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

[milotjuh 975]

So who exactly is doing the "devaluing"? Who are these "people"? Consumers who purchase "undervalued" music on iTunes, CDs, or have a spotify premium account? That's an unfair accusation. From the comments, you would think he's referring to people who illegally download or use a free spotify account (rather than the actual companies themselves)...but with its prices, tidal cannot seriously be marketed towards pirates, and they do not seem to be the demographic. So...it's people who already pay for music, but don't pay enough? eh. So many odd inherent contradictions--just come out and say you want (even) more money, and take it down a notch with the idealist jargon, because Jay seemingly shames people who pay for music.

[Fighter 28,799]

meanwhile im just glad we got these pics with other artists they're cute af 

[Halex 1,610]

So who exactly is doing the "devaluing"? Who are these "people"? 

I'm took it more in the sense that he was referring to already existing platforms that, granted, offer a decent quality but in most cases, you have to go into the settings and choose the "CD quality" think, which I'm pretty sure most users don't do. 

 

Also, they're not always accurate : if you play the LAV album on deezer, the Dress you up version you'll get will be the 12" Formal Mix... 

 

If Tidal's main interest is actual high quality, that "devaluing music" comment makes total sense to me.

[milotjuh 975]

I'm took it more in the sense that he was referring to already existing platforms that, granted, offer a decent quality but in most cases, you have to go into the settings and choose the "CD quality" think, which I'm pretty sure most users don't do. 

 

Also, they're not always accurate : if you play the LAV album on deezer, the Dress you up version you'll get will be the 12" Formal Mix... 

 

If Tidal's main interest is actual high quality, that "devaluing music" comment makes total sense to me.

Sure, but in the context of his comments (re: billboard article) it's not about devaluing the audio quality on other platforms, but about the product losing its monetary value, which is supposedly "people['s]" fault (i.e. people will pay for water but not music). Offering a lossless streaming service is all well and good, but their marketing strategy is so unclear and not working in their favor. If audio quality is truly their main intrest, then why do they need to have a basic non-lossless plan.. :s

[Halex 1,610]

What I don't understand is this : people complaining about Tidal because the artists want to make money off their music. 

The fact that they make money off other endorsements is not relevant. At all. That doesn't mean their music should be free.

[Fighter 28,799]

If they wanna make more money off their music then they should complain to their record labels, theyre the ones who screw them the most. If they don't want their music to be free then they shouldn't use streaming...

 

Honestly this isn't even about piracy so I dont really get it.

[Halex 1,610]

In the meantime, I've read about several people who gave Tidal a try, and they're all very impressed with the sound quality.

[IconicRebel 154]

I'm took it more in the sense that he was referring to already existing platforms that, granted, offer a decent quality but in most cases, you have to go into the settings and choose the "CD quality" think, which I'm pretty sure most users don't do. Also, they're not always accurate : if you play the LAV album on deezer, the Dress you up version you'll get will be the 12" Formal Mix... If Tidal's main interest is actual high quality, that "devaluing music" comment makes total sense to me.

That's on Tidal too!! It plays the 12" Formal Mix of Dress You Up lol

[kesiak 3,040]

I find it strange that people are jumping on this Tidal bashing bandwagon. What do you think Spotify and Pandora are? Charities making the world a better place? Spotify screws songwriters big time, the royalties they pay out are peanuts. I saw an interview with Linda Perry and she said she was paid $300 by Pandora for something like 12 million streams of Aguilera's "Beautiful" (which she wrote). I mean, come on! It's not entirely their fault, those services are operating this way because they can get away with it. I did find the launch of the Tidal cringeworthy at times but you can't blame musicians for trying to reclaim ownership of their work and make money off it. Yes, Jay Z, Keys, Madonna and all are super wealthy but their high profiles and money allow them to invest in a business model that may perhaps benefit more independent musicians and bands in the future. Taylor Swift can get away with pulling her music from Spotify - lesser known acts don't have a choice if they want their music heard, even if it means they won't be properly compensated for it.

