Anyone bold/dumb/rich enough to try this mess out? I can't tell from the articles if they are promising exclusive tracks or if its just baloney wrapped in cheese. It sounds like a fucking mess though. I'd love to hear a review.

If Beats Music couldn't pull it off despite having Dre and Trent Reznor running things, what makes Jay-Z think he can? Or is he just hoping to get just enough traction and brand awareness to sell to a major tech company, like Beats did?

Anyway - they're offering a 30 day trial, so I'll probably try it. But I already pay £7.99/month to Google for my Google Play Music subscription, and I'm very happy with the service.

He changed the price to $10. He knew good and well nobody was going to pay $20 for that ish. Anyone who purchases this is insane OR a major Jay Z stan. They have much cheaper music stream outlets e.g. Rhapsody, Spotify, itunes etc. Why pay $10 for the same service you can get for free or for a much cheaper price? He is trying to get money from loyal fans based on something they can get for free because their favorite artists are signed up on the deal. Marketing 101. Its a stupid move when you have youtube, google etc all these other free and less expensive services.

[Edited 3/30/15 16:03pm]

One of the most pretentious displays of clueless cognitive dissonace EVER. Could they be douchier? As if kids breathlessly waiting for beyonces album have 9.99/month? They hare SO out of touch with their customer, and have zero connection to understanding the psychology of the customer. And on top of that...because its revolutionary that we should worry about Madonna losing money.

Had they included a line-up of unknowns and indies and on the verge artists WITH A STAKE they could be seen as crusaders, but no. They decided to be ass-y and pretend victims.


http://gawker.com/the-wor...socialflow

Militant said:

Or is he just hoping to get just enough traction and brand awareness to sell to a major tech company, like Beats did?

.

Pump and dump!!

.

Can't imagine this will still be around in two years, but we'll see...

Beyoncé, Rihanna, Nicki Minaj, Madonna, Usher, Calvin Harris @ Tidal Press Conference 2015.

'‘The first ever artist-owned global music and entertainment platform''. Say what?

Not to defend Jay in any way, but this is something artists need to get behind. I knew the average person is LIKE why i should care if Taylor Swift or Madonna or Beyonce's record sales suffer because of things like Spotify. But sorry that is just DUMB to say or think, and here is the big picture. Taylor and Beyonce and Katy Perry are about 1% of the recording industry, and even less of the artists that put out music. So to think that every artist that has a contract or an album is a millionare and paid again is stupid thinking. Look at some of the ORG's faves here, Van Hunt dude is collecting and fund raising to do a record, he my friends is the motherfucking majority of artists not the minority. And please dont give me that shit, oh make your money on your touring. Really, you think Van Hunt or Elle Varner or some other low key artists are making money on tours? Sorry, unless you are madonna or Elton or Jovi etc.. with a huge sponsorship and corporate behind you, you are not making money on your tour, you are counting every fucking $$ plain and simple. Spotify and some other streaming outlets pay an average of 4 cents for a track to an artist, do the math people. Now again Im not a Jay Z fan at all, an this is pure EGO driven for sure, BUT artists need to start getting the fucking hands out their pockets, between labels, spotify, iTunes etc....its worse than it ever was.

And also people who bitch and moan about quality, well the reason you arent seeing it is because there is no revenue in Music, so choose your side, stop bitching music sucks and talent sucks and this and that and get behind something that needs to change for the majority of artists. No other form of work lets you get work for free, now with streams basically ripped just as easily as downloading files from napster was in the day, shit has to change

CandaceS said:

Militant said:

Or is he just hoping to get just enough traction and brand awareness to sell to a major tech company, like Beats did?

.

Pump and dump!!

.

Can't imagine this will still be around in two years, but we'll see...

I think you hit the nail on the head, pump & dump - if they get that far. They have only 540,000 subscribers compared to the subscriber base of the other two major services thats nothing.

I pay spotify, but mainly use itunes podcasts - im not really a pop music customer anymore but i do buy some albums.

It makes no sense if they fdon't al lpull their music fromt he other services though. Taylor has some real balls in pulling her music from Spotify, interesting she's not involved here.

Also the problem is still the cut the artists gets from the service - and thats not the consumers problem. Thats the record label>artist>streaming service problem....just jacking the price up makes them come off very very badly.

If music is to only be an 'upscale' product now ....I mean REALLY?

