Butter9 Posted April 3, 2015 Share Posted April 3, 2015 The rich get richer because they focus their lives in taking opportunities, providing value, and innovation. Mean while, the poor gets poorer because all they do is whine. Yes . Why did they become rich in the first place ? I mean it's a service they provide and no one is pointing a gun at your head to get it. It's a choice. For me you also have a choice to pay 0.99 or whatever on itunes or download music illegally . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VogueMusic Posted April 3, 2015 Share Posted April 3, 2015 Wait...these artists are complaining about $20 a month for the highest quality in music/video...and yet that (and slightly less) was (and in some places still is) the price of ONE of their albums...or at least is supposed to be? People not going to have $240 a year to spend on music? Uh...people have top tier level cable/internet/phone bills that rack up close enough to that A MONTH. Not to mention a million other things people pay for monthly and yearly that are luxuries. (Which is ironic considering what Tidal is, they're basically aiming, as of now, to people who are probably already willing to pay for a premium music service...among ALL the other luxuries they enjoy and pay for monthly/yearly already.) And yet music is supposed to be nothing? Or worth pennies? Shouldn't these "indie" artists be the ones that care the most about artists being compensated fairly and fully for their work, especially because they're not backed by big corporate the way the Tidal "owners" already are? Get on board and get your music on the fucking site then. I get it that the PR presentation of Tidal so far seems to be giving off the wrong message. Perhaps a wider genre of artists (both mainstream and 'indie') should have been up there. Perhaps a better PR campaign explaining the product better...sure. But all these complaints about the "rich getting richer"...particularly from other artists or folks in the entertainment industry...you'd think these folks out of anyone would get the idea of music being a real commodity again, and having artists (and all involved) properly compensated for their work...especially if the consumer chooses to want that product in the highest quality possible, with all the extra bells and whistles. What the fuck do these folks not get? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apples388 Posted April 3, 2015 Share Posted April 3, 2015 Whilst I agree with the principal of Tidal, I do also agree with Marina in that indie artists are woefully under-represented. That line up that had Madonna, Rihanna etc. should have also included at least 3-4 proper indie artists as well to show artistic unison rather than the $$$$$ multimillionaire pop artist Tidal is appearing to be.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roland Barthes Posted April 3, 2015 Share Posted April 3, 2015 So i guess Marina & Lily Allen won't have their albums on Tidal. I imagine if Marina, Lily Allen, Joanna Newsom, Cat Power, Perro del Mar, Robyn, Scott Matthew etc.... were there instead of these mega famous artists Deezer, Spotify and itunes would have been really scared by the competition. Shit their pants at the thought they can remove their work from their platforms..... These megastars were put upfront as a tour de force to warn the music industry and the competition. Good for Marina if she wants to stay on Spotify and Deezer and defend these corporations thinking she's rebellious while supporting a system that is killing her industry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jazzy Jan Posted April 3, 2015 Share Posted April 3, 2015 People wanting their music free and complaining about paying $20 a month are being selfish. Already corporations have taken over the industry and having the music artists trying to regain some control is a good thing. Music is a form of pleasure and entertainment. Things people should be happy to pay some money for. Everyone should have the option of free health care and education ( necessities ) provided by taxes and government if they can't afford it but entertainment - music and films - should not be free. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larkspur Posted April 3, 2015 Share Posted April 3, 2015 And Marina and the diamonds: "My aim isn't to criticise. But I think artists should speak out about it. The question I'm left with is "is it about money or artistry?" not everyone has £240 a year to spend on streaming music." It wouldn't be wrong if it was about both or one or the other. There are a lot of luxuries I can't afford either. If you really want something bad enough you will pay for it. It also makes you more aware of the quality of what you want to listen to and you will become more choosey. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roland Barthes Posted April 3, 2015 Share Posted April 3, 2015 Madonnapose is going viral. They started to mock her while she did it as joke first but now she's winning. She always does in the end. BTW i "know" the girl who started the tumblr, it turns out we've been following each other on Twitter for years. She's a fan of Jacques Chirac and Johnny Halliday. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larkspur Posted April 3, 2015 Share Posted April 3, 2015 People wanting their music free and complaining about paying $20 a month are being selfish. Already corporations have taken over the industry and having the music artists trying to regain some control is a good thing. Music is a form of pleasure and entertainment. Things people should be happy to pay some money for. Everyone should have the option of free health care and education ( necessities ) provided by taxes and government if they can't afford it but entertainment - music and films - should not be free. Thank you. The things in life that people are entitled to in my opinion, are a struggle for many. Stuff like this really gets on my nerves because there are people out there struggling to get basic needs met but people out there with computers, tablets, phones, games, you name it and they can't afford to pay for music? If they were made to be more responsible they could afford it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest CzarnaWisnia Posted April 3, 2015 Share Posted April 3, 2015 The rich get richer because they focus their lives in taking opportunities, providing value, and innovation. Mean while, the poor gets poorer because all they do is whine. idiotic statement Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest CzarnaWisnia Posted April 3, 2015 Share Posted April 3, 2015 Stuff like this really gets on my nerves because there are people out there struggling to get basic needs met but people out there with computers, tablets, phones, games, you name it and they can't afford to pay for music? If they were made to be more responsible they could afford it. Exactly, people buy 150 $ headphones, tablets, iphones, pay for expensive wifi connexions, etc. but can't be bothered to pay 10 bucks for an album or pay for a streaming service. It's really weird. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
runa Posted April 3, 2015 Share Posted April 3, 2015 It's amazing how the public has been manipulated by big companies. Like the one guy from Daft Punk said in the ad, "we are not products," and that is how artists have been treated. Not just by companies but by fans. No wonder they get along so well. The fans get what they want and someone somewhere is getting rich off of using these artists and their work. Like Madonna said, nothing is free, someone somwhere is getting paid. People are insane talking about how rich the artist is. Excuse me what is the cap on how much your allowed to have in you're bank account before it's okay for you to get ripped off for your work? I am not a business person by any stretch. I'm bored by money. I'm bored by business discussions, but I am interested in people. It amazes me how entitled people have become. They truly have no interest in knowing what it's like to walk in someone else's shoes. For people who are so insulting of people with money, the only thing they care about is their own damn pockets. Everyone just makes up their own reality today and are manipulated to be angry at the wrong people. Some people are genuine but there is a ton of hypocrisy out there. They don't want to pay someone else for their work but would be furious if they didn't get paid for theirs. I love the idea of everyone sharing everything but that is not a reality for anyone unless you want to retreat from the world. Amazing post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ivy Posted April 3, 2015 Share Posted April 3, 2015 It's a good idea, and people should pay for music!!! But Madonna & Jay Z should think of investing the money back into the music scene ( similar to Maverick minus the greedy fuckers from record labels) nurturing new talents and those artists not as famous / wealthy. Never know when the next Alanis or Cleopatra could pop up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
runa Posted April 3, 2015 Share Posted April 3, 2015 Exactly, people buy 150 $ headphones, tablets, iphones, pay for expensive wifi connexions, etc. but can't be bothered to pay 10 bucks for an album or pay for a streaming service. It's really weird. This. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moka Posted April 3, 2015 Share Posted April 3, 2015 This controversy is ridiculous. If indie artists attended the launch of TIDAL and no big name, nobody would be talking about it. These famous artists are here to help promote the website but it's open to every artist, not just them. People complain about everything these days. They buy $900 phones made by slaves in China but don't want to pay 10 or $20 per month for unlimited music? Really? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rocknrolla Posted April 3, 2015 Share Posted April 3, 2015 All of the artists promoting Tidal are still selling millions of albums despite streaming. And making a fortune it touring dollars, as well. So it appears to me they are really trying to make some big bucks out of the streaming business. Similar to Dr Dre did with Beats. (still can't figure out the fuck that is worth a billions dollars, but good for him, I guess). Smart for them -- if they can pull it off. Appears at this point, it could be a huge flop. WIll the artists be much better under Tidal than Spotify/youtube? The ones who aren't already superstars and don't have part ownership? I'm not sure. I feel the most for smaller, more independent artists who could ten, twenty years ago could have made a decent living but now do not. I rarely buy music, but when I do, it is usually for these types of artists who I am a fan of. I'm almost forty and no stranger to paying for music. But it would seem strange for me to pay to stream music when the whole point of it is to listen for free. Maybe if they offer downloads along with it (if they don't). What if it goes under, then you paid all that money to stream and still have nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flip The Switch Posted April 3, 2015 Share Posted April 3, 2015 Exactly, people buy 150 $ headphones, tablets, iphones, pay for expensive wifi connexions, etc. but can't be bothered to pay 10 bucks for an album or pay for a streaming service. It's really weird. True and these artists are the first ones jumping when their music is out there for free and now they get mad for this? The logic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glindathegood Posted April 3, 2015 Share Posted April 3, 2015 I'm almost forty and no stranger to paying for music. But it would seem strange for me to pay to stream music when the whole point of it is to listen for free. Maybe if they offer downloads along with it (if they don't). What if it goes under, then you paid all that money to stream and still have nothing. But how is that different from paying for cable television or on demand movies on tv? I know you can record programs and re-watch them but most of the time people don't, they just watch their favorite programs once or twice if they are repeated. People enjoy their programs when they are on and they don't say oh I got nothing because I don't have a copy to watch over and over again. You got the enjoyment out of watching them. Why is it people think they should be able to listen to music for free, when they don't think they should be able to watch movies or tv programs for free. My monthly cable bill is around $70 which is a lot more than Tidal. But no one questions paying for cable tv, but they don't want to pay for streaming music and think it should be free, Why is that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rocknrolla Posted April 3, 2015 Share Posted April 3, 2015 That is a good point, but people don't want to pay for cable either, and are going around that as well. That is why television ratings have fallen drastically, similar to music sales. At least with streaming, the artist does receive something. That is my question with Tidal, how much of the fee goes to the artists, and how much into the pockets of the owners? Do the artists really receive that much more in royalites? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brasileiro Posted April 3, 2015 Share Posted April 3, 2015 Watching Rihanna and Madonna together is giving some niggas some major hard on... Words by my pr friend who organizes hip hop parties with high profiles atendees Gotta say, Rihanna is a hot bitch. I dream of her ft a verse or two in Unapologetic Bitch... That would be the jam of this summer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rocknrolla Posted April 3, 2015 Share Posted April 3, 2015 I wish they would, Rhianna's duets are always very well done Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
karbatal Posted April 3, 2015 Share Posted April 3, 2015 How much money did we spend in music per year BEFORE Internet???? Oh that those artists are agreeing with the moaners is pure jealousy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hyper Posted April 3, 2015 Share Posted April 3, 2015 I agree with the concept of tidal and will probably subscribe. That said, it Would've been interesting to read your opinions on tidal had madonna not been involved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mnino Posted April 3, 2015 Share Posted April 3, 2015 Marina DiamandisVerified account @MarinasDiamonds My problem with Tidal is that its "game changers" don't represent a broad spectrum of the artist community. If it was truly about giving Also, the hashtag #TidalforALL? As if everyone in the world will be getting Tidal for free on our new government music program. Lol "Sure, they're really respected musicians, BUT they're all globally renowned business men and business women..." So, is that a bad thing that they were smart enough to use their talents to create their own fortunes? It's that mentality that keeps those so very talented "artists" from having much impact and success. Apparently good art can't be supported by the corporate aspect of the music business... Why is it bad that someone doesn't want to settle being only a staple at Pitchfork? Who remembers any indie band from more than 10 years ago that had no commercial success?? No one but music snobs or aficionados. And who is Jenny Lewis?? Yeah, she's the one that should be there to advertise this venture.... All of the media would be reporting on that. I think it's funny how they completely ignore Arcade Fire and Jack White being there. They're far from huge and pretty much indie darlings. Like The Smiths, they were commercially successful and made plenty of money but were always about expressing their art and not producing what was popular at the moment. Shut up Marina. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
