FINALLY!! Someone who has experienced and observed the music industry addressed such problems. Everybody will benefit if only we can solve these problems. I hope this video gets more views and will eventually help to change the industry.
I agree with him 110%, music helps so many people. I will do my best from this moment on to learn who wrote the music and songs I like to hear. An pay it forward to those people.
I am so proud of you, Björn! Thank you for being brave and thoughtful of our artists today. I agree with all your sentiments and suggestions, and hopefully these will all be considered given the grave situation of the music industry. You truly are a humble visionary, Björn. God bless your kind heart. 🙂
There are variations of these problems in other creative industries (books, films, etc.) as well. Thank you for bringing this to the public's awareness! 👏 🙂
@@benwyse yeah I often rip the CDs to have them in FLAC as well. I also get some music from HDtracks, which is up to 192kHz, 24bit - although there is discussion to be had on how audible the difference is - it often depends on the mastering and production.
As it is now, the Spotify royalty model is nonsensical. Per Ulvaeus' example, why is my subscription money going to Justin Bieber instead of the artists I listen to? "Free" listeners are supported by the ads, so why isn't my money going to the artists and songs I value?
@@krisb-travel Did he not say if someone listens to Bieber 5K times, and I listen to my artist 100 times, more of my money goes to Bieber even though I don't listen to him? What didn't I understand?
So very interesting, nice. Do remember however years ago, CD era we had to pay $15 to $20 for a CD that had only one song we liked. But do agree artists all should be payed fairly.
It's not just the streaming payment system that's the problem, it's also the promotion system. How do you get new music in front of people who wouldn't have thought to go seek it out on their own? And how do new artist who are starting to gain a little bit of traction, get more exposure so they can take their career to the next level? MTV doesn't really play videos or have shows like TRL anymore. Traditional broadcast radio has been on the way out for the past 20 years. Sure, there's RUclips and all the stuff that people do on social media. But when you're looking for music online, you only seek out stuff you already know or similar new stuff that you think you'll like. So it becomes a kind of echo chamber. There's no one putting a compilation of new stuff in front of you and saying "here try some of this. Maybe you'll like it." And you end up being exposed to new artist or different genres of music that you wouldn't otherwise have thought to listen to before. The same thing is happening with TV shows and news media too and I think it's going to have a detrimental effect on American culture. There's no one thing that everyone pays attention to anymore and it's dividing people.
@@daw7563 Yeah, it's kind of double edged sword, though. Sure, it's way easier to be seen and get recognized now, but there's less money in it now and the audience is more split up because there are so many more people competing for attention.
@@daw7563 Disagree, any man and his dog can have channel and record thier own 'original' tunes, but out of 80 000 songs daily released, I wonder how many actually get listened to? Most musician commities now just swamped with artists begging for likes and subs, rarely listening or commenting on anything else. I actually recorded with a Platinum artist around 2008, his view being it was (then) tenfold harder to get recognised, even worse now.
@@CROSSofIRON-uk Doesn't matter if they get listened to. 20 years ago, you wouldn't even get a CHANCE to record alone, put out music, and possibly get noticed before YT and streaming. You would have to hope a record label picked you up or your chances were nill
From the time we are born, background music from our parents records, siblings and friends are filling our ears. For music artists, being creative has become so hard. Music copyrights are doing the equivalent of forcing a painter to use only colors that are not on the Pantone scale, or others colors, copyrighted like the Tiffany blue.
Music streaming platforms like Spotify are indeed already upping their fee...but who cares talking about the "money". I mean I'm a song-writer myself and I've decided it's ok not to get any money, even if I'm streaming on multiple platforms. I do it for the fun. Let's talk about the music really. Average people are happy with what's popular. It's always been that way. And pop music is all about repetition, familiarity, and so on. So it just makes sense that what we will get is more and more of the same and we will get used to more of the same, 'till we won't want anything different than what's average. Ever seen the movie Idiocracy? But if the average person goes a little further than what they're being told to listen to, they'll find a hidden world of interesting artists out there. The change always comes from the people ..and in this case people's taste.
The distribution of money between the companies and their creators might need to change, but I don't agree that prices for the everyday consumer should be higher. Especially given the ever increasingly worse economic state that we're currently in
I was highly skeptical at the start with an old person complaining about streaming but we was extremely fair and reasonable and I hope my like and comment helps spread his message ever so slightly.