Prince is STILL the one to have really put his actions where his mouth was years ago, and I bet you none of this tribe w Tidal will pull their music from the other services.

lastdecember said:

Not to defend Jay in any way, but this is something artists need to get behind. I knew the average person is LIKE why i should care if Taylor Swift or Madonna or Beyonce's record sales suffer because of things like Spotify. But sorry that is just DUMB to say or think, and here is the big picture. Taylor and Beyonce and Katy Perry are about 1% of the recording industry, and even less of the artists that put out music. So to think that every artist that has a contract or an album is a millionare and paid again is stupid thinking. Look at some of the ORG's faves here, Van Hunt dude is collecting and fund raising to do a record, he my friends is the motherfucking majority of artists not the minority. And please dont give me that shit, oh make your money on your touring. Really, you think Van Hunt or Elle Varner or some other low key artists are making money on tours? Sorry, unless you are madonna or Elton or Jovi etc.. with a huge sponsorship and corporate behind you, you are not making money on your tour, you are counting every fucking $$ plain and simple. Spotify and some other streaming outlets pay an average of 4 cents for a track to an artist, do the math people. Now again Im not a Jay Z fan at all, an this is pure EGO driven for sure, BUT artists need to start getting the fucking hands out their pockets, between labels, spotify, iTunes etc....its worse than it ever was.

And also people who bitch and moan about quality, well the reason you arent seeing it is because there is no revenue in Music, so choose your side, stop bitching music sucks and talent sucks and this and that and get behind something that needs to change for the majority of artists. No other form of work lets you get work for free, now with streams basically ripped just as easily as downloading files from napster was in the day, shit has to change

You're RIGHT, but it has to change from the record label > streaming service side. let the customer pay the 4.95/month...and maybe $2 more for the high-def

Identity said:

'‘The first ever artist-owned global music and entertainment platform''.

What about Garth Brooks' GhostTunes & Neil Young's Pono?

[Edited 3/30/15 17:30pm]

mjscarousal said:

He changed the price to $10. He knew good and well nobody was going to pay $20 for that ish.

Tidal offers two pricing options: $9.99 for for standard sound quality, HD videos and $19.99 for lossless High Fidelity music files and HD videos.

can somebody please explain why you would pay a monthly fee to listen to music?

The art of the record collection is dying.

MickyDolenz said:

Identity said:

'‘The first ever artist-owned global music and entertainment platform''.

What about Garth Brooks' GhostTunes & Neil Young's Pono?

Overshadowed in the international news by Jay'-Z Tidal , apparently.

lastdecember said:

Not to defend Jay in any way, but this is something artists need to get behind. I knew the average person is LIKE why i should care if Taylor Swift or Madonna or Beyonce's record sales suffer because of things like Spotify. But sorry that is just DUMB to say or think, and here is the big picture. Taylor and Beyonce and Katy Perry are about 1% of the recording industry, and even less of the artists that put out music. So to think that every artist that has a contract or an album is a millionare and paid again is stupid thinking. Look at some of the ORG's faves here, Van Hunt dude is collecting and fund raising to do a record, he my friends is the motherfucking majority of artists not the minority. And please dont give me that shit, oh make your money on your touring. Really, you think Van Hunt or Elle Varner or some other low key artists are making money on tours? Sorry, unless you are madonna or Elton or Jovi etc.. with a huge sponsorship and corporate behind you, you are not making money on your tour, you are counting every fucking $$ plain and simple. Spotify and some other streaming outlets pay an average of 4 cents for a track to an artist, do the math people. Now again Im not a Jay Z fan at all, an this is pure EGO driven for sure, BUT artists need to start getting the fucking hands out their pockets, between labels, spotify, iTunes etc....its worse than it ever was.

And also people who bitch and moan about quality, well the reason you arent seeing it is because there is no revenue in Music, so choose your side, stop bitching music sucks and talent sucks and this and that and get behind something that needs to change for the majority of artists. No other form of work lets you get work for free, now with streams basically ripped just as easily as downloading files from napster was in the day, shit has to change

I would agree with this post if there were indie and independent artists included in this deal but there not. Its the same elite group mainstream artists that are benefiting from this. Also, I am still confused with how this streaming service is any different from some of the less expensive ones. How is this service distinct? How is this stream benefiting the consumer? I don't get that from the conference presentation. All I see are a bunch of pop stars trying to take advantage of their hard core fans by fooling them into buying a service that they can get for free else where. Most of the artists that were in the presentation make a ton of money touring so I am not sure what the point of this whole "revolution stream" shit they are trying to market

Streaming music services are meant to accomodate the consumer not the other way around. If these pop stars pull their songs/catalogs from those other services... I think it will back fire. Nobody is not going to pay $10 or 20 dollars a month for this when they can go on youtube for free or other less expensive services to get music and watch music videos. The hard cores might put our but the average listener is not going to.

lowkey said:

can somebody please explain why you would pay a monthly fee to listen to music?

this! itunes is amazing - radio stations - podcasts - theres so many ways that are free.

lowkey said:

can somebody please explain why you would pay a monthly fee to listen to music?

Some benefits of joining Tidal should includes a free t-shirt, access to advance concert tickets, special offers, exclusive contests, etc. Otherwise, it seems like a waste of cash.

Thanks identity for clarification

terrig said:

One of the most pretentious displays of clueless cognitive dissonace EVER. Could they be douchier? As if kids breathlessly waiting for beyonces album have 9.99/month? They hare SO out of touch with their customer, and have zero connection to understanding the psychology of the customer. And on top of that...because its revolutionary that we should worry about Madonna losing money.

Had they included a line-up of unknowns and indies and on the verge artists WITH A STAKE they could be seen as crusaders, but no. They decided to be ass-y and pretend victims.


http://gawker.com/the-wor...socialflow

Such a GREAT post, thanks!

Madonna makes a ton of money through touring and other ventures, why is she apart of this? Same with Beyonce, Jay Z, Nikki, Rihanna etc they ALL make most of their money from other avenues non related to music so there reasons for doing this are pretty self serving. None of them tweeted one thing on Ferguson, Black Live Matters or "I Can't Breathe" hashtag but they want me to buy their music and watch their videos that I can get for free?

They won't see a dime from me. I will stick to youtube

mjscarousal said:

Thanks identity for clarification

terrig said:

One of the most pretentious displays of clueless cognitive dissonace EVER. Could they be douchier? As if kids breathlessly waiting for beyonces album have 9.99/month? They hare SO out of touch with their customer, and have zero connection to understanding the psychology of the customer. And on top of that...because its revolutionary that we should worry about Madonna losing money.

Had they included a line-up of unknowns and indies and on the verge artists WITH A STAKE they could be seen as crusaders, but no. They decided to be ass-y and pretend victims.


http://gawker.com/the-wor...socialflow

Such a GREAT post, thanks!

Madonna makes a ton of money through touring and other ventures, why is she apart of this? Same with Beyonce, Jay Z, Nikki, Rihanna etc they ALL make most of their money from other avenues non related to music so there reasons for doing this are pretty self serving. None of them tweeted one thing on Ferguson, Black Live Matters or "I Can't Breathe" hashtag but they want me to buy their music and watch their videos that I can get for free?

They won't see a dime from me. I will stick to youtube

Had they added what identity said about special access for concerts special merch/gear or perks...it could make some sense...but instead they have to involve us in their 'revolution' of making them richer. And for the record....Im a business person who likes making money....I dont begrudge anyone their right to become a millionaire.

But it's REALLY HARD to sit here and look at all lthese people with more money than i'l ever see try get fans to pay them $20/month because they feel they are being cheated. THE REORD COMPANIES AND SPOTIFY IS CHEATING THEM. NOT THE CUSTOMERS. Their pricing will sink them. They should have made it the same price as spotify so people can easily swith their alliance.

ps: i have no idea what happened to this text when i saved it lololol

[Edited 3/30/15 18:51pm]

terrig said:

mjscarousal said:

Thanks identity for clarification

Such a GREAT post, thanks!

Madonna makes a ton of money through touring and other ventures, why is she apart of this? Same with Beyonce, Jay Z, Nikki, Rihanna etc they ALL make most of their money from other avenues non related to music so there reasons for doing this are pretty self serving. None of them tweeted one thing on Ferguson, Black Live Matters or "I Can't Breathe" hashtag but they want me to buy their music and watch their videos that I can get for free?

They won't see a dime from me. I will stick to youtube

Had they added what identity said about special access for concerts special merch/gear or perks...it could make some sense...but instead they have to involve us in their 'revolution' of making them richer. And for the record....Im a business person who likes making money....I dont begrudge anyone their right to become a millionaire.

But it's REALLY HARD to sit here and look at all lthese people with more money than i'l ever see try get fans to pay them $20/month because they feel they are being cheated. THE REORD COMPANIES AND SPOTIFY IS CHEATING THEM. NOT THE CUSTOMERS. Their pricing will sink them. They should have made it the same price as spotify so people can easily swith their alliance.

ps: i have no idea what happened to this text when i saved it lololol

[Edited 3/30/15 18:51pm]

But even without perks, lets say they just wanted to start their own stream music service. Why not price the service lower to around 3.99 or 4.99? Why price it 10 or 20 dollars when there are much cheaper services? What does this service have that the other services don't have? Either they are money hungry greedy pop stars or they are simply out of touch with the socioeconomics of their consumers. I am all for celebrities trying to make money as well but like you pointed out its hard to take these rich pop stars seriously when they do shady stuff like this.

They want to bamboozle their fans into buying their music because they think they are being cheated. It also leaves a bad taste in my mouth when these same pop stars did not utter one word on any of the social issues around innocent victims (consumers) that have been killed over the last several months by police but yet they want my money? They only seem to care about consumers when they can get money out of you otherwise they could give a damn if you get shot at in the street. I don't see how anybody could put money in any of these peoples pockets especially The Carters.

mjscarousal said:

terrig said:

Had they added what identity said about special access for concerts special merch/gear or perks...it could make some sense...but instead they have to involve us in their 'revolution' of making them richer. And for the record....Im a business person who likes making money....I dont begrudge anyone their right to become a millionaire.

But it's REALLY HARD to sit here and look at all lthese people with more money than i'l ever see try get fans to pay them $20/month because they feel they are being cheated. THE REORD COMPANIES AND SPOTIFY IS CHEATING THEM. NOT THE CUSTOMERS. Their pricing will sink them. They should have made it the same price as spotify so people can easily swith their alliance.

ps: i have no idea what happened to this text when i saved it lololol

[Edited 3/30/15 18:51pm]

But even without perks, lets say they just wanted to start their own stream music service. Why not price the service lower to around 3.99 or 4.99? Why price it 10 or 20 dollars when there are much cheaper services? What does this service have that the other services don't have? Either they are money hungry greedy pop stars or they are simply out of touch with the socioeconomics of their consumers. I am all for celebrities trying to make money as well but like you pointed out its hard to take these rich pop stars seriously when they do shady stuff like this.

They want to bamboozle their fans into buying their music because they think they are being cheated. It also leaves a bad taste in my mouth when these same pop stars did not utter one word on any of the social issues around innocent victims (consumers) that have been killed over the last several months by police but yet they want my money? They only seem to care about consumers when they can get money out of you otherwise they could give a damn if you get shot at in the street. I don't see how anybody could put money in any of these peoples pockets especially The Carters.

I agree! At least when I spend my money on Prince I know the man is keeping paisley park afloat and feeding some starving proteges

mjscarousal said:

terrig said:

But it's REALLY HARD to sit here and look at all these people with more money than i'l ever see try get fans to pay them $20/month because they feel they are being cheated.

I have to agree.These artists are filthy rich.Madonna is damn near a billionaire Don't get me wrong,I support the artists that I like by buying their CDs and going to their concerts.But I'm not gonna lose any sleep just because they're losing a little money and feel that they're being cheated.At the end of the day,they're still extremely wealthy.I'm not crying any tears for them,lol.

lastdecember said:

mjscarousal said:

I would agree with this post if there were indie and independent artists included in this deal but there not. Its the same elite group mainstream artists that are benefiting from this. Also, I am still confused with how this streaming service is any different from some of the less expensive ones. How is this service distinct? How is this stream benefiting the consumer? I don't get that from the conference presentation. All I see are a bunch of pop stars trying to take advantage of their hard core fans by fooling them into buying a service that they can get for free else where. Most of the artists that were in the presentation make a ton of money touring so I am not sure what the point of this whole "revolution stream" shit they are trying to market

Streaming music services are meant to accomodate the consumer not the other way around. If these pop stars pull their songs/catalogs from those other services... I think it will back fire. Nobody is not going to pay $10 or 20 dollars a month for this when they can go on youtube for free or other less expensive services to get music and watch music videos. The hard cores might put our but the average listener is not going to.

Thing is though you aren't gonna launch an idea with no names, I mean I dig Van Hunt but who the hell would be batting an eyelash to him doing this? He is known by about 0.000001% of the music listeners, and that's not slighting him that's realism, u can't launch anything without a name or names so yes it's gonna look like oh the fucking elite want money for shit. I mean the fact is that 90% doc the music consumers about who worked on a record what it cost what studio who played on it, album art. We can all champion things like Reocrd Store day and shit like that but that type of consumer is dead and buried, because of the simplicity of the way music is made treated and distributed.

The other thing I can't figure out whats different for the artist (outside of the stakeholders) whats the difference in the artists payout? No ones talking about that.

at Jay Z.s press conference today:Rihanna,Alicia Keyes,Madonna,Beyonce

MotownSubdivision said:

The art of the record collection is dying.

Not for me,it isn't I still buy vinyl records,and CDs too.Young kids love to download music,but I'm old school...lol...It's important for me to have the physical copy.

I wonder what Prince thinks of this service The fact that it's artist-owned,should appeal to him.