Sounds great...as an idea. But, as they say, "God is in the details".
It's way past time that creative people take more control of their work. And not just for the money. Maybe they'll be able to produce stuff aimed at the highest common denominator once in a while. Not just the lowest.
Http://BrandNewRace.com
It's way past time that creative people take more control of their work. And not just for the money. Maybe they'll be able to produce stuff aimed at the highest common denominator once in a while. Not just the lowest.
Http://BrandNewRace.com
Am trying to make my self rich. I rather take my chances and use the $10 to play lottery. I just listened to music Pandora and youtube.
It's all about money not art.
The price tiers seem a bit excessive. I know many have gotten used to the compressed audio of MP3s; but with relatively cheap data and storage, there's no reason for CD-quality audio to be the standard. I prefer to own my music, so I'm not the audience for this anyway.
Looks to me like another desperate attempt to keep mainstream and corporate gatekeepers from completely failing.
I agree that the artists should be rewarded for their work, by those who admire it. However, an artist shouldn't be driven by the desire for that reward. If you want to make money, get into something else, not art.
A few decades back, in order to produce a recorded album, and by that gain some recognition, a musician/band had to get signed with a major recording studio, because a single artist most of the time could not afford the recording tools, and distribution. A big corporation could. Also, most of the rewards were taken by the corporation too. A lot of talent was hidden from the audience. But those days are over now.
Now almost any musician can record their material if not themselves at home, then at a small project studio at a much lower cost. Also, the distribution is at fingertips, with the Internet.
So, welcome to the age of real competition on music stage.
Real fans still support real musicians, whose music isn't aggressively thrown at you by repeted playback 10 times a day on a radio, in attempt to get in your wallet. We still support real talent, we buy their albums, their concert tickets, their merchandize.
I agree that the artists should be rewarded for their work, by those who admire it. However, an artist shouldn't be driven by the desire for that reward. If you want to make money, get into something else, not art.
A few decades back, in order to produce a recorded album, and by that gain some recognition, a musician/band had to get signed with a major recording studio, because a single artist most of the time could not afford the recording tools, and distribution. A big corporation could. Also, most of the rewards were taken by the corporation too. A lot of talent was hidden from the audience. But those days are over now.
Now almost any musician can record their material if not themselves at home, then at a small project studio at a much lower cost. Also, the distribution is at fingertips, with the Internet.
So, welcome to the age of real competition on music stage.
Real fans still support real musicians, whose music isn't aggressively thrown at you by repeted playback 10 times a day on a radio, in attempt to get in your wallet. We still support real talent, we buy their albums, their concert tickets, their merchandize.
2
Without disclosing the royalty per play, how can they claim this will be better for the musicians? Most people seem to be missing that basic point.
I've been using Tidal for several weeks and recently dropped Beats. I was an early, but now former, Rhapsody user, who got sucked into buying the inferior Sansa products. Tidal has better sound quality as well as great navigation to find genres and new releases. I would like to see them give users the ability to generate comments or blogs, similar to the old MOG (which was purchased by Beats).
I used to spend a lot of money on CDs -- way more than $20 per month -- and these streaming services actually save me money. I don't mind paying a bit more to keep the service viable and give the artists more money. I am not talking about the superstars, but the thousands of other artists who used to make at least some money on album sales. I am also a big user of the free (for now) Soundcloud and appreciate the artists and labels who post songs there at no charge. It's a great place to discover new music.
I used to spend a lot of money on CDs -- way more than $20 per month -- and these streaming services actually save me money. I don't mind paying a bit more to keep the service viable and give the artists more money. I am not talking about the superstars, but the thousands of other artists who used to make at least some money on album sales. I am also a big user of the free (for now) Soundcloud and appreciate the artists and labels who post songs there at no charge. It's a great place to discover new music.
just go back to selling CD's and Videos in neighborhood music stores. artist will get their benefits and you create neighborhood employment which is drastically needed.
Finally streaming that's good quality. Sign me up!
Let's call a spade a spade - the music industry is a terrible business to get into. Unless you're a big shot. The real battle is getting people to stop sharing music with each other for free (think bittorrent, utorrent, PirateBay). That proliferation will never stop.
1
Seems like a great 'business model' for already wealthy artists. The real concern should be for the rest of the industry: independent musicians, players, engineers and studio owners. What really should be implemented is a NON-PROFIT entity where all proceeds aside from reasonable administration costs (good livelihood for employees, etc.) go to the artists themselves, rather than having an exclusive club for multi-millionaires, this could potentially provide an opportunity for more people to make a decent wage creating music for the world, at the same time encouraging creative experimentation and supporting the dying art of large ensemble music.
It is very true that the current industry model causes immense suffering for the artist, while tech companies and distribution services are making millions upon millions of dollars. Music in many cultures was and is considered the greatest and most sacred of all art forms, and in our present culture there is no consideration for the financial and temporal requirements necessary to create great music. The financial respect and appreciation should primarily go to the artist/content makers not those who capitalize on their talents.
It is very true that the current industry model causes immense suffering for the artist, while tech companies and distribution services are making millions upon millions of dollars. Music in many cultures was and is considered the greatest and most sacred of all art forms, and in our present culture there is no consideration for the financial and temporal requirements necessary to create great music. The financial respect and appreciation should primarily go to the artist/content makers not those who capitalize on their talents.
3
This service won't be majority owned by artists. It will be majority owned by shareholders who happen to also be artists. Though decisions like hosting high fidelity files clearly reflect their respect for the product, shouldn't we assume that financial decisions will still be made that benefit the service and not the content creators.
2
Seems like a great 'business model' for already wealthy artists. The real concern should be for the rest of the industry: independent musicians, players, engineers and studio owners. What really should be implemented is a NON-PROFIT entity where all proceeds aside from reasonable administration costs (good livelihood for employees, etc.) go to the artists themselves, rather than having an exclusive club for multi-millionaires, this could potentially provide an opportunity for more people to make a decent wage creating music for the world, at the same time encouraging creative experimentation and supporting the dying art of large ensemble music.
It is very true that the current industry model causes immense suffering for the artist, while tech companies and distribution services are making millions upon millions of dollars. Music in many cultures was and is considered the greatest and most sacred of all art forms, and in our present culture there is no consideration for the financial and temporal requirements necessary to create great music. The financial respect and appreciation should primarily go to the artist/content makers not those who capitalize on their talents.
It is very true that the current industry model causes immense suffering for the artist, while tech companies and distribution services are making millions upon millions of dollars. Music in many cultures was and is considered the greatest and most sacred of all art forms, and in our present culture there is no consideration for the financial and temporal requirements necessary to create great music. The financial respect and appreciation should primarily go to the artist/content makers not those who capitalize on their talents.
3
Development and innovation is the foundation of the future.
This is a great move with an amazing USP...Jay Z is really Entrepreneurial. Wonder how it'd play out against PONO music player with the same motive.
I buy music- I do not rent it.
I also agree artists should be paid for their work, however, rap and rappers are most definitely NOT musicians. Musicians sing or play an instrument- not run their mouths over a drum track.
They are artists of some art form- but rap is not music and I will not support it directly or indirectly.
I also agree artists should be paid for their work, however, rap and rappers are most definitely NOT musicians. Musicians sing or play an instrument- not run their mouths over a drum track.
They are artists of some art form- but rap is not music and I will not support it directly or indirectly.
6
That's a really narrow view of rap/hip hop , I believe wholeheartedly that rap is a art form and is considered music.
1
Sadly rap has turned into hate filled lyrics spoken over stolen beats.
no thank you. i enjoy buying cd's, downloading them to my device(s) and having them forever.
3
There is no need for you to apologize. You are doing far more than most to support musicians. It is the users who pay nothing or $10 a month and expect unlimited listening that are the problem.
Rihanna, Kanye West, Madonna, Nicki Minaj, Jack White, Alicia Keys, the country singer Jason Aldean, the French dance duo Daft Punk . . . these are supposed to convey musicians with the utmost 'respect for the music?' They may be representative of a group of individuals who have succeeded in climbing on top of a small mound choking off the light for hundreds more worthy talents in each of their so-called niches or genres. They may be best at playing the merchandize and hustle game or the ancillary video image projection. They may be the slickest packages with good quality producers backing an easy to get sound byte. But this sounds like corporate slick at a slightly higher bit rate. The name is nearly identical to a proven brand of consumer preferred detergent. Try Jim White instead of Jack White, Thievery Corporation or Lemongrass instead of Daft Punk, Jim McMurtry and Bella Fleck instead of Jason Aldean; Meshell Ndegeocello instead of Madonna or Hollie Cook, Daniel Lanois . . . Lizz Wright . . . frankly a list of a few hundred or so groups or musicians before the corporate headliners here, and maybe it starts to sound possibly of interest. Talk specifically of bit rate, analogue quality, and more that boosted bass and the usual repertoire of false arpeggios and tremeloes cranked out for the 'America's Most Talented' dim wit constituency . . This just sounds like another line of fashion background sound to buy clothes by.
15
I think it is wiser to blame the bland, unadventurous(?) tastes of listeners. I agree that your suggestions are worthy of far more listens than they receive but it takes a more worldly, inquisitive personality to discover and appreciate them, not like the masses who fall into a greatest common denominator that is easy to market to. If the masses demand more sophistication they will receive it. But they don't.
3
Well it's about time! Jay Z, Kanye, Madonna, Jack White and the rest have been struggling for so long I was thinking about setting up a relief fund for them. These poor artists being ripped off for all these years could barely afford their private jets let alone a second or third mansion in the hills of Hollywood or some island in the Caribbean. I suggest we all join Tidal and pay double the monthly fee to make sure these poor artists can afford whatever they need whether it be a seventh or eighth luxury car or more designer clothes for their children. Come on people. Support the arts!!
30
Interested to see how this can benefit the lesser known artists. Not so worried about Jay Z and Beyonce making ends meet, but will the struggling musician benefit from Tidal?
12
I recently dropped Rhapsody and have been listening to Tidal on my home stereo system for 3 days.
As promised, it is delivering CD quality sound; unlike Rhapsody, Tidal albums are indistinguishable from those in my library, and my system confirms (most) albums are being streamed in 16/44.1
On the downside, Tidal's catalogue is nowhere near as comprehensive as Rhapsody's--particularly the back catalogue.
I suspect this gap will close over time.
I'm also eagerly anticipating Tidal streaming High-Resolution music files--using Meridian's recently-announced MQA to pack the files.
As promised, it is delivering CD quality sound; unlike Rhapsody, Tidal albums are indistinguishable from those in my library, and my system confirms (most) albums are being streamed in 16/44.1
On the downside, Tidal's catalogue is nowhere near as comprehensive as Rhapsody's--particularly the back catalogue.
I suspect this gap will close over time.
I'm also eagerly anticipating Tidal streaming High-Resolution music files--using Meridian's recently-announced MQA to pack the files.
2
I tried out Tidal for a couple of days, thinking, "high quality sound--there must be some classical offerings that will take advantage of this." Sadly, no, practically no classical at all. I like RDIO since it has an extensive classical catalogue and numerous recordings of just about any piece you'd want to hear. Beyonce is still just Beyonce regardless of streaming quality.
1
I say bring back CDs and people lined up on Tuesdays for hit albums. Either that or all artists collectively come together, drop Spotify, and actually make some money for them self.
1
In reading many of the comments, I was a little taken aback when seeing how critical many are when totally trashing the artists who are part of making Tidal happen. I understand if one doesn't like their music, but many are saying that none of the people on the stage can play instruments or sing which is quite ridiculous. Just watch a live clip of Alicia Keys, Jack White, Chris Martin, etc... and unless one finds a performance from an off night, it is clear that these musicians know what they are doing. Furthermore, money matters. Why do people think music quality has been going down? Because of lack of talent? Please. There's so much talent in this world, but in order to get it out there properly, it needs to have proper funding... just like any other business. Who knows if Tidal will succeed, only time will tell if this band of musicians can make it work in the long run and have it change the business for the better... but I applaud the effort and wish them the best because if it does work, it will benefit musicians from all styles.
4
Another company mugging the UK. £9.99 is not the same as $9.99!
When I lived in London, it was indeed a seeming 1:1 parity between the dollar and the pound (nominally, not in value) for items that could be compared.
There was a time when every time a song was played on the radio the musician or band would receive royalties whereby a nice check would come in the mail. Today with downloads many times no one gets paid due to illegal downloads, and with streaming it is surely not the musician or the band who gets paid. I commend Jay-Z for is buy-in joint ownership model.
1
In the U.S., musicians/bands are not paid performance royalties when their song is played on terrestrial radio - only writers/publishers.
1
It's interesting to see people talk about music quality in terms of how well it sounds coming out of computer speakers or a smart phone. I don't think these people would be so worried about not making more money, if they were making great music. It's possible these people are trying to address the issue of when it's acceptable for an artist to cash in. I'm sure they've their minds on a comfortable retirement. Dr. Dre seems to be set up nicely.
I'm in the sixth day of my seven-day Tidal trial, and I can attest to the fact that the $20 CD-quality service sounds better than the MP-3-quality service offered by competitors like Spitify, to which I've subscribed since Beats ruined the wonderful MOG. The difference is audible even on my phone. However, I'd advise anyone who wants to listen on a PC to wait until Tidal has fixed their native Windows app.
Also, to those who are saying "Why streaming," I'd say take advantage of a free offer and try it! If you love music, you'll love it. It's like having your personal record store, millions of tracks to explore.
Finally, I hope Tidal will be successful at increasing the shamefully low rates the free-tier streaming services like Spotify pay to artists. Very few artists are in the 1%; most struggle to get by. The treatment of artists by the record industry was shameful even before piracy slashed CD sales. Now it's worse than ever. Musician devote their lives to making the music that we love. Most who try won't even make a living at it. Wall Street bankers destroy the economy and party in the Hamptons. Insurance industry executives are paid millions to deprive sick people of needed medical care. And the people who make the music that is such an important part of our lives? Far more often than not, they struggle to get by.
Also, to those who are saying "Why streaming," I'd say take advantage of a free offer and try it! If you love music, you'll love it. It's like having your personal record store, millions of tracks to explore.
Finally, I hope Tidal will be successful at increasing the shamefully low rates the free-tier streaming services like Spotify pay to artists. Very few artists are in the 1%; most struggle to get by. The treatment of artists by the record industry was shameful even before piracy slashed CD sales. Now it's worse than ever. Musician devote their lives to making the music that we love. Most who try won't even make a living at it. Wall Street bankers destroy the economy and party in the Hamptons. Insurance industry executives are paid millions to deprive sick people of needed medical care. And the people who make the music that is such an important part of our lives? Far more often than not, they struggle to get by.
13
How many of the critical comments here were from people that use streaming services? I find it solves a lot of problems for me as an avid music fan (all genres).
Finding Music. If you have very definite and/or eclectic tastes, you won't do well with radio of college stations exposing you to what you might like.
Storage. I don't have space for 100's of CD's, the majority of which have only a few songs I like. MP3 downloads sound bad, and they are always on a device you are not using. When I leave the house I don't know what I'll want to listen to later.
Boredom. I don't put a recording on repeat unless I am learning to play it. As a listener, after a year I am unlikely to queue it up for play. I can easily spot the recordings I will be listening to 10 years later. I buy those in CD. I have no problem with everything going "poof" when I stop paying monthly. After 10 years that recording is going to be in the free service tier anyway.
Finding Music. If you have very definite and/or eclectic tastes, you won't do well with radio of college stations exposing you to what you might like.
Storage. I don't have space for 100's of CD's, the majority of which have only a few songs I like. MP3 downloads sound bad, and they are always on a device you are not using. When I leave the house I don't know what I'll want to listen to later.
Boredom. I don't put a recording on repeat unless I am learning to play it. As a listener, after a year I am unlikely to queue it up for play. I can easily spot the recordings I will be listening to 10 years later. I buy those in CD. I have no problem with everything going "poof" when I stop paying monthly. After 10 years that recording is going to be in the free service tier anyway.
First let me say congrats on buying Tidal. Good move. More control of what happens with your music. I see no problems with a move like that because all of your fans will follow. See it's not just about music. Its about how the artist feels about the way their work is being released into the world and if they are compensated for their work the way they feel they should be compensated. Some of you just hear music and what they are singing. When I listen I can feel the work that was put in to making music. From the bass track all the way to the vocals and if I listen long enough I can hear each layer of the music by itself. I love music so much that my car stereo can be nice and quiet or loud enough to upset the neighbors. I gotta pay attention to Tidal why? because of the new owners and because I love their music. The company is owned by people who make the music I listen to. Some times I sit in my car all day just listening to music trying to relax and yes it does work.
2
anytime that the elites of any industry meet, in the long run, it has rarely benefited the poor...just another smoke screen.
11
When computers stop doing the job for this so called "artist" then I will pay for music. Lip syncing and having a computer program fix your voice is not a talent. In a way, the same industry has killed many real artists my fixing the voices untalented people.
10
Jay Z is not the only artist to discuss the need for an artists' owned distribution network. The reality is interactive music streaming, foisted on the industry by Spotify with the consent of the major recording labels, is a dead zone for artists with no way to climb out of the loss of earnings from cratering recorded music sales.
Music has been free for so long that unless artists get a handle on their own industry their future is non-existent.
Music has been free for so long that unless artists get a handle on their own industry their future is non-existent.
As a musician, this sounds promising as the current pay from streaming companies are awful. However, it's still not clear how Tidal will compensate artists differently. If they can significantly increase the pay out to artists, Tidal will probably grow rapidly, and I imagine most record companies would be on board because higher pay is good for them too. They're are still many questions that need to be answered from an artist's perspective, but it does sound like a great step in the right direction.
how will this help artist like Aretha Franklins who's new Cd got no air play but is off the chain with hits Remix Rollin in The Deep Alicia Keys No One in Which Aretha does Reggae Style she's The Queen of All Soul Music and like These Legends are being disrespected and they Paved the way for The artist today Aretha needs to be heard like James Brown everyday ???
1
Getting airplay is a different issue than an artist getting royalty payments that are fair. The music industry has so many problems, that i think it's best to focus on problem at a time. Besides, younger people always favor younger artists... so to say that Aretha Franklin isn't getting enough airtime nowadays is somewhat of a moot point. Did kids in 60's listen to Sinatra more than Hendrix, the Stones, Beatles, Clapton, Joplin? I think not.
1
I have been a subscriber to Tidal for the past couple of months. It is different from a lot of other streaming services in a couple of ways that are important to me: there are curated playlists made by actual people (music editors and professionals) rather than by computer algorithms, there is a relatively large library of classical music recordings and these recordings can be listened to in their entirety uninterrupted, and the music is lossless quality. Right now, i use Tidal's professionally curated playlists to discover new and sometimes eclectic music that I might not otherwise have come across. I am worried that the new ownership consisting of mostly pop musicians may not value the above features and may try to take Tidal in a more "mainstream" direction, bombarding listeners with algorithm-derived playlists consisting mostly of current pop hits.
5
Those who think they should get their music for free, their movies for free, their video games for free, need to wake up. How many of you go to work every day, for free? Whether you make music, shovel a ditch (which I have done many times) or wait tables, you expect to be paid for your effort. I have paid for every piece of music I own, for the past 40 years. This supports the artists, so I can continue to hear the music I like. Same with my movies, my software, and so on. Too say you cannot afford it so you should have it for free, is not an excuse. We live in a digital world, where too many now expect to get their "stuff" for free, and expect it to be so. Wow, what delusion. BTW, I have worked in the cutting edge of the software industry for 20+ years now, so not "old school". I also pay $10 per month for Spotify, and cannot believe the wealth of music available for next to nothing, yet many think that is paying too much. I am looking forward to my $20 per month for Tidal, so I can hear my music streamed at higher than 320kpbs MP3.
4
The problem is that because of the poorly written Digital Millennium Copyright Act, music is still available for free from many sites. The "Safe Harbor " provision has allowed technology companies and piracy businesses to make a business model that relies on essentially giving away music for free while paying the creator's nothing. You Tube is perhaps the biggest offender. They created a platform that encourages users to upload pirated works and profits in the same manner as if they gave it away themselves. They have admitted to 180 million take down's per year. Now in a market, the lowest price sets the going rate for any good. And in this case that is $0. So I do admire this effort by Tidal but as long as CR laws remain unchanged I don't see them accomplishing what they expect. If they try to pay artists fairly they would be undercut by the other services that are operating on the lowest margins attempting to compete with "free."
You can buy a cd with well over one hundred songs in Latin America for less than $1. These "artisits" need to quit whining about piracy etc and keep with the "concert as money maker " model. In the long run, because contemporary "music" is such forgettable dreck,. the only offerring for which they can obtain easy pay is the writhing around the stage while making 20 costume changes.
4
Nearly the entire population listens to recorded music. However, only a tiny fraction of the population goes to live shows. The fact is that most people want the enjoyment of music around their daily activities but most do not want the live music environment. So it is not possible to pay all the costs associated with creating recorded music from the meager collections from live shows. And as far as musicians "whining" I fully expect that if people took whatever you spent large amounts of time and money for your occupation for free you would whine too. The idea that musicians can make a living with live show income is a lie, plain and simple.
1
This reminds me of First Artists, the production company formed in 1969 by major film stars, including Barbra Streisand and Sidney Poitier, to take control of their own artistic output. It was reportedly rife with artistic differences and lackluster box office revenues and fizzled at the end if the 1970s. Music artists coming together is perhaps a worthy undertaking given the sometimes inequitable, if not shady, accounting practices in the recording industry. Let's hope Jay Z is a better businessman, talent broker and, shall we say, diplomat when all those egos are in the same room. Otherwise, like the failed First Artists, it could be a Tidal washout.
4
This is also similar to how United Artists was founded, as Jay-Z reportedly mentioned during his meetings with other star musicians.
1
They need to realize that switching streaming companies is a pain in the neck, with favorites, and playlists, and such.
I tried Tidal's $20 version for the one-week trial period and thought it sounded a little better than my current service (for which I pay $10 a month). I just didn't get to use it enough to be able to make up my mind. They should give a longer trial period if they're asking people to pay double what other services cost.
I tried Tidal's $20 version for the one-week trial period and thought it sounded a little better than my current service (for which I pay $10 a month). I just didn't get to use it enough to be able to make up my mind. They should give a longer trial period if they're asking people to pay double what other services cost.
4
When computers not used for doing the job for this so called "artist" then I will pay for music. Lip syncing and having a computer program fix your voice is not a talent. In a way, the same industry has killed many real artists my fixing the voice a talent of untalented people.
9
There are plenty of recorded works that are done without auto tune or similar programs. And many of those that have started using computer programs like you describe only did it because with people taking work for free you cannot afford to take the time to do things right. In the days when people paid for music there was much more time taken to make an album. You would go back and correct imperfections, over and over. The truth of the matter is if people can take something for free, they will. And there are a plethora of supposed justifications for that. Could it be that people just like "free?"
Water isnt free. It costs more than gasoline in the bottled form. Also not everyone gets compensated for all the work they do. We do lots of work for free where we work when clients cant afford to pay. I dont see the musicians mentioned as being shareholders in Tidal as being poor because they arent getting paid enough. All of them are multi-millionaires probably.
He has a great idea to make more money for the artists and supports the artists better. Thats fine. Dont throw in all the other comments which done seem to to hold any water (free or otherwise).
He has a great idea to make more money for the artists and supports the artists better. Thats fine. Dont throw in all the other comments which done seem to to hold any water (free or otherwise).
9
Some besides musicians give work away for free. But to suggest that workers in any other profession gives the vast majority of their work away is silly. And 99.9....? of musicians are dirt poor.
One in six people on the planet do not have access to potable water.
Aside from that, will this platform benefit all musicians?? The $20 entry fee might prevent up and coming not so well known people from being heard.
Aside from that, will this platform benefit all musicians?? The $20 entry fee might prevent up and coming not so well known people from being heard.
2
How many people on that stage can even play an instrument? They don't create art, they manufacture a commodity for consumption.
44
Jack White can play a pretty mean electric guitar, Alicia Keys, is a wonderful pianist, many write their own music. Yes, there are those who are commercialized, overly produced artists, but there are some pretty great musicians who are a part of this and I hope this doesn't mean they are selling out just to make a lot of money like Jay Z and Beyonce. Something about this seems like capitalism at it's worst.
2
I love Alecia Keys but she wasn't on that stage she was on a remote feed.
All efforts in all services, organizations and industry should be what this might and this could be: a cooperative. Worker farmer cooperatives have proven effective in other areas. America can fix the wealth disparity by giving workers their share of the wealth they generate. Stock is one method and profit sharing is another.
As Lennon (not Lenin) said, 'Imagine"! Or imagine what will happen in America if the wealth disparity issue is not fixed. An underclass of millions of all ages, races, sexual preferences, etc. taking to the streets, identifying members of white or rich only contry clubs, gated communities, etc.
Imagine if all fast food outlets gave workers shares and a profit sharing plan?
Imagine if a car rental did the same. Woops. That is called Enterprise.
Other companies did this. All it means is immoral, stolen, illegal, unethical, sinful, unfair and undemocratic profits and wealth streams for the few would become more democratic, fairer, ethical, etc. as more Americans received more just compensation. Less crime. Fewer jails. Better schools. Improved hosuing. Better wellness and health. More vacation and earlier retirement.
Imagine.
As Lennon (not Lenin) said, 'Imagine"! Or imagine what will happen in America if the wealth disparity issue is not fixed. An underclass of millions of all ages, races, sexual preferences, etc. taking to the streets, identifying members of white or rich only contry clubs, gated communities, etc.
Imagine if all fast food outlets gave workers shares and a profit sharing plan?
Imagine if a car rental did the same. Woops. That is called Enterprise.
Other companies did this. All it means is immoral, stolen, illegal, unethical, sinful, unfair and undemocratic profits and wealth streams for the few would become more democratic, fairer, ethical, etc. as more Americans received more just compensation. Less crime. Fewer jails. Better schools. Improved hosuing. Better wellness and health. More vacation and earlier retirement.
Imagine.
3
He just wants to control the Music Industry. First the sports (Robinson Cano Agent) and now takeover the Music Industry. This is trying to dominate by killing competitors in the name of RESPECTING MUSICIANS.
2
Good for Jay Z... He had a lot of top end artist already signed to the service...I was in the music business...these record companies and tech companies are stealing from the makers....
This idea of paying more for quality seems shortsighted. Color tv cost more when they came out, then there is HD service cost more .....as a musician I would want my music heard exactly as I wrote / recorded it.
do they think that because its "artist" backed, i will switch over and give more money to them instead of record labels? its all about price point and quality of sound. Who cares what logo is on it?
1
I laugh everytime Taylor Swift et al. refer to themselves as "artists." Kinda like those "reverends " like Sharpton or "Doctor so & so" when.the doc is has an education degree from one of those daytime tv promoted "universities."
Anyway, like it was noted easirt "meet new boss same as old boss."
Anyway, like it was noted easirt "meet new boss same as old boss."
9
I want a service where subscription with choice to play at low quality and to own at high quality I bet Apply gets this one right first
1
"The challenge is to get everyone to respect the music again?"
Really? Did the average person stop respecting music? How about the average person got tired of seeing these self-proclaimed artists become spoiled 1%ers? For the record, pun intended, I wouldn't call his lineup a collection of artists at all. This isn't even about art; it's about distribution and whose pockets are getting lined. JayZ, frankly, can cry me a river.
Can we talk about the quality of digital sound in the first place?
Really? Did the average person stop respecting music? How about the average person got tired of seeing these self-proclaimed artists become spoiled 1%ers? For the record, pun intended, I wouldn't call his lineup a collection of artists at all. This isn't even about art; it's about distribution and whose pockets are getting lined. JayZ, frankly, can cry me a river.
Can we talk about the quality of digital sound in the first place?
47
The vast majority of artists aren't in the .1%. They're scarcely making ends meet. And digital sound is just fine with the right equipment -- good DAC's -- and good recordings (not the hypercompressed pop releases that are currently fashionable, which sound awful under any circucmstance). The 44.1 kHz lossless Tidal service is much better than the MP-3's with which you may be familiar.
3
Josh - I don't do MP3s unless forced, which is hardly ever. And disagree that digital sound is yet equal to vinyl or, of course, live. It's gotten better but still too shiny and clean and processed for me.
Water ... it's not free. Water is actually really, really expensive.
31
I live in Los Angeles. No way am I drinking the tap water.
1
you need the lifestraw...google it..
I'm already a subscriber and have been for several months. I have a high end stereo system (no super-audiophile but good enough for me) and Tidal sounds fantastic on it - far superior to MP3's. It is truly high-def streaming. It rivals vinyl in sound quality. My problem with the recording industry in general (for Rock music) is that the recording quality is not what is once was. Tidal is only as good as the source and some newer albums sound like they were recorded in a garage. Maybe a higher quality delivery of music will pressure record producers to record a higher quality product
8
Current pop recordings are typically overcompressed to make them sound loud. They sound awful as a result.
Been a subscriber for the last 6 months, and the idea of having Hi Res sound streaming to my system is delightful. The choice of music spans genres and seems to grow every day. For the price of 2 CD's a month, I can listen, in full lossless quality, to new sounds and artists as well as things not in my collection. Being able to have it stream to my system through JRiver is another plus. There is a lot of buzz in the audiophile circles and forums about this too. I hope he can make this work on a global scale. I will continue to subscribe. BTW not neccessarily a fan of Jay Z or some of the others in his circle, but as long as he stands for quality I will support this. Remeber this is not just pop music. Check the free 7 day trial.
1
That's roughly $360.00 per year. That doesn't seem like such a great deal. Maybe audiophiles will go for this service, but I don't see it taking off.
1
Shill much?
8
Tidal, which makes millions of songs and thousands of high-definition videos available in 31 countries, will have no free version.
Is it just me that feels this way, or does this statement really attest to the fact that there's such a glut of junk out there already such that anyone would actually pay to be inflicted with it?
It sure doesn't take a lot of sense to be a mogul these days, that's for sure.
Is it just me that feels this way, or does this statement really attest to the fact that there's such a glut of junk out there already such that anyone would actually pay to be inflicted with it?
It sure doesn't take a lot of sense to be a mogul these days, that's for sure.
3
There's junk, but junk sells -- and there's also good stuff, which doesn't always. The reason people aren't paying for music is because between piracy and free streaming services they don't have to.
1
No. People are not willing to pay for music because they can get it for free from a number of sources. If a gas station opened up and somehow offered gas for free by doing something highly illegitimate then you would have a hard time selling that too for any price.
2
I was attracted to Tidal for its representation of CD quality. NO SUCH THING.
It constantly crashed, had trouble interfacing with my apple tv ( Surprise)
and it s library is tiny compared to Spotify's. Its meaningless to me who
the owner is.
I like the idea of streaming music and happy to pay for it but only if the library is
deep and the service works. The market will probably be dominated by Apple
with an inevitable antitrust action by the FTC to spin off the service.
It constantly crashed, had trouble interfacing with my apple tv ( Surprise)
and it s library is tiny compared to Spotify's. Its meaningless to me who
the owner is.
I like the idea of streaming music and happy to pay for it but only if the library is
deep and the service works. The market will probably be dominated by Apple
with an inevitable antitrust action by the FTC to spin off the service.
2
So basically it's exactly what Rhapsody is already doing, but his version will be called Tidal.
"“This is a platform that’s owned by artists,”
The distinction between art and business was clear when artists were making a living out of making art and weren't driven by greed. Not so much these days!
The distinction between art and business was clear when artists were making a living out of making art and weren't driven by greed. Not so much these days!
13
Not a whiff of history revisionism in your comment anywhere.
1
I don't know many artists who are driven by greed. Given the odds of making it as a musician, it's about the most punishing field you can go into, economically. The greedy take jobs on Wall Street.
2
Many of us are not used to paying for music. We would get in the car and turn on the radio, or just start up the boombox. Didn't cost anything.
17
Yes it did -- you listened to tedious ads and paid for the privilege when you bought the advertised products.
3
Yeah but you also could not redistribute it.
that's absolutely incorrect. the radio stations pay royalties to the record label. the two sides fought over proper compensation much like the artists are battling the streaming services today. the radio station was in the game to make money, but they're in the hole as they paid for their content. the way they got out of the hole was called advertising. and you, the consumer of the music content, then paid for the advertising by paying a higher price for the goods and services being hawked over the airwaves.
advertising is the hidden bogeyman. as though an adult needs help choosing between Coke or Pepsi, Burger King or McDonalds. and only a complete fool would choose to buy a particular new car model based solely on an ad they saw on tv. you pay for it without even realizing it.
advertising is the hidden bogeyman. as though an adult needs help choosing between Coke or Pepsi, Burger King or McDonalds. and only a complete fool would choose to buy a particular new car model based solely on an ad they saw on tv. you pay for it without even realizing it.
“The challenge is to get everyone to respect music again, to recognize its value,”
No, the challenge is to break the internet mind-set that everything should be free.
No, the challenge is to break the internet mind-set that everything should be free.
30
Can't stop the signal, Mal.
I think Jay-Z knows water costs money. Bonnie & Clyde, I would love to pitch to you what I think is a unicorn idea in wearable tech. Anytime, anywhere in California. Have always enjoyed listening to your music.
it's like "empire" is coming true...
8
Empire was already true.
As a huge music fan, I just don't get streaming music. Say I signed up for the high quality version. $20/month is $240/year which means after 4 years I would spend almost $1000 on this service.
Then suppose suddenly my financial situation changes and I have to drop the subscription for a year or two. That would leave me with no music to listen to.
$1000 can buy a lot of music, whether it be mp3, CD or vinyl. If my financial situation changes, I have all that purchased music to listen to, forever.
I just don't see how streaming is an economically wise choice for any music fan.
Then suppose suddenly my financial situation changes and I have to drop the subscription for a year or two. That would leave me with no music to listen to.
$1000 can buy a lot of music, whether it be mp3, CD or vinyl. If my financial situation changes, I have all that purchased music to listen to, forever.
I just don't see how streaming is an economically wise choice for any music fan.
65
Well, some people do not have the time, money or inclination to buy a CD, wait for it to come in the mail, listen to every track and then decide whether that was a good use of time/money/etc...or not.
Or did you mean digital music to purchase?
With Spotify (which I am a paying member of) I can create playlists of all my music for whatever genre or mood I am in. It is also synched to my phone and I can listen to the songs even without a data connection.
The interface is easy and the catalog of music/artists/songs is huge.
My 62 year old family friend recently downloaded it on his iphone really likes it too.
They have stated that once they reach 20 million paying users, it will makeup for the revenue being lost by CD sales (revenue going to artists).
I think Apple will be the next big player to watch in this space. They already have the Eco-system in place and relationships with the labels.
I wish Jay-Z well. If he can provide a good service that audiophiles enjoy, that is a good thing.
And oh, living in LA, water is definitely not free. As a matter of fact, it's going to start costing much more than it did before.
Or did you mean digital music to purchase?
With Spotify (which I am a paying member of) I can create playlists of all my music for whatever genre or mood I am in. It is also synched to my phone and I can listen to the songs even without a data connection.
The interface is easy and the catalog of music/artists/songs is huge.
My 62 year old family friend recently downloaded it on his iphone really likes it too.
They have stated that once they reach 20 million paying users, it will makeup for the revenue being lost by CD sales (revenue going to artists).
I think Apple will be the next big player to watch in this space. They already have the Eco-system in place and relationships with the labels.
I wish Jay-Z well. If he can provide a good service that audiophiles enjoy, that is a good thing.
And oh, living in LA, water is definitely not free. As a matter of fact, it's going to start costing much more than it did before.
1
$20 a month will buy you what, two CD's? With streaming, you have access to millions of tracks. You can discover new artists and performances. It's marvelous.
1
The thing is, over four years, $1000 doesn't really buy you that much music. Checking my Spotify year in review for 2014, I listened to 7212 minutes of music last year, most songs only once or twice. Some back-of-the-envelope math suggests I listened to over 1000 songs just last year... that's $1000 if purchased on itunes, maybe $1500 worth of vinyl, vs $120 for a year of Spotify.
If I cancel my subscription right now, I'll lose access to all those songs, it's true... but I place a higher value on wider access as opposed to long-term ownership. For me the streaming services are strongest as a music discovery tool.
If I cancel my subscription right now, I'll lose access to all those songs, it's true... but I place a higher value on wider access as opposed to long-term ownership. For me the streaming services are strongest as a music discovery tool.
1
It'll be interesting...he's on the right path. The water analogy doesn't quite add up for me, because water is not free ...and will become costlier as the years go by. Either way, streaming is the future and the 'antennas' will be in the hand or on the head. Artists deserve to make a living!
1
Music artists used to be paid too much. Now, too little. Good Luck JZ but look what happened to United Artists in film! (And water isn't free either)
2
No. Just like in the movies, only A-list artists were paid too much, the very few at the top. Even artists with lots of big hits didn't get paid much from their recordings. There are artists with Gold certified albums who had later albums that didn't sell well and they get 0 in royalties because the label generally pools all their advances. But whatever they got is much more than what they get now since the total size of the U.S. record industry, including streaming and licensing, is 1/3rd of the 1999-2000 peak in real terms. At least when LPs were dominant, the artists got advances. They get no advances on streaming royalties.
Back when Atlantic Records celebrated one of its big anniversaries (either its 40th in 1987 or its 50th in 1997) with a big concert at Madison Square Garden, its chairman and co-founder, Ahment Ertegun decided to zero out the accounts of its old artists who according to music industry accounting, still owed the record company money as they had never earned out their advances in spite of having numerous hits. So from that day forward, those artists earned some royalties again. And Atlantic was among the labels who treated their artists better than many others.
But I don't believe this Jay Z enterprise will be successful. There are simply too many companies in the business of delivering streaming music. Enough so that in the end and especially as artists begin to revolt, no one will make much money. And consumers have become too selfish.
Back when Atlantic Records celebrated one of its big anniversaries (either its 40th in 1987 or its 50th in 1997) with a big concert at Madison Square Garden, its chairman and co-founder, Ahment Ertegun decided to zero out the accounts of its old artists who according to music industry accounting, still owed the record company money as they had never earned out their advances in spite of having numerous hits. So from that day forward, those artists earned some royalties again. And Atlantic was among the labels who treated their artists better than many others.
But I don't believe this Jay Z enterprise will be successful. There are simply too many companies in the business of delivering streaming music. Enough so that in the end and especially as artists begin to revolt, no one will make much money. And consumers have become too selfish.
1
But one thing that labels did do was to invest massive amounts of money to promote the artists. Often they would spend something in the millions to promote. So even if artists made little or even no royalties from their recorded work they could still tour and make money. More and more artists are pulling out of Spotify type businesses because the royalties do not cover the cost of the electricity used in recording.
[[Coldplay, Rihanna, Daft Punk, Alicia Keys, Calvin Harris, Usher and Arcade Fire, Beyoncé]]
Hmmm, I don't know much music by any of those people, so count me out I guess.
I listen to a couple of music podcasts from college stations around the country. That's about it.
Hmmm, I don't know much music by any of those people, so count me out I guess.
I listen to a couple of music podcasts from college stations around the country. That's about it.
2
Even if Tidal pays artists double or triple what other streaming services pay, it's still too little for an artist to make a living off of their music. The problem with generating enough income from streaming is that streaming provides the subscriber with an unlimited number of songs on demand just as if the subscriber owned the songs, yet the subscriber pays next-to-nothing on a per song basis.
A possible new model for a streaming service that would pay artists enough to make a living is some type of jukebox streaming where all songs are available on a demand-only basis and all songs cost, say, 10 cents per play. After a streaming subscriber plays any particular song, say, 10 times, the subscriber would then own a copy of that song and would be given control of that copy just as if the subscriber had bought that particular song as a download for $1.00.
A possible new model for a streaming service that would pay artists enough to make a living is some type of jukebox streaming where all songs are available on a demand-only basis and all songs cost, say, 10 cents per play. After a streaming subscriber plays any particular song, say, 10 times, the subscriber would then own a copy of that song and would be given control of that copy just as if the subscriber had bought that particular song as a download for $1.00.
11
If the rates are substantially higher than Spotify as claimed and if this new push courts a a few million new users over a few months, artists can most definitely make a living off of their music with it on a number of platforms- unless it is a band or artist with a smaller than average following, or if "a living" is in rich people standards of 300k+
Genius!
Brian...you're onto something!
The water is free argument sounds to my ears like mega-talented billionaire is out of touch. I'm skeptical. But this proves that with a saturated market of streaming services, increasing the artist's cut is where the growth is. It's a good sign. Now Spotify will have to pay more, etc. It's an arms race for who can pay more to the talent. Taylor Swift will announce her own streaming service any day now. Wow, the music business blew it again.
1
I currently subscribe to Spotify but would switch because I find it really disturbing that artists are making so little from these services. Supporting the artist deserve music lovers' support.
2
It is not clear what will happen to the current Tidal service, which is (allegedly) all CD-quality at $20 a month. It is increasingly popular among audiophiles in the US and UK, among other countries, and the catalog is extensive. Are they going to stop streaming artists that don't sign for to the exclusive model? That would be a shame. In my experience the audio quality is exceptional, although a bit uneven for older material.
From the projects to platinum albums, clothing lines, the Brooklyn Nets, sports agency and now this. Still hungry. Still creating. Still innovating. Jay-Z is the very personification of the American Dream.
5
Mindless avarice for "artists." (Do those folks really believe their shills- I read somewhere you can buy "followers" on whatever internet app, in units of a million..So when.E! tells us that its frankenstein the Kardashians have "millions of followers" be advised. I really feared for our cultural future.
He's just an enormously successful opportunist. Nothing wrong with that and more power to him to keep on doing it...but let's not exaggerate his talents.
1
What and how different will Tidal be than any other subscription based streaming service out there? It won't be other than that Jay-Z has his name associated it. The amount in which artists are paid isn't even disclosed. How alternative is this really an alternative to what already exists out there?
1
The price is steep but I guess Carter thinks quality costs and people will pay. The question is, will this be marketed for home systems because who has a mobile device that can output the sound quality he promises? Also, the innovation I would really like to see from download and digital music services is supporting content, that is liner notes, musician listings, etc. When I go to a digital service, I don't see the supporting information. Music isn't created in a vacuum. People make it, it happened on a date in time, etc. I hope a real visionary comes along and picks up on that.
6
The problem is that except for audiophiles (mainly composed of 50+year-old white men who don't listen to any current music anyway) and old music collectors, and there are few of them, the market has been trained to prefer singles over albums, that MP3 compressed audio is "good enough", to listen on either poor quality $10 headphones or poor quality expensive Beats headphones and not care about liner notes and credits because no one takes the music very seriously. If it's here today and gone tomorrow, that's just fine. And home "hi-fi" sales have been in the toilet for years - at best, people play back at home on a soundbar or a Bluetooth "boom box". And while some of those look nice, the sound on almost all is quite awful.
Even the vinyl LP market, which if you listen to the hype is a big market, was only 4.5% of the overall music market in dollars in 2014 in the U.S.
Where all the people have gone who would obsess over which take is used for a Miles Davis or Muddy Waters recording, what the master numbers were and who were the session players on the recording, I don't know.
Even the vinyl LP market, which if you listen to the hype is a big market, was only 4.5% of the overall music market in dollars in 2014 in the U.S.
Where all the people have gone who would obsess over which take is used for a Miles Davis or Muddy Waters recording, what the master numbers were and who were the session players on the recording, I don't know.
4
Tidal works fine with home systems, or will once they get their native Windows app working. Of course it comes through your computer, or a music server system. You can also hear the difference on a mobile device, I know, I'm in the sixth day of the free trial and the CD quality option sounds a lot better on my phone than MP-3's. (Caveat: their native Windows app isn't working right now so I'm not going to subscribe until they've fixed it.)
although I don't exactly fit your characterization, the quality of the sound and the information that surrounds it is important. poor quality everything is the order of this day anyway i guess. also, the curious thing about vinyl these days is that many (most?) are DDD, that is digitally recorded, mixed and mastered. in that case, it is really only a CD on a black vinyl disc.
I will stick with Pandora for less than $5.00 per month.
1
Jay Z seems to be forgetting that there is something called the radio. It plays music. Then you listen to ads. Most people streaming music on Spotify or Pandora think of their service in these terms. You don't have to subscribe to the radio.
1
Radio doesn't give the option to listen to whatever you want whenever you want.
Good move Jay, it allows more competition in the market. It also shows that your innovative spirit is still alive. Please focus on alternative genres of music. $10 a month is reasonable and I hope will cut down on pirating.
4
I'm not so sure that "water is free", but I just paid my Providence Water bill; it was expensive, and bottled water is actually much tastier. I'm not so sure that Jay-Z convinced me that paying for another streaming service is worth my while with that argument, but I think Jay-Z can say just about anything and make a lot followers believe him.
19
[[swm providence
I'm not so sure that "water is free", but I just paid my Providence Water bill; it was expensive, and bottled water is actually much tastier. ]]
I think he bungled that comment. I'm sure what he meant to say is that people pay for bottled water and want music for free, but they should drink water from the tap and pay for their music.
I'm not so sure that "water is free", but I just paid my Providence Water bill; it was expensive, and bottled water is actually much tastier. ]]
I think he bungled that comment. I'm sure what he meant to say is that people pay for bottled water and want music for free, but they should drink water from the tap and pay for their music.
13
I think yours is a very fair interpretation of what he may have intended. And, from a place with a strong arts/music scene I do believe in supporting artists. I pay for live music, independent cd's and feel good about those expenditures. I'm not cray about competition and conglomeration in the arts, and not sure in what way that supports the making or disseminating of music more beneficial to the artist.
Check out Brown Bird (Fingers to the Bone is a great start), one of Providence's recent best.
Check out Brown Bird (Fingers to the Bone is a great start), one of Providence's recent best.
I agree re music has value. Water is a bad example, it certainly is not free. As a resident of California, I support charging the market value of water (rather than at subsidized rates to nearly all users), and providing discount for the poor for basic household use.
24
how much does it indeed cost - though - if it's free??.. tough to get a genie back in the bottle. nest pas??