Jay-Z launches new music streaming service

Shelga

http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/mar/30/kanye-west-rihanna-twitter-tidalforall-tidal

http://musically.com/2015/03/30/jay-z-streaming-music-service-tidal/

I'm all for the entrepreneurial spirit- if the uber-rich want to try and make themselves richer go right ahead, but their pretentious, "we're swooping in to save you all" attititude is sickening.

Alicia Keys: "How much do we love our music? How much do we love this thing called music? So we come together before you this day, March 30 2015, in one voice in unity, in the hopes that today will be another one of those moments in time, a moment that will forever change the course of music history… Tidal, the first ever artist owned global music and entertainment platform."

Seriously, shut the f*** up, you out-of-touch cretin. You're an insanely wealthy popstar, not bloody Mother Theresa. They've all made themselves look like utter fools.

Thoughts?

Tilly

But spotify is free? Why would we pay for the same thing from him?

RomanKnows

Shelga wrote: »

http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/mar/30/kanye-west-rihanna-twitter-tidalforall-tidal

http://musically.com/2015/03/30/jay-z-streaming-music-service-tidal/


Seriously, shut the f*** up, you out-of-touch cretin. You're an insanely wealthy popstar, not bloody Mother Theresa. They've all made themselves look like utter fools.

Thoughts?

Listen to some soothing classical music.

WoollyRedHat

20 Pound a month to rent music?! "It's not about the money, money, money. We don't need your money, money, money. "

Lithium93_

I find that Alicia Keys quote absolutely laughable, pop-stars today be all about one thing and one thing only - And that's making that sweet sweet cash to fatten their already bulging bank counts.

Shelga

Tilly wrote: »

But spotify is free? Why would we pay for the same thing from him?

He seems to think we're all as enraged about the music industry/piracy as him, and will be more than happy to line his pockets further so that artists get "their fair share".

$560 million net worth just isn't enough, you see.

Boom_Bap

From an artist perspective, Spotify is grand for promoting music, but not for generating revenue.

Arguably the biggest song of last year was Happy by Pharrell, with over 40 million streams on Spotify.
Pharrell got about $2000 for this.

Picture an artist like BK-One who I happen to have met and been in touch with a few times. Nobody probably knows his name yet he is on Spotify and has music streaming. He got a cheque from them that he couldn't even cash because it wasn't even a full cent.

So a new streaming service that pays the artist better is what Tidal is.

jimgoose

Finally. They called him Emmanuel, meaning "God with us". Let us bow our heads in grateful payment! :pac:

rob316

Boom_Bap wrote: »

From an artist perspective, Spotify is grand for promoting music, but not for generating revenue.

Arguably the biggest song of last year was Happy by Pharrell, with over 40 million streams on Spotify.
Pharrell got about $2000 for this.

Picture an artist like BK-One who I happen to have met and been in touch with a few times. Nobody probably knows his name yet he is on Spotify and has music streaming. He got a cheque from them that he couldn't even cash because it wasn't even a full cent.

So a new streaming service that pays the artist better is what Tidal is.

And you think the little guy will be looked after better on Tidal? lol

The rich get richer, the king stay the king.

Boom_Bap

rob316 wrote: »

And you think the little guy will be looked after better on Tidal? lol

The rich get richer, the king stay the king.

Yes, they will, it's artist driven rather than Spotify which is making itself as a company rich.
A regular artists revenue from spotify probably wouldn't cover thier monthly subscription.

The likes of Jay-Z don't get rich off thier music these days either. Those days are pretty much over. They do get lots of benefits, but the contracts from labels are not so good for artists.
Most money that independant artists make is from selling merchandise.

Trent Houseboat

Tilly wrote: »

But spotify is free? Why would we pay for the same thing from him?

People buy those ridiculous headphones just because he put his name to them.
A lot of people.

DoYouEvenLift

What are they going to do better than all the other already launched subscription services

whiskeyman

Great name in fairness.

Tidal
'Wave' your hard earned cash bye bye...

Darkglasses

Far too expensive with no obvious benefits over the usual providers, I'll be sticking with Rdio.

jimmii

Tilly wrote: »

But spotify is free? Why would we pay for the same thing from him?

Probably because you'll find the partners music won't be so readily available on Spotify in the future. I'm sure a lot of Taylor Swift fans will be signing up! Spotify free sucks after you've used premium for a while too!

jimmii

Darkglasses wrote: »

Far too expensive with no obvious benefits over the usual providers, I'll be sticking with Rdio.

What you don't need LossLess music in your life :eek:!!

floggg

Shelga wrote: »

http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/mar/30/kanye-west-rihanna-twitter-tidalforall-tidal

http://musically.com/2015/03/30/jay-z-streaming-music-service-tidal/

I'm all for the entrepreneurial spirit- if the uber-rich want to try and make themselves richer go right ahead, but their pretentious, "we're swooping in to save you all" attititude is sickening.

Alicia Keys: "How much do we love our music? How much do we love this thing called music? So we come together before you this day, March 30 2015, in one voice in unity, in the hopes that today will be another one of those moments in time, a moment that will forever change the course of music history… Tidal, the first ever artist owned global music and entertainment platform."

Seriously, shut the f*** up, you out-of-touch cretin. You're an insanely wealthy popstar, not bloody Mother Theresa. They've all made themselves look like utter fools.

Thoughts?

Wow. Another real business promoter in hyperbolic promotional claims at a business promotional event shocker.

I'm outraged OP! It's like they are trying to hype up the service in order to convince us that it's worth spending our money on their commercial service or something.

The b@stards.

Next your going to tell me Jay-Z isn't actually the CEO of hip-hop and he was just calling himself that to sell us some laptop.

MonkeyTennis

Wow.

I had some respect for some of those people.

*poof*

floggg

Boom_Bap wrote: »

Yes, they will, it's artist driven rather than Spotify which is making itself as a company rich.
A regular artists revenue from spotify probably wouldn't cover thier monthly subscription.

The likes of Jay-Z don't get rich off thier music these days either. Those days are pretty much over. They do get lots of benefits, but the contracts from labels are not so good for artists.
Most money that independant artists make is from selling merchandise.

Most artists don't get rich from record sales or deals.

Jay-Z's latest record deal was for something like $140 million though.

And while it might be a better deal than spotify for artists, you can be damn sure they main person getting rich of this will be Jay-Z. Everything and everybody else is secondary.

SEPT 23 1989

The music industry had no problem charging me twenty punts for an album back in the day

I dont dowload much but i certainly wont pay anthing to do so

Boom_Bap

floggg wrote: »

Most artists don't get rich from record sales or deals.

Jay-Z's latest record deal was for something like $140 million though.

And while it might be a better deal than spotify for artists, you can be damn sure they main person getting rich of this will be Jay-Z. Everything and everybody else is secondary.

Darn right he'll be making his money from it, but to differentiate, this is not income from his music. He has been very clever in his other brands and this is just another to his list.

Darkglasses

jimmii wrote: »

What you don't need LossLess music in your live :eek:!!

I will try to endure

kneemos

Hoe are new bands going to survive if nobody pays them for their music?

Will we be stuck with an endless array of commercially viable barbie pop?

daUbiq

Yes, they're all for the little guy..

http://pitchfork.com/news/59040-the-haxan-cloak-accuses-jay-zs-tidal-of-ripping-him-off/

Mint Aero

Boom_Bap wrote: »

From an artist perspective, Spotify is grand for promoting music, but not for generating revenue.

Arguably the biggest song of last year was Happy by Pharrell, with over 40 million streams on Spotify.
Pharrell got about $2000 for this.

If he uploaded it to Youtube, he would get about 30k for it plus the 2k. 32k is really good in anybodies book for a sh*t song. Musicians don't need to be paid millions for music. It isn't worth it.

PARlance

It's all about a duel approach of trying to build The Dynasty while also addressing the Hard Knock Life that many artists have, but I have Reasonable Doubt that this will work. Time to go back to The Blue Print (1,2&3) on this Unfinished Business model. In My Lifetime I don't think we'll get rid of people looking for The Black Album.

Missed a few I'm sure.
Hardly worth it was it.

DoYouEvenLift

Mint Aero wrote: »

If he uploaded it to Youtube, he would get about 30k for it plus the 2k. 32k is really good in anybodies book for a sh*t song. Musicians don't need to be paid millions for music. It isn't worth it.

More like 80k since music is pretty appealing to advertisers so they'd probably give >$2/1,000 views. Most of them use vevo for YouTube though so they'd probably take a big cut.

Boom_Bap

PARlance wrote: »

It's all about a duel approach of trying to build The Dynasty while also addressing the Hard Knock Life that many artists have, but I have Reasonable Doubt that this will work. Time to go back to The Blue Print (1,2&3) on this Unfinished Business model. In My Lifetime I don't think we'll get rid of people looking for The Black Album.

Missed a few I'm sure.
Hardly worth it was it.

you sound like an american gangster

Mint Aero

DoYouEvenLift wrote: »

More like 80k since music is pretty appealing to advertisers so they'd probably give >$2/1,000 views. Most of them use vevo for YouTube though so they'd probably take a big cut.

