what is #TIDALforALL

[Cloud McFly]

When it comes to giving black folks money it's gotta be on the hush hush on the low right ?

but when it comes to funding cacs...he puts it on his raP

Foh...jay z is a c00n to the fullest

Don't act like you wouldn't be hating either way. Same shyt happened with Barneys where all the proceeds went to inner city kids for scholarships, but all cats wanted to do was shyt on his name and call him a c00n.

Either way it's a lose-lose, cause cacs and c00ns/crabs just gotta have something to be negative about.

When pics of dude at a rally for Trayvon with Trayvon's parents surfaced, cats like you were saying he was only there for to take photos smh

 

[jadillac]

Wherever you're getting your music from some cac is caking off that.

And if you're getting it for free you robbing black artists anyways

Jay is probably moreso a figure head than a major owner. Much like his Nets thing was.

He probably owns a small piece and gets a bunch on the backend for endorsing and talking other artists into endorsing.

They better get on the ball tho bc some albums are missing. Like Drake "Nothing was...." album, they only have the eedited version

 

[DontEemTry]

Jay is probably moreso a figure head than a major owner. Much like his Nets thing was.

He probably owns a small piece and gets a bunch on the backend for endorsing and talking other artists into endorsing.

They better get on the ball tho bc some albums are missing. Like Drake "Nothing was...." album, they only have the eedited version

My view is that the shyt is gonna flop, not because it's Jay-Z, but because the music industry is doomed anyway.

There is NO way for artists to make real money anymore when the music is so easy to get for free. This is a hail mary play by these artists and the odds are stacked against them.

Props for trying, but this shyt will be dead in less than six months tops.

 

[Mike Otherz]

My view is that the shyt is gonna flop, not because it's Jay-Z, but because the music industry is doomed anyway.

There is NO way for artists to make real money anymore when the music is so easy to get for free. This is a hail mary play by these artists and the odds are stacked against them.

Props for trying, but this shyt will be dead in less than six months tops.

i hear you, but what would be considered a success and what would be considered a failure. realistically, no one is expecting them to compete with spotify, or apple etc. those are established behemoths. this is more a boutique/independent label type thing. so it has to be judged on those terms. how many subscribers would you need to win? spotify has 10 million paying subscribers. and they are the industry leader? if Tidal can have a million paying customers thats a win to me, and they already have 500,000. its not too far fetched.

again, im not even getting Tidal, but thats just cause i’m not a streamer. i dont want money going outta my account on the regular like that. but i hope they succeed. i do want to know the ownership angle though. if its majority artist owned, and each artists has the same ownership, and the money is going to the artists, then im all for it. and jay owning 3% i dont see how that is a bad look. you really want artists to have 3% but you own like 50%? thats a bad look. just as long as no cacs own 50% bulk. lets keep it 3%.

 

[Da King]

Tidal changing the game forever brehs

 

[Harry B]

Tidal changing the game forever brehs

I think the change is the payment to the artists (which I still have a hard time see being financially feasible unless they reach spotify #s of subs). The software has been here for half a decade and already has half a million subscriptions.

 

[DontEemTry]

i hear you, but what would be considered a success and what would be considered a failure. realistically, no one is expecting them to compete with spotify, or apple etc. those are established behemoths. this is more a boutique/independent label type thing. so it has to be judged on those terms. how many subscribers would you need to win? spotify has 10 million paying subscribers. and they are the industry leader? if Tidal can have a million paying customers thats a win to me, and they already have 500,000. its not too far fetched.

again, im not even getting Tidal, but thats just cause i’m not a streamer. i dont want money going outta my account on the regular like that. but i hope they succeed. i do want to know the ownership angle though. if its majority artist owned, and each artists has the same ownership, and the money is going to the artists, then im all for it. and jay owning 3% i dont see how that is a bad look. you really want artists to have 3% but you own like 50%? thats a bad look. just as long as no cacs own 50% bulk. lets keep it 3%.

Artists don't make money off Spotify, which is why Tidal now exists, coz they basically getting fleeced by these other streaming services.

I don't know what Apple is gonna do, but I suspect whatever it is, it'll look a lot like Tidal, only better because

1. Apple has enough money to offer a better deal to artists off the bat
2. Apple customers don't mind paying top dollar for Apple branded shyt

So just one more reason Tidal isn't gonna work. You don't compete with Apple and expect to live.

 

[nieman]

When have recording artists ever made money? The music industry was never designed to make you rich, only famous, and you could eat other ways. And if you didn't put the pen to work or produce, you were even worst off. Artists were making $.05 off an album then still having to pay back advances. The mega advances (loans) went away, so you had higher profit margins but in came the 360 deals.

Bottom line, how does this change anything? Your label still eats off of your music and you're still seeing .00000000005 off of the stream. So I guess the real money is in the actual model? You owning the brand and everyone eating off a Jay-Z album? Maybe this is the new touring, but that doesn't change a 360 deal CTHU

I'm confused

 

[Jaylen Tatum]

 

[RTF]

I think the change is the payment to the artists (which I still have a hard time see being financially feasible unless they reach spotify #s of subs). The software has been here for half a decade and already has half a million subscriptions.

The software is similar to Spotify which has 12m subscribers. As you can see they've also swiped the design and UX.

Their margins for the $9.99 will be similar to Spotify/Google/Beats. Their margins will be made greater in that Lossless package that nobody wants. You've got to think their competitors will release a Lossless version and have a much narrower margin for when that is introduced.

Artists don't make money off Spotify, which is why Tidal now exists, coz they basically getting fleeced by these other streaming services.

I don't know what Apple is gonna do, but I suspect whatever it is, it'll look a lot like Tidal, only better because

1. Apple has enough money to offer a better deal to artists off the bat
2. Apple customers don't mind paying top dollar for Apple branded shyt

So just one more reason Tidal isn't gonna work. You don't compete with Apple and expect to live.

Artists do make money off Spotify just not as much as downloads. Artists complained about iTunes for a long time because it's not as profitable as CD's.

Tidal's $10 service will likely pay artists a similar rate to Spotify because of the margins.

Unless Apple decides it can make music a Loss leader in its product portfolio and charge $5.. the margins again. will be similar.

Apple is brilliant at creating great designs & UX for physical products which become status symbols. That doesn't translate so well for software. They are also great at putting great existing technologies into that package but I don't see how they can make the Beats subscription service much better than the competition. Iovine see's Curation as their USP and it's better than Tidal's Lossless. Most people sue the "Radio" aspects for music discovery on these services and Beats curation service is probably the best on the market. They're hiring influencers in the market to help with Curation like Zane Lowe. But Google / Spotify could catch-up.

I will say this: Apple normally enters markets where nothing has settled or stuck. The iPod was the first great MP3 player. iTunes first great MP3 store. iPhone first great smartphone. Then others followed suit in the Apple mould. They follow some UX principles always. Copy the ecosystems etc. This time, Spotify in particular has already set the benchmark. Streaming is already a mass-consumed service. You can't even say the same for Wearables. Apple were genuinely late with this one. So late, they had to buy a consumer facing brand that already works in this space in Beats. That NEVER happens.

 

[Harry B]

The software is similar to Spotify which has 12m subscribers. As you can see they've also swiped the design and UX.

Their margins for the $9.99 will be similar to Spotify/Google/Beats. Their margins will be made greater in that Lossless package that nobody wants. You've got to think their competitors will release a Lossless version and have a much narrower margin for when that is introduced.

According to them it will in future pay 2-3 times more, less spent on staff and marketing? Dynamic deals with publishers?
I don't know how but it's music business people involved, Spotify marketing bucks have been amazingly huge and the plan is to dominate the market and set themselves up to be able to deliver higher returns to artists/wider margins per song.

