Jump to content

Jay Z's new streaming service and Queen of Pop Madonna?


Queen
 Share

Recommended Posts

 
Ok, I just found out this at The Queen of Pop's Twitter.
Posted Image
 
 
I heard that there will be Jay Z streaming site in 12 hours something and People keep saying that bunch of artists did change their profile picture to blue color.
 
I didn't interested at all but then I saw Queen of pop's this tweet.
 
So Queen of Pop Madonna also join with Jay Z?
 
Anyone could explain what this is exactly about?
 
you guys thought?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I already talked about that on the status so:

 

I like how artists that are fighting for more money are the ones that don't need it. I would understand if indie artist came out and said something, but for people like Jay-Z and Beyonce to be this money hungry. It's just obnoxious.The fact that they think they are relevant enough to get 40 million people to switch over to their service is kind of hilarious and disgusting simultaneously. If music marketers would just lower the price of albums or at least differentiate the prices between a physical and digital album, we wouldn't be in a streaming-related mess in the first place but no, they choose to remain petty. $20 per month for something that's free elsewhere

 

Spotify, Deezer, Rdio they are free, they are great, they are in high quality, they are legal.

 

Posted Image

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As they say, "if you're not paying, you' re the product"

Exactly. Besides, there's a difference between the decent quality available on Spotify, Deezer, etc.., and actual high definition as advertised by Tidal.

And I think it totally makes sense that big names i the industry are carrying it, as not so many people would care or even pay attention if this was advertised by musical nobodies. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Exactly. Besides, there's a difference between the decent quality available on Spotify, Deezer, etc.., and actual high definition as advertised by Tidal.

And I think it totally makes sense that big names i the industry are carrying it, as not so many people would care or even pay attention if this was advertised by musical nobodies. 

 

Well cause these big names artists have more alienated fans who likes to do anything they tell them to do.

 

I'm not gonna even talk about high definition, since not everyone have expensive headphones, they are gonna hear in basic speakers? They are gonna hear so loud so they differentiate the quality? The time that it's gonna take to a music to loaded or they gonna compress?  :laughing:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not gonna even talk about high definition, since not everyone have expensive headphones, they are gonna hear in basic speakers? They are gonna hear so loud so they differentiate the quality? The time that it's gonna take to a music to loaded or they gonna compress?  :laughing:

 

Well, high definition is the point. It kind of already exists with websites like Qobuz, for an example.

And yes, there's no point listening to high definition files with basic equipment, as you need specific equipment to fully enjoy the high definition. Nothing new about this. If you listen to Björk's Medulla in 5.1 with the proper equiment, it's not exactly the same experience as the regular CD with basic equipment. That's actually not a revolution. And you don't listen to HD music with headphones.

 

Oh, and high definition has absolutely nothing to do with loudness.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, you're sooooooooooooooooo right, it is beyond shocking. To promote an expensive subscription (20$/month) with BIG names is totally out of place.

 

Would you be so upset if Madonna herself had started the project?

 

Still $240 for year so 

 

Posted Image

 

I'm actually laughing of these BIG names like they need money from the CD sellings, they would be starved

 

The fact they're trying to make it seem as if they are losing money, when most of them make MILLIONS in one night from other endorsements :laughing:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Still $240 for year so 

 

Posted Image

 

I'm actually laughing of these BIG names like they need money from the CD sellings, they would be starved

 

The fact they're trying to make it seem as if they are losing money, when most of them make MILLIONS in one night from other endorsements :laughing:

 

?

 

They don't NEED money, but if you're taking something from them, they're owed the money, regardless of how rich or poor the artist is. That's not that hard to understand. Since that's true, they're as good as any musician when it comes to claiming their rightful earnings. Stacked up against unknown musicians, the well-known ones are the ones that'll bring the attention to the problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I'm actually laughing of these BIG names like they need money from the CD sellings, they would be starved

 

 

Yeah, but "big name" artists are like companies in themselves. Lots of people living from their income. And the objective of any company, even the most powerful and rich, is to make the most money possible each year for their shareholders.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Stacked up against unknown musicians, the well-known ones are the ones that'll bring the attention to the problem.

 

It's common sense. Unknowns aren't going to be the best bet to promote the new launching but they are the most benefited artists for getting their music for free, that's how their fanbases grow, and people supports going to concerts, buying the album later.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's common sense. Unknowns aren't going to be the best bet to promote the new launching but they are the most benefited artists for getting their music for free, that's how their fanbases grow, and people supports going to concerts, buying the album later.

 

So we shouldn't look for ways for these artists to also get paid for the studio music as well? They might benefit from the attention in the form of ticket sales, but I don't necessarily buy that fans of unknown artists tend to buy the studio album too. The album charts are always filled with old artists, compilations, etc. and not necessarily these indie acts that are allegedly getting album sales from free music.

There's nothing wrong with trying to find ways to better pay artists. I'm not sure it's Tidal, of course, but it's another option.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So we shouldn't look for ways for these artists to also get paid for the studio music as well? They might benefit from the attention in the form of ticket sales, but I don't necessarily buy that fans of unknown artists tend to buy the studio album too. The album charts are always filled with old artists, compilations, etc. and not necessarily these indie acts that are allegedly getting album sales from free music.

There's nothing wrong with trying to find ways to better pay artists. I'm not sure it's Tidal, of course, but it's another option.

 

I think the better way to make music it's the fan funding, helping the artists like that, the creative process will not be affected by record labels. I think the main focus should be to release the music. There's iTunes already, why people would pay to use these streams service.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Write here...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Use