Jump to content

Your Ad Could Be Here

Tidal - A New Streaming Service Headed By Jay-Z, Madonna Etc

Recommended Posts

  • Editors

So,as most of you have heard, a new streaming service called Tidal was launched yesterday by Jay-Z, Beyonce, Madonna, Nicki Minaj etc

It is meant to be a high-fidelity music streaming service that is going to be subscription-based and is, in their words, going to change the course of music history.

"Will artists make more money? Even if it means less profit for our bottom line, absolutely," Jay Z told Billboard

Any thoughts? Is this going to be another Spotify? We'll have to wait and see.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hopefully it will work. It'll be hard to get people to switch though if they have to pay more for the same thing. If all artists were to pull their material from Spotify and the likes, then, after much grumbling, it could work. But still, it's so easy to get any song you want for free online if you want to. Until that stops, it'll be a high hill to climb but I hope it works. It's hard to change the "everything you want is free right now" mindset of people who have lived their whole lives on the net.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So I watched the vid on the link posted above.  That guy really needs a haircut.and I think it's affecting his ability to provide thoughtful insight.



Vinyl records were not as high quality as reel to reel. "Albums" were released on reel to reel as well and they were pricey. Few people ever bough reel to reel recordings.  Rock and roll was a low fi (like hip hop) thing. Parents with expensive high fidelity consoles did not want Elvis Presley played on them. The kids would usually have low fi 45 record players in their rooms and would by low fi recordings for them. Elvis and other rockers sold lots of 45 singles. His albums didn't sell near a well.


As the prices dropped and quality increased for home stereo systems. Teens and college kids would listen to records usually studying or when friends came over. Rarely did people devote themselves to quiet concentrated listening. Listening in a group was more about being a part of the group and having the listening experience present.


When ghetto blasters and in car cassette/8tracks also became the rage...The were not anywhere near the quality level of the CD. Not by a mile.  Live recordings of famous act such as "Frampton Comes Alive" or "Bob Seger Live Bullet" were intentionally recorded at half speed reel to reel to "keep it sounding raw/real" 


Peanut Butter manufacturers have no control over how you might enjoy your peanut butter. If you want to lick it from a spoon in your bed that's your business, If you want to add soy seed oil and Gran Marnier for a glazed peanut sauce shrimp creation that's your business. You may find some non edible uses for peanut butter. But for someone like GIF to specify how and where and when you can enjoy their product to satisfy their desires misses the point.  Same to with artists claiming that they know what's the best way / time and location to listen to their music.


The bottom line isn't "freemium" or "ad revenue" the bottom line is roi (return on investment) for the artist. In the golden age of television viewers weren't required to fork over more cash to see an artist perform on the Ed Sullivan Show.  No, Advertisers picked up the cost and the artists were well compensated for their time.  When songs are played on the radio...the artist responsible for the song is compensated.  When an artists material is played on a jukebox the artist is compensated fairly.  Sirius XM artists are compensated fairly.  Other subscription based services such as spotify...The artist is robbed blind all the money goes to the wrong place and consumers feel no need to pay more then they have.


Artists should be compensated properly for their efforts.  This is the most important part of the discussion and the most overlooked part by those in the industry news service.  It's also the hardest thing to address to general public listeners.

"Oh I really like them so I listen to them on a service I pay for that doesn't reward them"

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Artists should be compensated properly for their efforts.  This is the most important part of the discussion and the most overlooked part by those in the industry news service.  It's also the hardest thing to address to general public listeners.


That's kind of the problem the internet created for everyone. The "open-ness" of the internet, where everything is free, fast and easy. Content is secondary. It's all about how easy it is to use, how much eye-candy is involved and how easy it is to get what you want, exactly when you want it, without having to pay for it. Had the "creators" of the internet, and more-so, those that followed, had more of a "business-minded" approach, things would be a lot different. Too caught up in the "cause" and not thinking enough about the "effect".


As cool as "free and easy" is, they have their downsides.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

Your Ad Could Be Here

  • Current Donation Goals

    • Raised $1,040
  • Create New...

Important Information

By continuing to use our site you indicate acceptance of our Terms Of Service: Terms of Use, our Privacy Policy: Privacy Policy, our Community Guidelines: Guidelines and our use of Cookies We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.