I read about some "no name" band that said that before they bought it, 0.0240 is what they got which is 3 times higher than Spotify didn't mention if it was the lossless or the normal subs, I'm assuming that they pay out one fee instead of paying taxes twice. There's no indication of the $9.99 option not being in the same range.


Except the BS ass presentation, I don't see the problem, who the hell wants a monopoly?
Not that I'm going to switch to anything just yet but competition is needed.

 

[Mike Otherz]

The software is similar to Spotify which has 12m subscribers. As you can see they've also swiped the design and UX.

Their margins for the $9.99 will be similar to Spotify/Google/Beats. Their margins will be made greater in that Lossless package that nobody wants. You've got to think their competitors will release a Lossless version and have a much narrower margin for when that is introduced.



Artists do make money off Spotify just not as much as downloads. Artists complained about iTunes for a long time because it's not as profitable as CD's.

Tidal's $10 service will likely pay artists a similar rate to Spotify because of the margins.

Unless Apple decides it can make music a Loss leader in its product portfolio and charge $5.. the margins again. will be similar.

Apple is brilliant at creating great designs & UX for physical products which become status symbols. That doesn't translate so well for software. They are also great at putting great existing technologies into that package but I don't see how they can make the Beats subscription service much better than the competition. Iovine see's Curation as their USP and it's better than Tidal's Lossless. Most people sue the "Radio" aspects for music discovery on these services and Beats curation service is probably the best on the market. They're hiring influencers in the market to help with Curation like Zane Lowe. But Google / Spotify could catch-up.

I will say this: Apple normally enters markets where nothing has settled or stuck. The iPod was the first great MP3 player. iTunes first great MP3 store. iPhone first great smartphone. Then others followed suit in the Apple mould. They follow some UX principles always. Copy the ecosystems etc. This time, Spotify in particular has already set the benchmark. Streaming is already a mass-consumed service. You can't even say the same for Wearables. Apple were genuinely late with this one. So late, they had to buy a consumer facing brand that already works in this space in Beats. That NEVER happens.

how do you know that though? you keep saying that as if its set in stone. i’ve seen people who have tested tidal and said they are sticking with it. im not one of them but to say no one cares. thats pretty declaritive. you gonna have to poll music consumers first before we get an idea of what people want. i doubt they neeed millions of users. they have 500, 000 paying subscribers already shyt they already doing good. thats a good independent company.

 

[Mike Otherz]

According to them it will in future pay 2-3 times more, less spent on staff and marketing? Dynamic deals with publishers?
I don't know how but it's music business people involved, Spotify marketing bucks have been amazingly huge and the plan is to dominate the market and set themselves up to be able to deliver higher returns to artists and also higher margins per song.

I read about some "no name" band that said that before they bought it 0.0240 is what they got which is 3 times higher than Spotify didn't mention if it was the lossless or the normal subs, I'm assuming that they pay out one fee instead of paying taxes twice. There's no indication of the $9.99 option not being in the same range.

what are you referring to here? who paid out 3 times higher than spottily?

 

[Harry B]

what are you referring to here? who paid out 3 times higher than spottily?

The company Aspire which owns WIMP (now the Tidal $9.99 option) and Tidal (formerly only the $19.99 option).

 

[nieman]

According to them it will in future pay 2-3 times more, less spent on staff and marketing? Dynamic deals with publishers?
I don't know how but it's music business people involved, Spotify marketing bucks have been amazingly huge and the plan is to dominate the market and set themselves up to be able to deliver higher returns to artists/wider margins per song.

I read about some "no name" band that said that before they bought it, 0.0240 is what they got which is 3 times higher than Spotify didn't mention if it was the lossless or the normal subs, I'm assuming that they pay out one fee instead of paying taxes twice. There's no indication of the $9.99 option not being in the same range.


Except the BS ass presentation, I don't see the problem, who the hell wants a monopoly?
Not that I'm going to switch to anything just yet but competition is needed.

But unless these artists are free agents, the music is still owned by their label, who will definitely take their cut...maybe even higher.