Quote:
Originally posted by TheNight
I'm so conflicted on this Tidal thing. On the one hand, I like that it pays artists a better share for their material. (Let's be real, while this isn't that big a deal for the millionaires who were at the launch event, it's a huge deal for indie acts or up and coming acts.) But on the other hand, I like what Gaga said of digital music around the time Born This Way was released - she said something along the lines of "digital music should be free and available for everyone". I understand that artists want to be paid for their work, as they should be, but doesn't it say something when you're willing to deny certain people - those who can't afford it - the experience of listening to your music? At least with services like Spotify, YouTube, and VEVO, the artist is still getting paid - albeit less than they would from a sale - and the platforms are open to people from every economic category. (That have access to a computer at the very least. In the US, that can be gained through our public library system, so technically, it is open to everyone.) I guess it just depends on how you look at it and what the intentions of the individual artist is - to make money or to make art. I think I agree with Gaga on this one.
|
I think they're focusing on the wrong issue.
They should be popularising an alternative to the old fashioned record label. A 20th century model which doesn't reflect the digital age and fails to give artists their due. We live in a world where an artist can distribute and advertise their music instantly, for free. And we live in a world where physical sales have decreased significantly, yet we're - and they're - still paying for the cost of physical production and distribution. The power should be rebalanced in favour of the artists and not screw over new and indie acts. They have way more power than they think they do in this day in age.
Instead, they're making the consumers the bad guys and taxing a previously free service.
I'm not sure what the solution is to piracy/streaming, but ultimately I think we're heading toward free music. With streaming and cloud, there's little point in owning music - we simply just need to access a library of it. And now we're seeing streaming services begin to compete for listeners, which will lead to a price war that one will win because it has no fees. I imagine it'll be ad revenue which will foot the bill.
Personally, I think Apple will create a YouTube-esque streaming model where all content is free and accessible, and when artists (like YouTubers) get popular they are paid through advertisers. The more popular you are with listeners, the more you make. And that profit is (hopefully) distributed in a fairer way to the artist, writers, producers etc.
What would be interesting if Apple (for example) did that and also created their own music label which did away with all the old fashioned label nonsense. So, they made their profits from popularity and advertisers, meaning they allowed artists more of the profits.
