[mcuykend]

Originally posted by swissman

Art is just a human expression. But some people use it to make their livelihoods. Of course it can be a business just like child care was never meant to be a business but you still pay your babysitter.

Yes, I agree, but the major artists are highly overpaid. And there are arguments over things like this because of that - because some things just don't translate well to business, even though I realize that's the way it is.

[BnPac]

Originally posted by Vin

Uh, the iPhone is a useful, innovative product that changed how we communicate and connect worldwide (I own a Samsung Galaxy). Tidal is none of these things. Furthermore, Steve Jobs, Mark Zuckerberg, Evan Spiegel, et cetera... these people are actually legitimately intelligent businessmen (sorry, Jay Z is not smart and is not a business man, no matter how much he tries to sell that as his image). If you can't even market your product correctly without making it look terrible, you really should just hire someone else to handle the business and marketing side of things.

...Vin

ffff It was only innovative in the way it was marketed and presented to the public. Countless of companies came up with that concept before Apple. C'mon we learn that in every marketing classes. The value proposition of an Iphone is its design, not the functions in it. Like Steve said himself : "if I didn't drop on and snicked in calligraphy classes, we wouldn't have that phone today". people don't buy to call or to take picture. Iphones because they respond to a social status need : to appear better than you are and on top.

and big lol at "art was never meant to be a business" so the singers should give their albums and singles for free then? You are you people raising faux issues. The musicians are not social workers. They make music for a living just like some are engineers for a living.

Originally posted by FreeBitch

Well i'm well aware people won't suscribe if they don't want to. USA is a demoncratic country after all. I'm just saying from a consumer point of view why i'll prefere Spotify over Tidal.

Other people will do the opposit because the argument touched them but just remember there's NO business model in the world who isn't based on consumer need. People who want the quality music coming with Tidal will obviously suscribe but How many of them ? That the question no one in their team seems to have la réponse.

Well let's think from a business perspective. The first month you have a free trial right? If they give you the exclusives the first month, what will make you stay after the free trial? If they tell the first month exactly what they'll add beyond the first month. Why would you sign the free trial at all?
It's simple. Every business model may be centered around the customer but the communication is not always about value proposition for the customer. Do you really think Apple will come and tell you the only thing you're buying is a design? No.
But I do get what you are saying.

[Haunter]

Also why don't writers, sound engineers, and producers go after the label?

[Six]

this is revolting.

[Ressti]

In addition to that, there won't be that free tier that's been depressing the recorded music industry, and frankly been a part of what's been driving the downfall of the recorded music industry, is that free consumption. Music is not free, fundamentally. Someone came in and produced that beat, someone came in and sang that song, someone wrote that song. Someone came in to clean the studio afterwards. There is an entire ecosystem around this, and we've somehow come to believe that it's okay to pay hundreds for consumer electronics but to pay nothing for the music that helps sell it.

Tru T

People paying 200 euros for headphones but too cheap to buy an album on iTunes. It's ridiculous.

[SaneBeyhannaStan]

I never had an issue with Tidal I just don't have an opinion about it.I buy the music I like and stream to help them get support. I admire what they are trying to do though.

[NewRihannaStan]

I'm confused

[UnusualBoy]

Until they don't offer some extra value to their platform, it won't work because people will prefer to stay in their favorite or cheaper streaming platforms, except for the obvious blind stans.

[FreeBitch]

Originally posted by Ressti

Tru T

People paying 200 euros for headphones but too cheap to buy an album on iTunes. It's ridiculous.

I paid 300€ so basically $326 for 1 night to see On The Run Tour. That's not enough ?

[Kim Kardashian]

Originally posted by Goddess of Love.

Don't they only pay the higher royalties if you subscribe to the $20 one?

No.

The thing is many artists said to Spotify that premium users ($9.99) could have their album but not the people who don't pay. Spotify said this went against their model which is why people left.

[Ressti]

Originally posted by FreeBitch

I paid 300€ so basically $326 for 1 night to see On The Run Tour. That's not enough ?

You think you have a right to free music because you bought a concert ticket?

[Kworb]

Originally posted by rayrrock

I think y'all are missing the point.

Obviously consumers don't care. They just want the cheapest product on the market. (Keep in mind, though, that the $10 version of TIDAL is in line with Spotify's pricing... so it's not really more expensive.)

The point is to get artists to realize that there's value in what they're creating and they shouldn't be okay with giving it away for free. As more artists jump on board with TIDAL and leave other streaming services (as Taylor already has), TIDAL's value will increase.

Artists only hurt themselves by committing to one platform exclusively. It's in their best interest to be available everywhere. It's no wonder that the 1989 era fizzled out in Europe following the Spotify boycott. We're getting to the point where artists need to be on Spotify to be relevant here.

For indie artists it's the same story, they need the exposure from every possible platform. They need royalties from every possible platform. Else it's not going to be enough.

Artists not getting paid enough is a label problem, not a streaming problem. I don't get why they're so upset about Spotify's free tier anyway. YouTube views pay much less.

[uhoh-ohno]

Originally posted by mcuykend

Yes, I agree, but the major artists are highly overpaid. And there are arguments over things like this because of that - because some things just don't translate well to business, even though I realize that's the way it is.

Why are they "overpaid" in your opinion? How much should you be making if millions of people consume your products multiple times? Popular recording artists are not abstract painters, whose work is consumed and valued by a wealthy niche minority. I don't see the point in saying that the major artists work shouldn't be highly valued and comodified, when they provide the content that the public uses the most.

[6_INCH_HEELS]

Originally posted by Freezin

Some of you just want everything for free. Tidal is providing the same service as Spotify, just with no free option, and more money to the artists, but people are acting like Tidal is asking for an arm and leg... If you already pay for spotify then why are you bitching? and if you use spotify for free then good for you.

Exactly. They want it for free, claim their faves are too rich already, Forbes will do their annual lists and they'll run in there to toss a "slay!" around. It's very transparent.

Anyway, I stopped using Tidal because the sound isn't loud enough for me.

[FreeBitch]

Originally posted by Ressti

You think you have a right to free music because you bought a concert ticket?

I waste 1/5 of my monthly salary after all to see Jigga rapping his average songs for half the time.
I think i deserves that.

[6_INCH_HEELS]

Originally posted by FreeBitch

I waste 1/5 of my monthly salary after all to see Jigga rapping his average songs for half the time.
I think i deserves that.

If it's so average then why waste your money? No one forced you to buy tickets. You paid for a product and received it. That's where it stop. It doesn't entitle you to free music for the rest of your life.

Some of y'all are...probably preteens.

[Iyanla, Fix Me]

Like I've said, the only way Tidal will work is if everyone on that stage (plus others) decide to make their music Tidal-streaming exclusive. But the reality is, a few of those people don't even have full publishing rights to their music. An exclusive video that'll be uploaded to VEVO in less than a week, is not enough for me.

Personally, I use other means to download music because I don't like the hassle of being online to hear music. So neither Tidal nor Spotify will have me as a customer.

[mcuykend]

Originally posted by uhoh-ohno

Why are they "overpaid" in your opinion? How much should you be making if millions of people consume your products multiple times? Popular recording artists are not abstract painters, whose work is consumed and valued by a wealthy niche minority. I don't see the point in saying that the major artists work shouldn't be highly valued and comodified, when they provide the content that the public uses the most.

Because there are tons of people that are behind the scenes of the major entertainers/artists. People that are pushed to the side and just because someone has charisma or good looks, they are pushed to the forefront, and thus, profit from it. I am more than willing to pay for art. But I'm lucky in that I can afford it. I don't think less of other people who may not be able to. Artists' work should be valued-I agree. But to make millions and even billions off of it? Not when there are doctors,scientists and teachers who do so much more for humanity.

[KeirGrey]

He can go **** himself

[Ryan]

The people who complain about Tidal are those who have no intention of either paying for music and/or being intentionally obtuse.

There are plenty of services available that I just don't subscribe to. It's not because I think the beneficiaries "overpaid" or the it's a power play, it's because the service simply doesn't appeal to me and/or I have better options available. People should just be like "this ain't for me" and own it. No one is forcing you to subscribe. If you enjoy Spotify's freemium model, good for you. No one is saying you shouldn't take advantage of what's available.

I do believe artists and those involved in the creation should be compensated fairly for their music, including streaming value. I also admit that I pirate music sometimes. Hypocritical? Sure. But I admit I purchase more music now than ever because of streaming. It's opened me up to artists I never would have listened to if my only option was to pay for full-length album or song.

Even though I don't agree with Spotify's payment distribution, I'm not going to subscribe to Tidal just bc they pay more royalties. Like any service in competition (and they are competition), they can hook me and others by offering unique content and exclusives. If they provide better, I'll go with better. Right now, they aren't really offering enough incentives to get me to switch over to them. That doesn't mean I don't support the endeavor though. I want them to succeed.

Random but important to note... Apple's revamped music service (though Beats) was shooting for a $7.99 cost but the labels balked. It would have been smart for Apple to undercut the competition but the powers weren't having it. $9.99 is a nice starting point, but I think it'll increase in price over the years. $20 will probably become to standard within 5 years.