 

That all is beside the point though. The issue here is about the way people access and listen to music these days and the fact that there's a whole generation of kids out there who are used to getting music for free, it's the norm for them. It's not right but that's the reality. Whether Tidal can change these attitudes in any meaningful way only time will tell. Yes, it all seems a bit self-serving and it's easy to roll your eyes at super rich celebrities talking about it like it's second coming but the current models out there don't work in my opinion and I'm glad to see someone's at least trying to challenge the status quo. 

[JOA 9]

has anyone joined Tidal?

[Yung Rapunxel 2,174]

If they wanna make more money off their music then they should complain to their record labels, theyre the ones who screw them the most. If they don't want their music to be free then they shouldn't use streaming...

 

Honestly this isn't even about piracy so I dont really get it.

 

Yes. the point is, if they think those streaming services it's not paying them enough they should complain for the record labels so they can get an agreement. But NO, they prefer to create a new streaming

 

In a world where most people won't even spend $15 on an album, and will go out their way to pirate a $1.29 single, who's willing to splash $240 per year on a streaming service and have nothing to show for it?

 

[pcg 146]

This whole streaming thing is not for me. I want to own the music I pay for.

Streaming services allow you to "rent" the music and if you stop paying you're left with nothing.

 

I find it ironic that the distinguish feature of Tidal is the HD audio. Audiophiles more than anyone want to own their music.

[MechanicalDNA 279]

This whole streaming thing is not for me. I want to own the music I pay for.

 

 

that's why i buy CD's!!!! 

[Yung Rapunxel 2,174]

Marina

 

[Fighter 28,799]

I find it strange that people are jumping on this Tidal bashing bandwagon. What do you think Spotify and Pandora are? Charities making the world a better place? Spotify screws songwriters big time, the royalties they pay out are peanuts. I saw an interview with Linda Perry and she said she was paid $300 by Pandora for something like 12 million streams of Aguilera's "Beautiful" (which she wrote). I mean, come on! It's not entirely their fault, those services are operating this way because they can get away with it. I did find the launch of the Tidal cringeworthy at times but you can't blame musicians for trying to reclaim ownership of their work and make money off it. Yes, Jay Z, Keys, Madonna and all are super wealthy but their high profiles and money allow them to invest in a business model that may perhaps benefit more independent musicians and bands in the future. Taylor Swift can get away with pulling her music from Spotify - lesser known acts don't have a choice if they want their music heard, even if it means they won't be properly compensated for it. That all is beside the point though. The issue here is about the way people access and listen to music these days and the fact that there's a whole generation of kids out there who are used to getting music for free, it's the norm for them. It's not right but that's the reality. Whether Tidal can change these attitudes in any meaningful way only time will tell. Yes, it all seems a bit self-serving and it's easy to roll your eyes at super rich celebrities talking about it like it's second coming but the current models out there don't work in my opinion and I'm glad to see someone's at least trying to challenge the status quo.

Yet those kids are the ones who fork out their parents cash on itunes the most, and even physical copies...I dont know. I know the industry is a mess but it has to be said record companies are the ones who screw themselves and their artists the most... Many times even succesful artists have had to pay back more than they make and their only option is touring non stop.Fact is its all about piracy, we all get stuff for free and Taylor Swift has a point, people only buy music that truly makes an emotional impact on them, and artists should strive to be better and see it as a challenge. Theres a lot of music that i dont really wanna pay for yet i use and dispose of, its not right perhaps but it is what it is... Same with movies, shows.... I think most of us do it to dome extent.Perhaps other ways than a monthly expensive subscription would be better, and artists always have youtube to show their art and that can be monetized too (although i heard there are many problems to their model too but not sure the specifics).... I dont think a streaming music service should be like netflix i dont think its gonna take off....

[Yung Rapunxel 2,174]

Marina again yas

 

[Fighter 28,799]

This whole thing makes me umcomfortable 

[Yung Rapunxel 2,174]

This whole thing makes me umcomfortable 

 

MTE

[kesiak 3,040]

Yet those kids are the ones who fork out their parents cash on itunes the most, and even physical copies...I dont know. I know the industry is a mess but it has to be said record companies are the ones who screw themselves and their artists the most... Many times even succesful artists have had to pay back more than they make and their only option is touring non stop.Fact is its all about piracy, we all get stuff for free and Taylor Swift has a point, people only buy music that truly makes an emotional impact on them, and artists should strive to be better and see it as a challenge. Theres a lot of music that i dont really wanna pay for yet i use and dispose of, its not right perhaps but it is what it is... Same with movies, shows.... I think most of us do it to dome extent.

 

Well record labels are businesses. Before the digital age, when records actually sold and you could make money off that, there was more capital to invest in new artists. There were the big hitters selling 10 million + records and the money record labels made off these high profile releases was invested in the development of emerging talents. It took bands like U2 or REM a few albums to achieve commercial success but they were given the time to grow, they would not stand a chance today. Why do you think The Voice, Idol and X-Factor are so popular? It's a win win for record labels - they get a winner who's already got exposure, who was groomed and trained and is all but ready for global stardom. Of course it doesn't work this way in practice as we have seen.

 

It's a nice sentiment to say that people only actually pay for music that has an emotional impact but that's a very subjective thing and I'm sure there's tons of music out there that you or I would be touched by (and willing to pay for) but that the wider audience will never be exposed to simply because those artists don't have the funds to promote themselves and record labels are too scared to invest in them. Sure, everyone's got access to the internet and can put stuff up on YouTube but for every Bieber (discovered online) there are millions or artists with great music that get lost in the sea of online crap. Of course artists should strive to be better etc but that also means they should be given time to experiment and grow. In the meantime they also need to eat. I work with a lot of musicians on a daily basis and I honestly couldn't live like that. Some of these people are more talented than the entire Top 20 put together but they play to 100 people and nobody will sign them.

 

It's a sign of the times I guess. In the end of the day Tidal is a service, like any other, it's not compulsory - nobody is forcing me, you or Marina (whose stuff is on it too by the way) to sign up and pay for it. The difference is it's owned by artists some of whom (like Jay Z, Madonna or Beyonce) have proven in their own careers that they're not only supremely creative and talented musically but that they are also great at the business side of things. It might make a difference. It might not. I'm glad to see someone trying. Either way the more competition in the market the better for us, the consumers. I don't see why this would make anyone feel uncomfortable.

[PlayPause 2,695]

 

(rémunération par écoute = "artist revenue per play" / rémunération pour 10.000 écoutes = "artist revenue per 10.000 plays")

[Guest]

If they wanna make more money off their music then they should complain to their record labels, theyre the ones who screw them the most. If they don't want their music to be free then they shouldn't use streaming...

 

Honestly this isn't even about piracy so I dont really get it.

 

I don't see labels budging, especially with streaming now counting toward Billboard Hot 100 AND Top 200. Streaming isn't going to go away anymore than iTunes will--it's just a new phase of the music industry.

I can see why these artists are responding so quickly after Billboard made streaming part of the album charts--there's a new chance to pay all artists fairly for their albums (since singles seems like a lost case anyway lol).

[stickyandhissy 106]

Have we really reached a time where people think it is wrong to pay for music?

Do we really believe we are so self-entitled that everything should be handed to us for free?

 

Artists only make money off of shows now because no one has figured out a way to steal THAT yet.

 

If I'm making a living off of my paintings, and every time I finish one, does that mean someone can come into my studio and steal them, just because they feel they shouldn't have to pay for them?

The Internet had made thieves and self-righteous bitches out of all of us.

 

And I will pay for quality content.

MP3's are the cheap beer to the fine wine that is proper WAV music.

[PlayPause 2,695]

May these facts and figures help you find comfort

 

 

source : http://uk.businessinsider.com/heres-how-much-musicians-make-online-from-spotify-itunes-and-youtube-2015-4

[Yung Rapunxel 2,174]

YAS, FLOP

 

Tidal Has Flopped, And Helped Spotify Reach A New High

 

http://musicfeeds.com.au/news/tidal-has-flopped-and-helped-spotify-reach-a-new-high/

[Frank 42,589]

YAS, FLOP

 

I don't give a fuck about it, truly, but i certainly wouldn't make a party out of it because it flopped. Quite sad to be honest.