Crap movies are turned out along with the good ones. I don’t get why you think recording a B’Way Show would help. If I had access to all of the current shows I wouldn’t have to get to Manhattan, buy big pricy tickets to see any show. I could do it all in the comfort of my ‘theater-style big screen’ at home, just as I do with the great movies. Unless, you’re banking on the ambiance of going to the theater, I think it’s a bad idea. And, it could be pirated, too. Let’s keep “live theatre” where it belongs: Live On Broadway! That still is a very unique experience and one that can’t be replicated.—sjc

    • MichaelC says:

      Unfortunately what we end up, much too often, are poor movies made from good Broadway shows (think “A Chorus Line”, “Phantom of the Opera”, “Annie”, “Best Little Whorehouse in Texas”, etc. – I’d add “Jersey Boys” but I’m apparently among the few who liked it). So, personally I’d prefer a movie theater broadcast of a Broadway show the way it was intended to be preformed over someone else’s filmed version. Maybe the solution is to hold back the recorded for broadcast version until the Broadway show has closed when they wouldn’t go head to head.

  • ChrisM says:

    Spot on Ken. Going to see the London revival of “Billy Elliot” tomorrow at the movie theater. Although I’ve seen “Billy” three times live on stage I would never get a chance to see it in London. The movie theater presentation of “The Nance”, a show I saw twice on Broadway, was excellent and this is a show that will never tour but has now been exposed to many who missed the NYC production. I’d never pass up a live production for a movie theater broadcast if the choice ever occur but I see one as complimenting the other. I’m in Ohio and have heard people in the movie theater take of how they hope the show tours so they can see it live (this was especially true of the Austrailian production of “Love Never Dies” – which I found recorded more like a movie than a filmed stage production). The broadcast version of “Company” with Neil Patrick Harris played to a full house (the only broadcast I’ve attended that was SRO). And yet I still make three or four trips a year to NYC, trying to catch every new show in previews or shortly after opening night. Now I’d been delighted if they’d announce a filmed production of “Mothers and Sons” was coming to a theater near me (I love that show).

  • Ken – do you have direct contact info to the folks who do the movie theatre links. I am working on a project and that information would be very helpful. I’ll look forward to your reply.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *