Jay-Z's new streaming service.

http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/music/news/tidal-jay-zs-spotify-rival-streaming-service-criticised-for-making-wealthy-artists-even-richer-10145485.html

It's obviously hard for me to feel sorry for highly paid and incredibly famous major label artists like Jay-Z, Daft Punk, Madonna, Alicia Keys, Beyonce and Rihanna. Lets get out a violin while Jay-Z moans about how music is losing value and not being respected enough.

This service is dead on arrival. I predict its gonna bomb. It to me represents an incredible lack of understanding of what the consumer wants by the record industry. If he wants a battle with Spotify he won't win. Screw these guys if they cant be bothered to learn what people want or even pay a second of attention to the consumer. This is not a service to benefit the fans and many people can see that. It's a move about greed greed greed by the big boys. If it was a project aimed at benefitting up and coming artists and the unsigned then maybe people would have given a damn?

Posted from TSR Mobile

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 1

Truths

The only people who are greedy are the people who think On Demand music should be free.
It's not only about the artists, because of this streaming culture artists don't make their millions off of record sales anymore - Although Meghan Trainor had a #1 song for weeks on end, she already confessed that she hasn't seen any of those coins in return. Artists can make their money through endorsements and touring, but what can the songwriters and producers do when they are getting $1,000 per 10,000,000 streams? That's not fair on them. Regardless, even if it was about making the rich artists richer, so what? You wouldn't go to the apple store and demand a mac book because Steve Wozniak is already a billionaire.

Reply 2

DiddyDec01

I will stick to using soundcloud and spotify.

I'm not paying for something that I could own for free.

Reply 3

jamiep151

Price is stupid will stick to buying and ripping CDs high quality sound no connection required and I actually own the music permanently.

Reply 4

Europhile

It's far too expensive for a start. It didn't even have a lower price for early adopters which would have got people involved with the service and then raised the price later once it had been used. It will not take off properly unless changes are made. It'll probably remain a niche service or fail.

Reply 5

quentinhamilton

Original post by DiddyDec

I will stick to using soundcloud and spotify.

I'm not paying for something that I could own for free.

exactly

Reply 6

datpiff

Original post by Europhile

i don't think even the people who care about audio quality will give a damn. If there were options to download in Flac or Wav then maybe it could attract a niche audiophile audience? Audiophiles generally don't want CD quality.

Then again who is really bothered what quality a Rihanna song is in? It's bubblegum music.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 7

Europhile

Original post by datpiff

Then again who is really bothered what quality a Rihanna song is in? It's bubblegum music.

The problem he has is exactly what you've pointed out. It's only really going to be good for productions by Kanye, Kendrick Lamar and artists who focus on big production albums. The problem with that is, the fans who love these artists will buy the high quality versions anyway so they've got the physical form. The vast majority of people I know seriously into hip hop buy the best releases on vinyl once they come out. For example, I have GKMC on vinyl and it's much better. The Spotify versions of the songs often sound dreadful. I can't see this service being much better or worth it. You can buy the vinyl versions for £15-30 if you look around and this streaming service is £20. This service will just cost more in the long run than getting the highly anticipated albums in physical form.