independent and unofficial
Prince fan community
Welcome! Sign up or enter username and password to remember me
Forum jump
Forums > Music: Non-Prince > Jay-Z's epic, game-changing, $20/monthly not Spotify
« Previous topic  Next topic »
Page 4 of 6 <123456>
  New topic   Printable     (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)
Reply #90 posted 04/01/15 1:39pm

purplethunder3
121

avatar

Graycap23 said:

CandaceS said:

.

Yeah, the great tix (at face price) via NPGMC were sweet! cool Now if only P could do something like that again...

Prince isn't big on returning 2 the scene of the crime.

You mean he just wants to Hit'n'Run... razz

"Music gives a soul to the universe, wings to the mind, flight to the imagination and life to everything." --Plato

https://youtu.be/CVwv9LZMah0
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #91 posted 04/01/15 2:22pm

Cinny

avatar

Graycap23 said:

CandaceS said:

.

Yeah, the great tix (at face price) via NPGMC were sweet! cool Now if only P could do something like that again...

Prince isn't big on returning 2 the scene of the crime.

totally. I am not holding my breath. I think the greatness of NPGMC is what set the standard so high for lotusflower dot com.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #92 posted 04/01/15 2:47pm

1contessa

I'm done with making these greedy entertainers richer than they already are.....no thank you Jay Z and the rest of them.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #93 posted 04/01/15 3:21pm

laurarichardso
n

Graycap23 said:



missfee said:




SoulAlive said:


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



I wouldn't be surprised if Prince was currently conjuring up a production of his own "artist owned" music streaming service, however, how cool would it be if this steaming service only showcased his music...including music from his vault, music he's produced and/or written for others as well as featuring music of his proteges??? Only thing is, we know P would probably charge and arm, a leg and a neckbone in monthly fees.neutral



Prince already went down that road. His attention span lasted 2 years.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #94 posted 04/01/15 6:19pm

NaughtyKitty

avatar

lol

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #95 posted 04/01/15 6:42pm

SoulAlive

Wow! lol
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #96 posted 04/01/15 8:29pm

purplethunder3
121

avatar

eek

"Music gives a soul to the universe, wings to the mind, flight to the imagination and life to everything." --Plato

https://youtu.be/CVwv9LZMah0
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #97 posted 04/01/15 8:36pm

mjscarousal

NaughtyKitty said:

lol

Well damn! lol lol

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #98 posted 04/01/15 9:38pm

Scorp

its' all over, stop being about the music a long time ago

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #99 posted 04/01/15 10:56pm

lowkey

Militant said:

Why would you pay for streaming music? Simple - the same reason you pay your water bill. For access to water when you need or want it.

I pay 7.99/month for Google Play Music, which IMO is the best service out there.

What Google provide with their service is:

- access to some 30million+ songs

- a "cloud locker" of 50,000 songs where you can upload your music.

What does this mean? It means I have access to my ENTIRE music collection, anywhere I go. All the rare funk and hip-hop stuff, single releases, b-sides, outtakes, etc. All that's in my cloud locker. And on top of that - all the music in their library of over 30 million. All the music I could ever want, plus all the music I already own, plus curated playlists, PLUS YouTube content (recently became part of Google Music via the YouTube Key merge). All in one place, accessible, from all my devices (desktop, three laptops, tablet, smart TV, phone, etc).

I love the service, but despite all the benefits, I think this price is probably too high as well, and if they'd get it down to 4.99 I'd shout from the rooftops about it even more than I already do.

Now, I believe Apple's purchase of Beats is to create a similar service within iTunes (they still don't have a streaming platform) that is said to launch this summer.

Between Google (some 80% of the mobile market with Android) and Apple (10-15%) they have the smart device market sown up, and both Google Play Music and iTunes obviously ship on these devices out of the box. Spotify has been around long enough to have developed serious partnerships, so it comes preinstalled on some devices like HTC devices, and you get a free 6 month premium subscription with a lot of cellphone service plans these days like with Vodafone here in the UK.

Tidal doesn't have the advantage of shipping on any devices, and it doesn't have the advantage of being around long enough to develop strategic partnerships like Spotify and even Deezer have done.

Even Beats Music, with it's huge brand name, was struggling in the marketplace before Apple bought the company.

I predict Tidal will crash and burn within a year.

are you serious with this analogy? i listen to music free every single day, ihave no need to pay endless streaming. i cant get my water free.i refuse to pay a monthly fee for anything i can get free. i have a free pandora station for all my favorite artists and they play a bunch of similar artists songs, i also listen to music on youtube, and i still buy physical cd's if i love the album.i stand by my comment...there is no reason to pay a monthly fee/bill to listen to music.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #100 posted 04/01/15 11:08pm

mjscarousal

Jay-z Speaks On Spotify, Ferguson & "The Rich Get Richer" Theme

How does TIDAL tend to shift its current perception as a pretentious, self-serving platform for the musical elite, to one referencing the brand essence of being all and for all artists?


