|
Celeb News: Lily Allen drags TIDAL
Member Since: 1/6/2014
Posts: 3,026
|
clearly most of you don't care about the artists who work their asses off and barely get anything. back in the day if you wanted to hear ONE song you liked off an album you had to buy the entire album. Get over it
|
|
|
Member Since: 10/12/2002
Posts: 21,317
|
I mean Spotify's free version doesn't allow on-demand mobile use, it requires ads and you can't play offline and the music quality is substantially less
You can't compare that to Tidal's $10 a month service which offers all of those things, exactly as Spotify's premium service that is also priced at $10 a month.
Napster and Beats is ALSO the same price point without free versions
The only difference is that Tidal offers a premium version with higher audio quality, some people may actually LIKE this but it's just an option
|
|
|
Member Since: 3/3/2011
Posts: 23,567
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Azealia Banks
It's true, like you dont get **** with your normal headphone/earphone, laptop, telephone audio equipment lol, what is hifi audio without a great equipment
|
It's all kind of a gimmick. I have a ~$10K sound system and I don't know a soul (including myself) who can distinguish between MP3 320/AAC256 and any lossless format on it. lol
|
|
|
Banned
Member Since: 8/17/2013
Posts: 11,824
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Hugamari
It's not that $10 is such an ungodly amount...it's that it's excessive when there are cheaper alternatives for consumers to choose from. It's a matter of not spending excess money to get the same result.
---
And before anyone goes "But artists get more money this way!!1!" The artists ain't care about you. People should be looking out for what's best for themselves, not some artists they never met.
|
+1
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/31/2013
Posts: 20,892
|
Quote:
Originally posted by NEUTRON
The people are so quick to call the artists greedy yet the only people being greedy are you folks.
|
They are obviously greedy lol, why is the reason? bringing better music for the fans? nah. They want to get the biggest amount of money they can from streaming lol as if they were poor. In my mind artist should care about giving the fans their music and artistry not trying to take more money from them.LOL . BUT thats just my opinion.
PD: Fans does pay for a lot of **** from their faves like, merchandising, tours, physical albums and digital.
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/1/2014
Posts: 39,650
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Mr.Rager
exclusive content that artist won't share with other services.
|
Cool! And i'm sure i'll be able to watch whatever **** they post on Youtube a week later
|
|
|
Member Since: 9/1/2012
Posts: 25,973
|
She makes a few good points tbh.
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/31/2013
Posts: 20,892
|
Quote:
Originally posted by youmustbeupgraded
clearly most of you don't care about the artists who work their asses off and barely get anything. back in the day if you wanted to hear ONE song you liked off an album you had to buy the entire album. Get over it
|
They are millionaires lmfao, you act like they are small acts or something like that
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/31/2013
Posts: 20,892
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Buddy!
Cool! And i'm sure i'll be able to watch whatever **** they post on Youtube a week later
|
True too.
|
|
|
Member Since: 10/12/2002
Posts: 21,317
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Darkroth
Why should we give a rats butt about ads tho?! There's always the thing called an "adblocker", works as an app, works as an extension of browsers, problem solved. Hearability and listeners are the true power of the public and for the artist. Some people can't have jobs and are paid less, leeching them forcefully off like there's no tomorrow and stripping that right off, will do some strong damage to the industry. I agree with Lily.
|
Have you ever used the free spotify? Obviously not because you have no clue what you're talking about
The ads play between songs, there is no stopping them
How can you disagree with the price point that is the exact SAME for both services for the exact SAME options?
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/6/2014
Posts: 3,026
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Azealia Banks
They are millionaires lmfao, you act like they are small acts or something like that
|
there's plenty of struggling artists out there. and what, just because they're millionaires means that they shouldn't get what they deserve and work for?
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/31/2013
Posts: 6,189
|
Quote:
Originally posted by RobynYoBank
Do people even realize the regular premium subscription to TIDAL is $9.99? lol
|
But can you not get Spotify for free, which I think is one of people's main gripes?
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/1/2014
Posts: 796
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Buddy!
You're not seeing the point?
