|
Celeb News: #TidalForAll
Member Since: 1/1/2014
Posts: 23,128
|
Quote:
Originally posted by AHemsworth
The majority of the talk has revolved around how Spotify is FREE and Tidal is $20. So, it would be safe to assume that the complaints revolve around those who wish to continue to get free music as opposed to paying for it. That is greed. Whether you fall in that category or not, don't know, don't care.
And you're saying what Jay is doing is greedy and you see through it, but I haven't seen a explanation into exactly what you think he is doing besides trying to get more money for his music and share the wealth with others, which is what most mainstream artists want from Spotify in the first place.
It's funny before Tidal was announced, ATRL was all "Spotify should pay them more money" and now "it's a great free service and these artist are greedy."
|
But why is your argument centered around the fact that +60 million users on Spotify stream music for free, and therefore are greedy? What the ****?
They aren't downloading the track.. they are literally sitting on their computers or phones and listening to them, just like the radio? Are you really gonna call 60 million people greedy and the hundreds of millions of people who listen to the radio, greedy?
Artist make money other ways than JUST streaming. Like I SAID before yes I agree Spotify's payout pricing is probably UNFAIR for artists. But their BUSINESS model is good for consumers.
Jay-Z's model is ONLY good for the artists. There's no compromise at all. I agree with what T. Swift did and removed her music until they fix the rates, but I'm not going to support Tidal's business model You can though but stop calling people who like Spotify/Pandora/Youtube greedy cause Mr. Carter and friends are.
They value their worth over the consumers, but hey get that subscription!
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/18/2013
Posts: 15,732
|
Definitely NOT spending my money on that.
I hope Bey and Jay can still affod their meals.
|
|
|
Member Since: 3/15/2013
Posts: 25,228
|
Quote:
Originally posted by bey0nce
It's called marketing
|
No ****.
Doesn't mean it's good marketing, especially as shown by the people dragging it. Jay Z pretty much shot himself in the foot with it.
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/18/2013
Posts: 8,832
|
|
|
|
ATRL Contributor
Member Since: 2/6/2014
Posts: 32,692
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Doc
|
DOC
|
|
|
Member Since: 12/22/2009
Posts: 23,538
|
Quote:
Originally posted by bey0nce
It's called marketing and again, they're asking people to change their icons etc. not forcing. You realise that these "millionaires" promoting this will help this service (hopefully) grow, which will in turn support the artists who aren't millionaires.
Should Jay-Z have just spent all that money on this and just released it without telling anyone? No promotional campaign? No social media presence which is so important in 2015? Ah, ok, got it!
And quit being condescending, about "quit being so blind" like you're so aware and in the know!1!
|
Well its both a bad marketing campaign and a bad business model.
I'm all for everyone getting the money they deserve but to the general public $20 for music is a lot.
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/19/2013
Posts: 14,942
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Mike91
I pay for my Spotify premium account too but I also understand that not everyone can afford it. Even if I didn't have it, then so what? I'll just go to youtube or the million other sites where music can be listened to. Music is meant to be heard by everyone. The idea that people can only listen to music if they pay for it is ridiculous.
And I'm not mad at all. Just tired of people blindly getting behind something just because their fav supports it.
The real problem in the music industry are the record labels. Those are the people who steal from artists the most. Streaming has caused no more harm to the industry than what was going to happen to it anyways, even before the idea of streaming came along. Maybe it sped the process up but at least more people have access to artist's music than ever before, which should be seen as a good thing.
You also know that the whole era of massive albums sales, etc really didn't come along until the MTV generation, right? Obviously it was never going to last and with the invention of the internet, it only further killed it.
People need to stop living in the past and thinking those inflated album sales are coming back. It was such a small time in history that it happened to begin with. Not to mention, people had no other choice but to buy the music. The only way you could listen to it was physically.
|
How do you know that people getting behind it aren't genuinely open to explore something new? That's how Spotify started. That's how all new business endeavors start. No major artist is advertising Spotify the way they have done with Tidal, therefore fans are going to want to know what the big deal is.
Again, being upset with what people choose to spend their money on is ridiculous. I'm not going to attack Tidal users for spending money on a service, especially when I pay to get the same service from another provider. It makes no sense. It's like people fighting over having AT&T vs. Sprint. It's all about consumer preference and what service you think works better for you and your pockets.
And of course the change is imminent. That's why a lot of there artists are investing into their own start up companies to reap more of what they sow instead of the record labels getting a bigger chunk then they deserve. That's not greed. And it's not a con. They pay a lot to put in the effort and put their music out and they want a proper return on their investments.
|
|
|
Member Since: 9/1/2012
Posts: 25,973
|
Not sure how I feel about this, could be interesting if it works.
|
|
|
Member Since: 4/23/2012
Posts: 9,618
|
Only way this might work is if all the artists supporting Tidal actually remove their music from Spotify and other streaming services. That doesn't necessarily mean Tidal will be successful but it will help Spotify fall and ultimately higher album sales. So in a way, I hope both fail.
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/1/2014
Posts: 26,845
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 5/8/2012
Posts: 2,151
|
The premium plan is $10. It's not like they only have the $20 subscription.
It comes down to the same thing, the only difference is Tidal will probably give more percentage to the artist.
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/19/2013
Posts: 14,942
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Jezang Looz
But why is your argument centered around the fact that +60 million users on Spotify stream music for free, and therefore are greedy? What the ****?
