No1

Retired.
Supporter
Joined
Apr 30, 2012
Messages
31,932
Reputation
5,397
Daps
72,385
Google play still pays artists more than anyone.

Even more than tidal, the most expensive service.
No it does not. Tidal is also the exact same price as any other service. If someone has the Hi-Fi version of Tidal then the pays per stream double. The best thing for artists would be if everyone got on the wave of Bose headphones and 20 dollars a month high quality streaming (like how people cannot go back to basic television -- that really should be Tidal's whole selling point and they should market with Samsung about the whole high quality lifestyle...they should even make fun of their press conference doing it). That plus bandcamp overtaking Itunes would be the best thing for them.

If I was an artist I would hope that Bandcamp and Tidal win. But I'm not :manny:
 

y que

Banned
Joined
Sep 19, 2015
Messages
1,582
Reputation
-1,931
Daps
1,587
its fair

a lot of artists shouldn't really have the need to be on spotify honestly

more should be plugging their music how adele and taylor swift are doing

or fusion of both

the game is changing

musicians need to figure it out
 

OG Talk

Archived
Joined
May 1, 2012
Messages
23,694
Reputation
7,879
Daps
116,506
Reppin
Heaven on Earth
It's a tricky situation...

For example my Dad bought Off The Wall on cassette for 8 bucks in the late 70s and our family listened to it probably 1 million times until it popped...

Or I recorded LL Cool J and Rakim off the radio on a 99 cent cassette and listened to it 80 thousand times...

Once I obtained the music it was mine to play as much as I want.. That's the tricky thing about monetizing streamed audio... I didn't pay Nas 5 cents every time I listened to Illmatic in perpetuity..

A "stream" is pretty much the equivalent of hitting "play" on your CD player back in the day.. Once the original transaction is done, there is no limit to how many times you want to play it...

So when people keep trying to draw a parallel between streams and sales its kind of a false equivalency..
 

dora_da_destroyer

Master Baker
Joined
May 1, 2012
Messages
66,461
Reputation
17,170
Daps
274,070
Reppin
Oakland
how is adding another revenue stream robbing artists? if streaming didn't exist, you might see a slight boost to sales, but them cats aint getting paid on records sold...you'd surely see more downloading which nets you ZERO. streaming has added another revenue stream for artists, it's not stealing shyt from them
 
Last edited:

Kimo_bud

Banned
Joined
May 23, 2012
Messages
6,312
Reputation
-1,156
Daps
10,260
Reppin
LWO
fukk the artists.. why do i care if they make as much as the average joe?

they only making music. its not lie they splitting an atom
 

WuDatWuDat

All Star
Joined
May 29, 2015
Messages
1,675
Reputation
-1,470
Daps
3,303
It works for some, it works against others. There are a lot of artists that have albums that I've bought and that I have gone to shows of, that I otherwise wouldn't know about if it weren't for Pandora. Big artists get robbed but they're making a shytload off radio plays, views and shows.
 

DigitalDopeman

All Star
Joined
Jun 19, 2012
Messages
2,602
Reputation
1,005
Daps
4,086
Reppin
Jacksonville, Fl
how is adding another revenue stream robbing artists? if streaming didn't exist, you might see a slight boost to sales, but them cats aint getting paid on records sold...you'd surely see more downloading which nets you ZERO. streaming has added another revenue stream for artists, it's not stealing shyt from them
artists aint trippin over the fact that its another revenue stream, we trippin over how much the streaming services make make off of playing our music compared to what we get in return, less than pennies on the dollar, but then again they have the network and the service and we get access to their network of users that can possibly discover and play our music over and over, its a double edged sword i guess
 
Top