He wasn't just any old person. But when we get old, I guess that is what we become. Also, not jabbing at you, yours is a valid point and I like it. But 'old person' - it's relative and it's not. Besides, he was part of ABBA, so if you get a chance listen to that band... and witness him when he was young. We all start out like you (assuming you are young)... but we all end up like him, and of course older.
If Napster taught us anything it's that the vast majority of people only know a song by it's name or some tagline & have no fucking clue who the artist is. "Somebody's watching me" still has RUclips links for Michael Jackson, when the artist is Rockwell.
@@qmoorman The only reason the lyrics aren't as impactful is because we lead lives where we don't have time to really listen. Our minds are always busy with something else, if we're not slaving away at work we're checking for new tweets, tiktoks or whatever the new fads are.
@@MalazMusic Because what customers are actually paying for subscription wise is a seamless streaming experience where their favorite artist happens to be among their other favorites (notwithstanding the social media component that allows friends from platforms like facebook to see what you're listening to). Not supporting the artists being streamed and their work. So his point is tonedeaf to what's actually going on and why.
@@SecretEyeSpot I cannot see why a seamless subscription experience is in conflict with this immoral set up. Why would not users want their subscription money to go to the creators they are listening to? I can understand why the record companies (that owns most of Spotify) don't want it but it is immoral and just wrong.
@@MalazMusic it's what the creators themselves agreed to when they ink their deal. Raising prices on subscribers just makes the publishers their signed to and the DSPs more rich.
true, that's why a possible solution is implementing all the suggestions Bjorn made - or others - more or less a complete overhaul of the current system.
Olá, você. Há pouco, eu compus uma musica em homenagem cadela, Poly, de 13 anos que faleceu recentemente em decorrência de um tumor. Foi uma grande perda, então se você puder ouvir significaria muito pra mim (é meu ultimo envio). Obrigado perdão por estar comentando assim, não faço a menor ideia de como divulgar isso
Maybe selling music standalone is the wrong approach. Anecdotally, I virtually never buy music, but I definitely buy games. Games will always need music.
I'm actually pretty shocked! I assumed Björn's suggestion was already the case! That my $9.99 would be divided across the songs that I listen too...what a mess!
Maybe we go back to patronage. The reason we have renaissance art or baroque music is some wealthy patron like a king paid for the whole show. I do with bjorn success with his initiative.
The old model was not that fair either; Why should an album with simple pop music cost the same as one of the philharmonics? I would never pay more than maybe 4-5$ for an Elton John album, while I would gladly pay +25$ for Al Di Meola, or some well made J.S. Bach performance.
If I pay to see a movies or ear song that I like, I definitelly want the people that made them to get a bigger portion of MY money and not some commercial hyped thing they (tried to) shove down my throat.
Music streaming is forbidden now, since DMCA is a thing. Which to me, is a very stupid thing. Not even the author of the music can play it without strikes. Its insane. My music is free for all, no DMCA, and people can use it freely. They dont even need to pay me for it, thats how much I dislike DMCA.
I don't know. It seems to me like a supply and demand issue. Maybe songwriting is not a viable job anymore. To me, the three solutions seem a naive approach to the problem. Specially raise the price of the service. But it was nice to be more aware of the issue. If there is a problem, there is a solution as well =)
Artists don’t do art because it is viable. They do it because they must. This doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be paid for their job. If there are artists (singers, musicians) who are millionaire superstars then there seems to be a lot of demand. The problem is people who are not artists are used to having music and film and any kind of art just existing. But for it to exist the people who do it have to have the means, the time and the conditions to do it. The solution is to give more culture to the people, specially the children. Have them try art, doing it, understanding it, valuing it. Then they won’t think that a 11.90 subscription to an infinite amount of works of art (of different levels of quality, genres etc) is an unfair price. But this is a long term solution. Any short term ideas will seem crazy to those who don’t value what they are receiving.
This is absurd. You write a song that resonates with people or it doesn't. The only thing a copyright does is prevent others from taking credit fom the creator's creation on paper. That doesn't stop others from making money of of it. Copyright makes it easier to basterdize a creation by those with the money and "authority" by taking control away from the creator. The song writer and the singer is a prime example. This is also proven by the nonsense that is constantly discussed on "Ted Talk". The less the creator is seen and heard, the more the creation is taken away and twisted to suit the purposes of others that wish to utilize what isn't theirs to gain money, "authority" and influence. Back to the subject at hand. The singer will always get the credit and clout. Then they often use that clout to spread their own views instead of the creator's views, which is whear the views originated in the first place. The "protection" of a copyright is an illusion.
But when others make money from your copyrighted work don't they have to pay the copyright holder a fee to do so? It's up to the creator to retain ownership of the copyright.
@@MDBenton technically yes. However the laws that surround the entire processes create a money machine that runs in a circle, preventing the creator from retaining credit unless lawers and the courts system is utilized. Setting that aside, the laws created by politicians that big business wanted in place allow for numerous loop holes. The simplest way to subvert the creator is to alter the creation slightly, from there the version that is most appealing will be embraced. Then the courts decided what belongd to who and whom gets paid for it. Ultimately none of this matters. Books are the easiest example. The author can't get credit unless they go through a publisher. The book won't be published unless all involved parties know they will make money off of it. Once that is done the royalties the author makes is a fraction of what the consumers pay. The author still gets full credit, however this is only because the authors name is there for the customers to see. Music is the exact opposite. The song writer will get paid, as long as they don't ruffle any feathers. However the song writer will never get any credit. Ultimately, song or book, the creator will only get credit and/or money if the people in "authority" can dictate terms and make money off of someone else's hard work.
@@SecretEyeSpot appearantly not. However since all you did was give me the abbreviation and didn't explain anything, I doubt YOU know what it is either.
@@christophersundquist881 its called a Performing Rights Organization. Once you're registered the individuals on the copyright have their royalties tracked out for them and depending on their splitsheet agreement get their due compensation. So if a songwriter-producer has the SR and agrees to take 60% where the singer agrees to take 40% for just singing it (PA).. the PRO pays them in that split.. This is just a hypothetical tho, like you've mentioned above usually a publisher who the songwriter and the singer agree to split the copyright with takes a percentage to distribute the mechanical or digital copy of the content has their split percentage as well😅😉
You know, I don't see any problem here. Singers, actors, performers and other people of art have always got higher salaries than e.g. teachers, doctors, policemen etc. One or two popular songs - at once struck gold. Once the pandemic happened, they all started to whine. Please, come back to the Earth. Anyone who wants to make a living, should work hard. So, get up and start working! Just tired of these childish speeches "I am a poor artist please support me". No one cares. It's your life. Stop complaining and do something. The planet is going to stop just because you're hard-pressed.
FINALLY!! Someone who has experienced and observed the music industry addressed such problems. Everybody will benefit if only we can solve these problems. I hope this video gets more views and will eventually help to change the industry.
I agree with him 110%, music helps so many people. I will do my best from this moment on to learn who wrote the music and songs I like to hear. An pay it forward to those people.
I am so proud of you, Björn! Thank you for being brave and thoughtful of our artists today. I agree with all your sentiments and suggestions, and hopefully these will all be considered given the grave situation of the music industry. You truly are a humble visionary, Björn. God bless your kind heart. 🙂
This was one of the better TED Talks in a while, honestly.
He's literally done a Ted talk on a topic I was going to write an article about for a blog. Loved this
There are variations of these problems in other creative industries (books, films, etc.) as well. Thank you for bringing this to the public's awareness! 👏 🙂
I still buy and listen to CDs because I like albums and high quality audio
Only CD does not really offer hi-quality sound.
@@lolwho better than spotify streams; 1411kbps vs 320kbps
If quality is what matters to you, download Flac files of your artists.
CDs are definitely better than mp3. mp3 is garbage!
@@benwyse yeah I often rip the CDs to have them in FLAC as well. I also get some music from HDtracks, which is up to 192kHz, 24bit - although there is discussion to be had on how audible the difference is - it often depends on the mastering and production.
Very good of Bjorn Ulvaeus to care so much and take the time to try to help this situation.
Bjorn is a very intelligent, insightful and engaging person to listen to. A musical genius sent from the Father :)
What father? His?
@@ricksturgis6403 軟わゃわ!ヤナやの
Just a side note, he is a well known atheist and we are with him. Dissolution does not help
Truly great music will never again become so abundant as it was in the 60's and 70's unless the industry changes its ways.