Her point was, there's perfectly free streaming services, so why bother paying for an "exclusive" one
|
And those free services are shortly going out the door. The major Labels are in a feud with Spotify. They do not have to renew their contracts(and there is talk about that happening). And if that happens, then major artists will be pulled from Spotify, unless Spotify starts closing-up their free tier. You know all the artists signed to TIDAL (and we are talking major stars) could pull out of Spotify if they wanted to. If that is the case, there would be no music to listen to on Spotify. It is these artist, in the end, that control the music industry and not Spotify. And since when should people be allowed to freeload off a valued commodity. In the end, supply and demand is what controls price. If I supply a product and you don't pay for it, then I just won't let you have it. Period. This is the basis of all economic systems and in the end it does apply to the music industry as well. There is also talk about governments around the world, including Russia (a major source of illegal downloads) tightening the laws against piracy. This is in the works as we speak. You may not be able to download illegally.
|
|
|
Banned
Member Since: 2/6/2012
Posts: 18,398
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 2/18/2012
Posts: 25,853
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Elusive Chanteuse
How will up and coming artists suffer? DO they even make money now with Spotify?
|
Yes and that's exactly her point. If an artist like Years and Years for example blows up, they'll only need to sell 100K or so copies in the UK to hit #1. That seems like a lot of money on their plate, but it's nothing compared to 100K+ streams. The stream vs. sales ratio is massive and when you put that into perspective, it's literally becoming the saving grace of some artists bank accounts. Especially the ones who can't afford to go on tour, which is where most of the money for artists comes from now.
|
|
|
Member Since: 10/12/2002
Posts: 21,317
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Khal
But can you not get Spotify for free, which I think is one of people's main gripes?
|
Yes but it has ads, it isn't able to use on mobile for on-demand streaming, you can't have offline use and the sound quality isn't as high
Spotify offers a premium service with all of those features for $10
Tidal offers the same service for $10 (without ads, offline use, can use on mobile, etc)
They are the exact same in price for the same options
Napster and Beats also offer no free version with ads, no offline use, no on-demand for mobile and so on
If you want the free version then go to Spotify but your options are limited. If you want all options then you can pay $10 on Tidal or Spotify for the exact same things
|
|
|
Member Since: 10/16/2005
Posts: 16,872
|
Would you critic a music service if you were not a music service?
|
|
|
Member Since: 3/18/2008
Posts: 40,057
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Lose My Breath
I'm so tired of people complaining about Tidal's $10 a month for ad free on demand streaming
THAT IS LITERALLY THE SAME PRICE AS EVERYWHERE ELSE
|
Then what the point of Tidal? What's the point of present a product that is exactly the same as from his competitors? Why would a Spotify user switch to Tidal? Seems like a tragic business plan.
Obviously their focus and selling point is the $20 one, and it offers something that is seen as quite pointless by the majority of the public.
|
|
|
Member Since: 2/4/2014
Posts: 2,860
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Lose My Breath
I mean Spotify's free version doesn't allow on-demand mobile use, it requires ads and you can't play offline and the music quality is substantially less
You can't compare that to Tidal's $10 a month service which offers all of those things, exactly as Spotify's premium service that is also priced at $10 a month.
Napster and Beats is ALSO the same price point without free versions
The only difference is that Tidal offers a premium version with higher audio quality, some people may actually LIKE this but it's just an option
|
MAY but actually not. This is not a good idea and the fact that it's overhyped because of Beyonce and Jay Z and lots of other artists/producers masked as "revolution" may backfire later. People don't want to spend a $10 (that would be increased to nearly $15 a month) for a musical service. They want free. They're not "greedy", they are hungry, and if you feed them, you'll get their full support. The thing is those "free" streaming services no matter their sound quality, they give you the free will, if you like a song you can buy it, you can download it, you can enjoy it, and the minute that someone enjoys a song becomes a certain fan of the song, and here you go, there's your money.
|
|
|
Member Since: 12/10/2011
Posts: 12,699
|
Quote:
Originally posted by youmustbeupgraded
clearly most of you don't care about the artists who work their asses off and barely get anything. back in the day if you wanted to hear ONE song you liked off an album you had to buy the entire album. Get over it
|
I remember those days. The struggle
I used to get ecstatic when I liked 3-4 songs on an album (out of like 17 ), I felt so much better about buying it.
|
|
|
|
|