They aren't downloading the track.. they are literally sitting on their computers or phones and listening to them, just like the radio? Are you really gonna call 60 million people greedy and the hundreds of millions of people who listen to the radio, greedy?
Artist make money other ways than JUST streaming. Like I SAID before yes I agree Spotify's payout pricing is probably UNFAIR for artists. But their BUSINESS model is good for consumers.
Jay-Z's model is ONLY good for the artists. There's no compromise at all. I agree with what T. Swift did and removed her music until they fix the rates, but I'm not going to support Tidal's business model You can though but stop calling people who like Spotify/Pandora/Youtube greedy cause Mr. Carter and friends are.
They value their worth over the consumers, but hey get that subscription!
|
I never said the people who stream Spotify for free are greedy. Comprehension. I said the people complaining about Tidal and calling the artists that support it greedy, all the while not paying for their music in the first place are greedy hypocrites. Keep up.
T. Swift pulled her music from Spotify and apparently has joined Tidal because she will get more money from the investment. And that is your problem. People won't be able to stream her music freely because she chose to want to make more of a profit from her work. Therefore, the consumers streaming for free with either have to pay for the service, buy her music, or download it illegally. Only one of these is fraudulent.
Now, let's say you pay for Spotify, and now have the choice on whether to pay for another streaming service or simply buy her music from a legitimate source. What does Tidal have to do with the choice? If they offer the similar services and musical choices as Spotify for the same price, what is the problem? Having too many options?
|
|
|
ATRL Contributor
Member Since: 12/7/2011
Posts: 27,655
|
The essays.
|
|
|
Member Since: 3/26/2011
Posts: 22,809
|
They do realise that this will just encourage people to illegally download the albums and import them to Spotify.
|
|
|
Banned
Member Since: 3/15/2013
Posts: 30,196
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Jezang Looz
But why is your argument centered around the fact that +60 million users on Spotify stream music for free, and therefore are greedy? What the ****?
They aren't downloading the track.. they are literally sitting on their computers or phones and listening to them, just like the radio? Are you really gonna call 60 million people greedy and the hundreds of millions of people who listen to the radio, greedy?
|
No, no! You can't compare airplay to streaming! Songwriters are actually receiving performance royalties for their songs being spun on the radio, where as they are paid next to dirt for streaming on Spotify. In addition, artists are getting tons of promotion by being broadcasted to thousands of people on the radio, as oppose to being exposed to isolated individuals that have the ability to skip songs.
Yes, Spotify has a business model that works well for the consumer, more so than the artist. However, if the consumer expects quality material, they need to be willing to support the people that create that material. You can't expect to throw a few dimes at them, and then have them give you masterpieces in return. People in here wonder why so many artists pop out quick, generic singles - it's because the songwriters and producers NEED to get some quick money, they are seriously struggling as artists and aren't in comfortable enough position to spend months working on quality material that may or may not sell.
TIDAL is the ultimate bang for your buck. You pretty much have the entire industry in the palm of your hands- from a huge music and video catalog, to exclusive interviews/ behind-the-scenes from artists that you love, to playlists designed by some of the industries most renowned critics and performers. Their service is at the top of the game and is ideal for people that want depth to their experience.
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/8/2011
Posts: 27,650
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Recluse
But so far, his streaming service has only around 17,000 paid subscribers compared to Spotify's 15 million. For the moment, Tidal is only a ripple. (The Verge)
|
Interesting.
And they could be inching towards 20M by late summer..
|
|
|
Member Since: 3/30/2011
Posts: 5,259
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/18/2013
Posts: 15,732
|
Madge better no delete her music from Spotify cause I ain't go the nerve to put all of her albums I own physically on my pc.
and LMAO them changing their avis is sooo cringe-worthy.
Like calm-down, you aren't fighting the world-hunger, y'all are being greedy
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/1/2014
Posts: 23,128
|
Quote:
Originally posted by AHemsworth
I never said the people who stream Spotify for free are greedy. Comprehension. I said the people complaining about Tidal and calling the artists that support it greedy, all the while not paying for their music in the first place are greedy hypocrites. Keep up.
|
Refer to your previous post:
Quote:
The majority of the talk has revolved around how Spotify is FREE and Tidal is $20. So, it would be safe to assume that the complaints revolve around those who wish to continue to get free music as opposed to paying for it. That is greed. Whether you fall in that category or not, don't know, don't care.
|
If you're calling out other members in this thread, then IDK about them but I'm referring to what you said here. "Continue to get free music" so stream music?
Stream music on Spotify's already legalized answer to piracy? OH so now Jay-Z has another solution to fix online streaming. Instead of having it free for the consumers and pay the artists with rates/per play, let's make it premium for the consumers so the artists can get a bigger payout! How about you keep up.
----
Like I said before, I wish I had the extra $$ to throw at Jay and friends for their cause but I don't. It would be nice if I were able to sit at the round-table with all those musicians to come up with a plan to not only get increased profits for online streaming, but by charging the fans that support us more money and not the record labels that exploit us!
Again, y'all do YOU and I'mma do ME, but don't call me cheap or greedy cause I stream my music online or on the radio when hundreds of millions do too. I wonder what that makes you then. lol
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/19/2013
Posts: 31,020
|
Carters are super greedy, they have more than enough money but people like them will never stop. They don't care about artists or songwriters. If you use Spotify for free you have to deal with the advertisements just like on the yt so it's fair.
|
|
|
|
|