That was my best uneducated guess. 80k is more than enough. If he wants more money write more songs that'll attract the same revenue.

biko

I buy music from small artists but download illegally from major artists.
#fightdapowa

Penn

Says a lot when the artists they had on stage pushing this forward because of how much money they lose are among some of the richest artists in the music industry today.

mikom

Nah you're ok, I prefer Rip tide myself, Jay-Z.

Bad Horse wrote: »

Says a lot when the artists they had on stage pushing this forward because of how much money they lose are among some of the richest artists in the music industry today.

99 problems, but gettin' rich ain't one.

DoYouEvenLift

Bad Horse wrote: »

Says a lot when the artists they had on stage pushing this forward because of how much money they lose are among some of the richest artists in the music industry today.

They could organise and sell out a concert every night of the week and probably make at least 50k for every one of them. Music artists always made more from tours and other stuff like advertisements and endorsements than record sales anyway.

darkpagandeath

Pretty much every interview you watch with an Artist is, Well I do it because I love to sing blaaah bllaaah. it's not about the money.

RayCon

I buy physical copies of the music I want (CD's etc) ... I will never buy a download.

floggg

PARlance wrote: »

It's all about a duel approach of trying to build The Dynasty while also addressing the Hard Knock Life that many artists have, but I have Reasonable Doubt that this will work. Time to go back to The Blue Print (1,2&3) on this Unfinished Business model. In My Lifetime I don't think we'll get rid of people looking for The Black Album.

Missed a few I'm sure.
Hardly worth it was it.

That's an almost complete summation of The Life and Times of S. Carter.

gaz wac

I pay £5 for my Spotify subs, aint no one getting rich off me!

floggg

DoYouEvenLift wrote: »

They could organise and sell out a concert every night of the week and probably make at least 50k for every one of them. Music artists always made more from tours and other stuff like advertisements and endorsements than record sales anyway.

I was pretty sure it was the other way around - until recently touring was only to promote the record and generate sales which were the primary means of making money. Touring was always seen as ancillary, and marketing deals are a relatively recent phenomenon outside of the very top artists I would have thought.

Dog of Tears

Boom_Bap wrote: »

Yes, they will, it's artist driven rather than Spotify which is making itself as a company rich.

Spotify is losing money hand-over-fist every month.

DoYouEvenLift

floggg wrote: »

I was pretty sure it was the other way around - until recently touring was only to promote the record and generate sales which were the primary means of making money. Touring was always seen as ancillary, and marketing deals are a relatively recent phenomenon outside of the very top artists I would have thought.

I could be wrong, but I was under the impression that the big record labels with international reach and influence took massive chunks off of record sales because they could, really, since they had the power to make artists international successes by having their music constantly played on the radio.

Custardpi

The idea of artists making huge amounts of money from recorded music is a phenomenon that has mostly come & gone. For the vast majority of history, excluding a period from about the mid 1960s to the late 1990s most artists, even quite well known ones made at best a comfortable living from their craft, usually not even that. We're simply returning to the time when money was made by regularly selling out concert halls & your recorded releases were effectively promotional tools for your live performances. The only thing that remains constant is record companies not really giving a stuff about musicians, regardless of their bleatings to the contrary.

PARlance

floggg wrote: »

That's an almost complete summation of The Life and Times of S. Carter.

Ah yes, we're approaching the Holy Grail now, still doesn't make up for the fact that his model is trying to achieve The Best Of Both Worlds but satistying none.

Ok, I'm out.

ScumLord

kneemos wrote: »

Hoe are new bands going to survive if nobody pays them for their music?

Will we be stuck with an endless array of commercially viable barbie pop?

We already are, the fact is even bands that like to think their doing it for the music are producing a product for the popular music market. They do everything they can to promote themselves as a product because that's how that market works now.

So many just want to be pop stars and basically, **** them people. I don't care if they make money. I don't see why they should make a load of money for singing songs. If they enjoy music, they should be happy with a modest wage because their doing what they love to do.

Saadyst

Dog of Tears wrote: »

Spotify is losing money hand-over-fist every month.

And Spotify is not doing anything illegal. The record industry has negotiated the terms with Spotify per stream, according to whatever formula. It's amazing that this has not been highlighted more. It's not like Spotify is stealing anything here. They pay whatever the agreed amount is, and the record company takes its share as always. And then the "artist" comes into it.

Dravokivich

DoYouEvenLift wrote: »

I could be wrong, but I was under the impression that the big record labels with international reach and influence took massive chunks off of record sales because they could, really, since they had the power to make artists international successes by having their music constantly played on the radio.

Generally a record company will give an "Advance" to allow the artist to invest in the production of an album. Taking payment back from the artists royalties on the recording(s), is simply being paid back for the advance.

If the Artist wrote their music/song, they'd have Publishing Rights, so payment for it would be separate. And not something the record company can generally go for.

A lot of the issue's with payments for artists are down to the changes in consumerism and the format of the recording(s), such as from Vinyl to 8 Track, then cassette then CD. As it has meant a change in royalties due for the recording(s). For example, the labels actually spun it that CD was a risky format and prone to destruction, so got artists on lower rates for their recording(s) on it.

This is an instance now where Artists are seeking to control the format. And actually is a completely new stance as they'd still have labels backing them to produce recording(s)*. Leaves a very curious question of how it'll go in future for investment in new artists. A label may not provide an advance if something like Tidal becomes a lead format for consumers. As they'll have a reduced chance of recouping the investment.

*the distinction is that even though you've got indie labels or independently produced artists they still use the major labels for distribution.

Saadyst wrote: »

And Spotify is not doing anything illegal. The record industry has negotiated the terms with Spotify per stream, according to whatever formula. It's amazing that this has not been highlighted more. It's not like Spotify is stealing anything here. They pay whatever the agreed amount is, and the record company takes its share as always. And then the "artist" comes into it.

Really? I would have expected it to go through a publisher. Although all the major labels run their own publishing companies a signed artist isn't generally obliged to use it.

Wacker The Attacker

Go on the Jay Zed

floggg

DoYouEvenLift wrote: »

I could be wrong, but I was under the impression that the big record labels with international reach and influence took massive chunks off of record sales because they could, really, since they had the power to make artists international successes by having their music constantly played on the radio.

My understanding is that record companies were previously only concerned with record sales as they were the primary revenue stream.

However, as record sales have dwindled, artists began to tour more aggressively in order to supplement the lost income. As a result, they are now releasing music to promote tours (rather than vice versa) - including free music at times.

Labels inevitably wanted a piece of this smaller pie and begun coercing artists into signing "360 degrees" deals which gives them a cut of all music related income - including touring proceeds, merchandise etc.

Ironically, the likes of Jay-Z, U2 and Madonna were the ones to bring that type of deal to the fore through their deals with Live Nation (though due to their draw and influence they managed to wrench a lot of up front money from live nation for the privilege of exploiting their tours).

floggg

PARlance wrote: »

Ah yes, we're approaching the Holy Grail now, still doesn't make up for the fact that his model is trying to achieve The Best Of Both Worlds but satistying none.

Ok, I'm out.

Watch the throne on your way out.

muppetkiller

I buy all my music on Vinyl but download illegally for lossless quality on my Portable player.

I tried Tidal before they announcement yesterday and thought it was poor for content and poor quality over mobile. Desktop Ap was pretty good but not worth the price of the Sub.#
I had a three month free trial and cancelled it after a week as I couldn't be bothered with the lack of my tunes.

floggg

ScumLord wrote: »

We already are, the fact is even bands that like to think their doing it for the music are producing a product for the popular music market. They do everything they can to promote themselves as a product because that's how that market works now.

So many just want to be pop stars and basically, **** them people. I don't care if they make money. I don't see why they should make a load of money for singing songs. If they enjoy music, they should be happy with a modest wage because their doing what they love to do.

Because they have the talent and ability to produce something the public enjoys and values.

It's not much different from anybody else creating a consumer product - if you can produce something the masses will consume, we shouldn't you be compensated.

And more importantly, why should the listener expect to be provided with music or any other product for free?

If you enjoy their product, why shouldn't they pay? And if they don't, they won't be listening so the issue artists compensation is moot.

ScumLord

floggg wrote: »

Because they have the talent and ability to produce something the public enjoys and values.

It's not much different from anybody else creating a consumer product - if you can produce something the masses will consume, we shouldn't you be compensated.

Yes, they are produced products, they sit down in meetings going over the look they will have, what's in fashion at the moment. How best to extract money from people by finding the most lucrative niche and pandering to the most popular stereotypes.

And more importantly, why should the listener expect to be provided with music or any other product for free?

If you enjoy their product, why shouldn't they pay? And if they don't, they won't be listening so the issue artists compensation is moot.

I don't enjoy their music and I don't listen to any of it. I can't stand music radio.

What annoys me about them is they like to call themselves artists when they are in fact engineered products. They have nothing of value to say about anything, they pander to the lowest common denominator to sell as much as possible.