So glad I grew up with ABBA and bought the records as they were released, downloads are heard not listened to, il keep to vinyl
Björn is a legend 🥰
As it is now, the Spotify royalty model is nonsensical. Per Ulvaeus' example, why is my subscription money going to Justin Bieber instead of the artists I listen to? "Free" listeners are supported by the ads, so why isn't my money going to the artists and songs I value?
😎😎🙂
oh dear, i think youve misunderstood everything, do you tie your own laces in the morning?
@@krisb-travel Did he not say if someone listens to Bieber 5K times, and I listen to my artist 100 times, more of my money goes to Bieber even though I don't listen to him? What didn't I understand?
u know u bounce whenn Bieber pops 😉
@@jackhappens you said it well… it’s clear cris is the one not understanding
Excellent Ted talk.
So very interesting, nice.
Do remember however years ago, CD era we had to pay $15 to $20 for a CD that had only one song we liked. But do agree artists all should be payed fairly.
Very interesting! And also very nice to hear the opinions and views of someone with as much real life experiences in the subject at hand
It's not just the streaming payment system that's the problem, it's also the promotion system. How do you get new music in front of people who wouldn't have thought to go seek it out on their own? And how do new artist who are starting to gain a little bit of traction, get more exposure so they can take their career to the next level? MTV doesn't really play videos or have shows like TRL anymore. Traditional broadcast radio has been on the way out for the past 20 years. Sure, there's RUclips and all the stuff that people do on social media. But when you're looking for music online, you only seek out stuff you already know or similar new stuff that you think you'll like. So it becomes a kind of echo chamber. There's no one putting a compilation of new stuff in front of you and saying "here try some of this. Maybe you'll like it." And you end up being exposed to new artist or different genres of music that you wouldn't otherwise have thought to listen to before. The same thing is happening with TV shows and news media too and I think it's going to have a detrimental effect on American culture. There's no one thing that everyone pays attention to anymore and it's dividing people.
@@daw7563 Yeah, it's kind of double edged sword, though. Sure, it's way easier to be seen and get recognized now, but there's less money in it now and the audience is more split up because there are so many more people competing for attention.
@@daw7563 Disagree, any man and his dog can have channel and record thier own 'original' tunes, but out of 80 000 songs daily released, I wonder how many actually get listened to? Most musician commities now just swamped with artists begging for likes and subs, rarely listening or commenting on anything else. I actually recorded with a Platinum artist around 2008, his view being it was (then) tenfold harder to get recognised, even worse now.
Try Gaffa or similar newspaper / websites that promote music and do reviews. It’s a great place to find new music and explore genres
@@CROSSofIRON-uk Doesn't matter if they get listened to. 20 years ago, you wouldn't even get a CHANCE to record alone, put out music, and possibly get noticed before YT and streaming. You would have to hope a record label picked you up or your chances were nill
@@SeraphX2 4 track home recorded cassette demos got passed around in the 80's, many bands got signed from them.
Most good music is from the 70s-80s, when competition wasn’t as fierce.
there’s still music as good as in the 70’s-80’s but the artists are underrated
From the time we are born, background music from our parents records, siblings and friends are filling our ears. For music artists, being creative has become so hard. Music copyrights are doing the equivalent of forcing a painter to use only colors that are not on the Pantone scale, or others colors, copyrighted like the Tiffany blue.
Bjorn played that freaky star shaped silver guitar, so in my eyes, still the coolest dude.
Love these kinds of videos 🙏🏾🙏🏾 Stay safe everyone
Music streaming platforms like Spotify are indeed already upping their fee...but who cares talking about the "money". I mean I'm a song-writer myself and I've decided it's ok not to get any money, even if I'm streaming on multiple platforms. I do it for the fun.
Let's talk about the music really. Average people are happy with what's popular. It's always been that way. And pop music is all about repetition, familiarity, and so on.
So it just makes sense that what we will get is more and more of the same and we will get used to more of the same, 'till we won't want anything different than what's average.
Ever seen the movie Idiocracy?
But if the average person goes a little further than what they're being told to listen to, they'll find a hidden world of interesting artists out there.
The change always comes from the people ..and in this case people's taste.
Thank you for the music.
The distribution of money between the companies and their creators might need to change, but I don't agree that prices for the everyday consumer should be higher. Especially given the ever increasingly worse economic state that we're currently in
This is something everyone should watch
Gracias desde Argentina
Glad to listen to this 👌🏽
I was highly skeptical at the start with an old person complaining about streaming but we was extremely fair and reasonable and I hope my like and comment helps spread his message ever so slightly.
He wasn't just any old person. But when we get old, I guess that is what we become. Also, not jabbing at you, yours is a valid point and I like it. But 'old person' - it's relative and it's not. Besides, he was part of ABBA, so if you get a chance listen to that band... and witness him when he was young. We all start out like you (assuming you are young)... but we all end up like him, and of course older.
Old person . Try one of the most talented musicians on the planet
Björn looks much younger than 76!
money money money
The last part of his talk was very profound.
Finally something good by Ted
💌
is very believable! thx from germany .
Going to watch.
good talk but did he clarify which song he remembers writing where agnetha was in the other room etc? must have missed it
Thank You For The Music
If Napster taught us anything it's that the vast majority of people only know a song by it's name or some tagline & have no fucking clue who the artist is.
"Somebody's watching me" still has RUclips links for Michael Jackson, when the artist is Rockwell.
I agree, in many cases, lyrics aren't as impactful as we'd think. The melody, hook and a few lines blend together to make it catchy.
@@qmoorman The only reason the lyrics aren't as impactful is because we lead lives where we don't have time to really listen. Our minds are always busy with something else, if we're not slaving away at work we're checking for new tweets, tiktoks or whatever the new fads are.
I don't think this guy remembers Kazaa and Limewire.. the fact fans pay for music at all is a blessing..
I think he knows that more than most people and how does that diminish his point?
@@MalazMusic Because what customers are actually paying for subscription wise is a seamless streaming experience where their favorite artist happens to be among their other favorites (notwithstanding the social media component that allows friends from platforms like facebook to see what you're listening to). Not supporting the artists being streamed and their work. So his point is tonedeaf to what's actually going on and why.
@@SecretEyeSpot I cannot see why a seamless subscription experience is in conflict with this immoral set up. Why would not users want their subscription money to go to the creators they are listening to? I can understand why the record companies (that owns most of Spotify) don't want it but it is immoral and just wrong.
@@MalazMusic it's what the creators themselves agreed to when they ink their deal. Raising prices on subscribers just makes the publishers their signed to and the DSPs more rich.
@@SecretEyeSpot I am a creator and musician I have not agreed to anything like this on Spotify. Truth is we have no choice and are being run over.
the legend!
Nice man
Increase the fee won't help the artist if the fee money is not going to the artist.
true, that's why a possible solution is implementing all the suggestions Bjorn made - or others - more or less a complete overhaul of the current system.
Olá, você. Há pouco, eu compus uma musica em homenagem cadela, Poly, de 13 anos que faleceu recentemente em decorrência de um tumor. Foi uma grande perda, então se você puder ouvir significaria muito pra mim (é meu ultimo envio). Obrigado
perdão por estar comentando assim, não faço a menor ideia de como divulgar isso
Damn, think about the whole kpop community leaving songs on loop for entire days just to get their faves on top 😬
Maybe selling music standalone is the wrong approach. Anecdotally, I virtually never buy music, but I definitely buy games. Games will always need music.
TED must have shipped those big white S letters via UPS.
I LEARN ENGLISH FROM TEDX. COULD ANYONE TELL ME WHAT IS THE ACCENT OF THIS ENGLISH ?
Sweden
I'm actually pretty shocked! I assumed Björn's suggestion was already the case! That my $9.99 would be divided across the songs that I listen too...what a mess!
Maybe we go back to patronage. The reason we have renaissance art or baroque music is some wealthy patron like a king paid for the whole show.
I do with bjorn success with his initiative.
Repost?
The old model was not that fair either; Why should an album with simple pop music cost the same as one of the philharmonics?
I would never pay more than maybe 4-5$ for an Elton John album, while I would gladly pay +25$ for Al Di Meola, or some well made J.S. Bach performance.
🕊
⚡️🙏⚡️
Wrong data?? How can they do that!!!
👏👏👏❤️❤️❤️
If I pay to see a movies or ear song that I like, I definitelly want the people that made them to get a bigger portion of MY money and not some commercial hyped thing they (tried to) shove down my throat.
!!!
am vietname
Music streaming is forbidden now, since DMCA is a thing. Which to me, is a very stupid thing. Not even the author of the music can play it without strikes. Its insane. My music is free for all, no DMCA, and people can use it freely. They dont even need to pay me for it, thats how much I dislike DMCA.
I don't know. It seems to me like a supply and demand issue. Maybe songwriting is not a viable job anymore. To me, the three solutions seem a naive approach to the problem. Specially raise the price of the service. But it was nice to be more aware of the issue. If there is a problem, there is a solution as well =)
Artists don’t do art because it is viable. They do it because they must. This doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be paid for their job. If there are artists (singers, musicians) who are millionaire superstars then there seems to be a lot of demand. The problem is people who are not artists are used to having music and film and any kind of art just existing. But for it to exist the people who do it have to have the means, the time and the conditions to do it. The solution is to give more culture to the people, specially the children. Have them try art, doing it, understanding it, valuing it. Then they won’t think that a 11.90 subscription to an infinite amount of works of art (of different levels of quality, genres etc) is an unfair price. But this is a long term solution. Any short term ideas will seem crazy to those who don’t value what they are receiving.
ah! the good old days! In capitalism one can only be sure of change for better or worse for any party! suck it up.Rachmaninoff was no billionaire!
This is absurd. You write a song that resonates with people or it doesn't. The only thing a copyright does is prevent others from taking credit fom the creator's creation on paper. That doesn't stop others from making money of of it. Copyright makes it easier to basterdize a creation by those with the money and "authority" by taking control away from the creator. The song writer and the singer is a prime example. This is also proven by the nonsense that is constantly discussed on "Ted Talk". The less the creator is seen and heard, the more the creation is taken away and twisted to suit the purposes of others that wish to utilize what isn't theirs to gain money, "authority" and influence. Back to the subject at hand. The singer will always get the credit and clout. Then they often use that clout to spread their own views instead of the creator's views, which is whear the views originated in the first place. The "protection" of a copyright is an illusion.
But when others make money from your copyrighted work don't they have to pay the copyright holder a fee to do so? It's up to the creator to retain ownership of the copyright.
@@MDBenton technically yes. However the laws that surround the entire processes create a money machine that runs in a circle, preventing the creator from retaining credit unless lawers and the courts system is utilized. Setting that aside, the laws created by politicians that big business wanted in place allow for numerous loop holes. The simplest way to subvert the creator is to alter the creation slightly, from there the version that is most appealing will be embraced. Then the courts decided what belongd to who and whom gets paid for it. Ultimately none of this matters. Books are the easiest example. The author can't get credit unless they go through a publisher. The book won't be published unless all involved parties know they will make money off of it. Once that is done the royalties the author makes is a fraction of what the consumers pay. The author still gets full credit, however this is only because the authors name is there for the customers to see. Music is the exact opposite. The song writer will get paid, as long as they don't ruffle any feathers. However the song writer will never get any credit. Ultimately, song or book, the creator will only get credit and/or money if the people in "authority" can dictate terms and make money off of someone else's hard work.
@@christophersundquist881 never heard of a PRO huh?
@@SecretEyeSpot appearantly not. However since all you did was give me the abbreviation and didn't explain anything, I doubt YOU know what it is either.
@@christophersundquist881 its called a Performing Rights Organization. Once you're registered the individuals on the copyright have their royalties tracked out for them and depending on their splitsheet agreement get their due compensation. So if a songwriter-producer has the SR and agrees to take 60% where the singer agrees to take 40% for just singing it (PA).. the PRO pays them in that split..
This is just a hypothetical tho, like you've mentioned above usually a publisher who the songwriter and the singer agree to split the copyright with takes a percentage to distribute the mechanical or digital copy of the content has their split percentage as well😅😉
You know, I don't see any problem here. Singers, actors, performers and other people of art have always got higher salaries than e.g. teachers, doctors, policemen etc. One or two popular songs - at once struck gold. Once the pandemic happened, they all started to whine. Please, come back to the Earth. Anyone who wants to make a living, should work hard. So, get up and start working! Just tired of these childish speeches "I am a poor artist please support me". No one cares. It's your life. Stop complaining and do something. The planet is going to stop just because you're hard-pressed.
One more reason to like this guy.