5iVe Elements Posted April 3, 2015 Share Posted April 3, 2015 "Sure, they're really respected musicians, BUT they're all globally renowned business men and business women..." So, is that a bad thing that they were smart enough to use their talents to create their own fortunes? It's that mentality that keeps those so very talented "artists" from having much impact and success. Apparently good art can't be supported by the corporate aspect of the music business... Why is it bad that someone doesn't want to settle being only a staple at Pitchfork? Who remembers any indie band from more than 10 years ago that had no commercial success?? No one but music snobs or aficionados. And who is Jenny Lewis?? Yeah, she's the one that should be there to advertise this venture.... All of the media would be reporting on that. I think it's funny how they completely ignore Arcade Fire and Jack White being there. They're far from huge and pretty much indie darlings. Like The Smiths, they were commercially successful and made plenty of money but were always about expressing their art and not producing what was popular at the moment. Shut up Marina. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XXL Posted April 3, 2015 Share Posted April 3, 2015 As if that Marina girl and that other Lily Allen attention-seeking brat were poor, please ....... And as if Spotify cares more about protecting smaller acts anyway Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
graffitiheart Posted April 4, 2015 Share Posted April 4, 2015 https://twitter.com/MarinasDiamonds/status/583402692845928448 (no idea how to embed tweets) Isn't the point of Tidal to have more control of your music? Which based on this tweet, she has no control of. So wouldn't Tidal be good for her? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VogueMusic Posted April 4, 2015 Share Posted April 4, 2015 I think she, and plenty of others, are complaining about something they all don't yet fully understand. It would be nice to know how much control artists will get on Tidal, the percentages they will be getting, etc. It's still a bit hazy on what exactly goes on behind it and how the actual artists benefit in comparison to all the other streaming services in terms of the money, artistic control, etc...the specifics that is. But the overall message is pretty clear of what they're trying to do here... you'd think 'indie' artists, let alone all artists, would at least get the bigger picture. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
graffitiheart Posted April 4, 2015 Share Posted April 4, 2015 I personally don't think music should be free of course, but I remember when music wasn't free and how the industry took consumers for granted. I remember when they stopped selling singles at one point and all of a sudden you had to buy an entire album cause singles were no longer as profitable. The music industry did milk the consumer for the longest time but nobody had a problem with that because those very labels were "enabling" the production of music directly and artists were getting juicy contracts. The money stayed within the industry. But now there are players such as apple and spotify (Technology players) that are taking a big chunk of the profits while not being involved at all in the creative process neither are enabling it. This is not exclusive to music, in most entertainment business they are mostly hated because they are perceived as opportunistic, they don't produce content, they just deliver it, so why are they taking so much money? In the other hand, It's kinda like the necessary evil because the industry needs them because of the massive reach they have. They now want to cut this annoying middle man, but I wonder if it's going to work? Also important to note, the music industry cannot continue with this trend of "free music" cause at some point there will be no more money to continue producing it, so I agree at some degree when they talk about sustainability. It will be definitely interesting to see how this evolves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rocknrolla Posted April 4, 2015 Share Posted April 4, 2015 It would be nice to know how much control artists will get on Tidal, the percentages they will be getting, etc. It's still a bit hazy on what exactly goes on behind it and how the actual artists benefit in comparison to all the other streaming services in terms of the money, artistic control, etc...the specifics that is. That would really help me form my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phineaspoe Posted April 4, 2015 Share Posted April 4, 2015 I think she, and plenty of others, are complaining about something they all don't yet fully understand. It would be nice to know how much control artists will get on Tidal, the percentages they will be getting, etc. It's still a bit hazy on what exactly goes on behind it and how the actual artists benefit in comparison to all the other streaming services in terms of the money, artistic control, etc...the specifics that is. But the overall message is pretty clear of what they're trying to do here... you'd think 'indie' artists, let alone all artists, would at least get the bigger picture. Spot on. I think Marina spoke too soon, too brashly... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts