Discussion in 'Pop & Justice' started by Aidan, Mar 25, 2015.
The artists get the same percentage as Spotify, but get double when the fans have to pay double.
I understand people's frustration at the whole "rich people asking for more money" thing, but really – it has an effect on smaller artists, too. They're getting even less of the pie on Spotify. So even though, yes, Rihanna's looking to get a new conservatory, the added revenue stream will help out all the less successful/niche artists too ultimately. Though I don't think the actual stream-to-royalty price has been revealed yet.
The only reason they make more is because they don't have a free option which pays very little (Obviously) or you have to pay double in order for the artist to gain twice the royalties.
People make up excuses because they don't wanna shell out any money. They're not being pretentious, theyre trying to save the music industry...more money to the artist is a great thing. Not everyone can afford to give away their music for free like Gaga.
Except it's not. They aren't 'saving the industry', they are looking to line their pockets.
When you have children in countries dying from thirst and easily preventable diseases and then you have these asshats complaining about only making a few million a year.
It's the very definition of #firstworldproblems
How are they saving the industry? All they've done is make a mockery of it and from what everybody is saying drove more people to illegal download options. Spotify operates at an extreme fine line to deliver music for free at the benefit of those that cannot afford to support music in the way all of these big wig artists, each worth endless amounts of money, want. Did you watch something different to me where they actually outlined what their new world involved? Only those with $19.99 to spare each month able to listen to music? Because there's no way they'd provide a lower option if Spotify and the like DIDNT exist. We've already heard they're paying the exact same royalties as other services unless you pay then premium rate.
The entire "launch event" was some next level post-Lacanian shit.
At least people will have something to use all their unused data on that Kim K was crying about in the t-mobile ad now. Hehe.
Spotify barely makes any money for the artist ESPECIALLY up an coming and small acts, if all the big names are worried enough to do something there's obviously a problem. They are doing pay by stream as well so the smaller artists would actually get payed a reasonable for actually getting there music listened to not a percentage share. Also back in the day of CD's people would easily spend £20 a month on music.
That's because they just aren't streamed enough, surely? How is Tidal going to help with small artists? So Spotify has about 16 Million paid subscribers that will provide the same amount of royalties as the basic subscription on Tidal. They'll first have to match those 16 Million user figures in order to rightfully claim they're paying more to the artist, no?
I just don't think Spotify is the enemy artists are claiming it to be, as time has just completely changed and unfortunately if people won't part with their money for an album now why are they going to pay premium rate for artists? Especially if they can download Spotify for free? People just don't care about the artist, they just want good music.
I get your point but many up and coming bands have said that Spotify has introduced them to countless new fans, and therefore they can make their REAL money from touring!
I feel like if Tidal weren't pushing this 'Tidal for all' thing it would make more sense. It's not for less successful artists, and it's not for people with a low disposable income - it's not for all.
Spotify barely makes money for themselves, streaming is not as profitable as you may think. With 60m users, 20m of them being paid subscribers, it's the best streaming platform for artists and the most profitable for them.
Tidal *only on the $20 tier* supposedly pays more royalties *than competitor ad supported services* which can mean just $0.0002 more. Currently they have like 50k subscribers and that number will never reach Spotify levels, so unless their royalty payouts are 15x more than competitors, artists are better off on Spotify profit wise. The 16 co-owners do not get higher payouts, they just traded exclusive deals for company shares.
It's also pretty ironic for them to say that "they're finally taking control" and "artists first" while they're still signed on major labels.
Tidal was a niche audiophile-targeted streaming service, now it just feels like a pretentious sellout.
The most hilarious thing was that they framed it as some sort of 'Heal the world, save ART, buy Tidal subscriptions'. Does Jay Z even know what an actual water bottle even costs? They're so far removed from normal people (and potential clients) it's hilarious.
Josh summed it up nicely there, and I think when people realise they will stop advertising it as making more money for artists and becoming a hub for music exclusives. However then iTunes has them by the balls and we will probably only receive snippets if Beyonce breastfeeding Blue or Rihanna describing her songwriting process in a three second short.
Dude are you serious? They're trying to get what they deserve for their work!!
Bringing poverty and deceases into this sounds like a desperate attempt to whine. Nobody's denying there are bigger problems in the world but what do you suggest? Let their work be used for free and illegally because "it's ok, people are hungry and thirsty"?
Jay-Z and the other 15 artists are not saving anything but at least they're trying to put a stop to piracy or at least slow it down by presenting a new audiovisual platform to lure users to LEGALLY listen to music.
I'm not saying Tidal is perfect, its far from perfect but yelling "oh first world problems, look at them trying to get richer" is dumb. They work for their money and they have the right to do whatever to preserve their income. Sure, Madonna won't be homeless if her album flops but if this keeps going at some point she will lose a noticeable amount of money because people think music is free.
This generation goes around thinking music is free and its really not! Jay-Z is trying to make people do the right thing and PAY for music by presenting exclusives etc.while they SHOULD be paying anyway.
You try work for free for a month because there are people starving.
That's the key here. If they were all going "we are no longer with our labels, we produce music we want to, how and when we want to, and then promote it exclusively through TIDAL in any way we want to and as such keep all the profit for ourselves" then it would make sense. It would justify all of what they preach about. As is, you can't help but be worried about them if they actually believe what they're preaching.
But they're not doing something that hasn't been before. Spotify, Rdio and the rest have already been luring people from pirating for years, mainly through their free services (which still compensate the artists). A service with a $20 monthly subscription will never ever make people who pirate switch. Jay-Z and the other 15 aren't trying to make more money through their work as musicians here, but as businessmen and public figures.
Your argument would have substance to it if Tidal was some revolutionary service but it's not. We already have Spotify, Deezer and the upcoming Apple service. All services that are fairly priced for consumers while artists get behind the most expensive service - what a surprise.
Nobody is suggesting that music should be free or obtained illegally but Tidal is nothing more than a vanity project that will only turn people back to piracy.
I have absolutely no time for these popstars crying about 'lost income' when they have their multiple homes, private jets etc. They are so far removed from the real world, it's unbelievable.
I am deceased at deceases.
Separate names with a comma.