J: I guess by having a conversation, and telling people what it is. That opinion came before we even explained what it was — "This thing is horrible! … What is it?" You know? You never hear Tim Cook's net worth whenever he tries to sell you something. Steve Jobs, God bless, he had to have been pretty rich — nobody's ever said, "Oh, the rich getting richer! I won't buy an iPhone!" Yeah, right. It's not about being pretentious; again, this is a thing for all artists. You pay $9.99 for Spotify, so why not $9.99 for TIDAL. We're not asking for anything else, we're just saying that we'll spread that money to artists more fairly. We're not saying anything other than that, and we're saying that we're in a position to bring light to this issue. We're using our power that way. And of course there are greater causes, of course. This is not mutually exclusive — there are other problems, real problems going on in the world. We don't miss the problems; we try to take care of them all. Imagine the President: he has to take care of ISIS, gay rights, equal pay for women, discrimination — all at the same time! So, you can't say "You started this site when you should be out in St. Louis!" It's like, okay, J. Cole is out in St. Louis. I wasn't in St. Louis, but I was in the governor's office. Because, we can march all day long but if the laws don't change, then we'll be marching again and it'll just be a different slogan on the shirt, and that's a greater tragedy as well. Everyone has to play their part, everyone has to do different things, and it all has to happen at the same time.

How is TIDAL's payout structure for artists different from competitors such as Spotify?
J: I know everyone thinks "new company, main business competitor is Spotify" but we're really not here to compete with anyone, we're actually here to improve the landscape. If just the presence of TIDAL causes other companies to have better pay structure, or to pay more attention to it moving forward, then we've been successful in one way. So we don't really view them as competitors. As the tide rises, all the boats rise.

This was also interesting
What exactly were the contents of the document that was signed during the press conference?
J: Just a declaration that we're going to work really hard to improve what's going on in the pay system as we know it. You guys may have seen some of the stats like, Aloe Blacc had a song that was streamed 168 million times and he got paid $4,000. For us, it's not us standing here saying we're poor musicians. If you provide a service, you should be compensated for it. And not just artists — just think about the writers and the producers. Like an artist can go do a Pepsi deal or something — I shouldn't have singled out Pepsi — but they can go get an endorsement deal somewhere and you know, go on tour and sustain themselves, it helps their lifestyle. But what about the writers who do that for a living? The producers? That's it for them. What about Jahlil Beats, who produced Bobby Shmurda's "Hot N**ga"? He went on to get a $2 million record deal or whatever, and Jahlil Beats just put the song out. So he wasn't compensated for that song at all. There are dozens — more than dozens, there are thousands and thousands of those sorts of stories of someone who worked at their craft, worked really hard at the studio, they did their job and people loved it and consumed it and they just went home. I think we'll lose a lot of great writers in the future because you have to do something else, because you can't sustain a lifestyle, and I think that's a shame. That someone has that talent and just isn't being compensated because someone needed a business to profit off of their work. And we've seen that time and time again, we've seen it time and time again. Companies that pretend to care about music and really care about other things — whether it be hardware, whether it be advertising — and now they look at music as a loss leader. And we know music isn't a loss leader, music is an important part of our lives.

Only 4k lmaooo #shit #lookattheflickofthe wrist
whole interview
http://www.thefader.com/2...rded-music

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #101 posted 04/02/15 12:04am

lowkey

they turned people off with the whole presentation. instead of having real tech people explain the benefits of this product and what makes it better than whats already out there jay z thought he good just parade a bunch of big name artists in front of us and their fans would automatically jump on board.they looked like a bunch of rich narcissists coming together to con their loyal followers out of their money.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #102 posted 04/02/15 12:52am

mjscarousal

lowkey said:

they turned people off with the whole presentation. instead of having real tech people explain the benefits of this product and what makes it better than whats already out there jay z thought he good just parade a bunch of big name artists in front of us and their fans would automatically jump on board.they looked like a bunch of rich narcissists coming together to con their loyal followers out of their money.

Great post, thats pretty much what it was. lol It looks like now Jay is doing damage control because it backfired

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #103 posted 04/02/15 7:34am

Cinny

avatar

lowkey said:

they turned people off with the whole presentation. instead of having real tech people explain the benefits of this product and what makes it better than whats already out there jay z thought he good just parade a bunch of big name artists in front of us and their fans would automatically jump on board.they looked like a bunch of rich narcissists coming together to con their loyal followers out of their money.

I don't think anyone really liked that presentation, except the yes men of all those artists.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #104 posted 04/02/15 10:00am

missfee

avatar

Graycap23 said:

TheGoldStandard said:

He's referring to lotusflow3r.com lol

NPG Music Club and LotusFlow3r.

faint Aww snap how did I forget that!!! But I guess I don't really look at NPGMC as a streaming service...it was more like what iTunes is now. Lotus was for sure a ripoff (though I was one of the lucky few who DID receive the shirt), but NPGMC was the absolute best. I got to see P front row at the MCI (now Verizon) center in DC, August 2004 because of it and cherish that experience to this very day...music

[Edited 4/2/15 10:01am]

I will forever love and miss you...my sweet Prince.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #105 posted 04/02/15 8:06pm

SoulAlive

I found this very interesting commentary on another forum.....what do you guys think? hmmm

Why do some people think they're "entitled" to free music?

This younger generation is ridiculously entitled and have grown up in an environment promoting free ownership of music. Also, unfortunately, many poor people immediately hate on those with money and throw logic and reason out the window when it comes to them, as a result. And, they have been used to getting help, hand-me-downs, aid and assistance from either the government or those who have money. So, for them to, seemingly, have to start paying for something they've been getting for free is a huge insult to them and is seen as yet another "rich getting richer, poor getting poorer" scenario.

Thing is, on what are they listening to this streaming music? Isn't it on a relatively expensive, electronic device you had to pay for? What would happen if streaming music or file-sharing was never invented? Wouldn't you, then, have to count on getting your free music by listening to the radio? And, what would happen if you loved a song so much that you wanted to own it for yourself? You'd have to go and, GASP, BUY it! And, as so many have said, what would happen if, at pay day, employees of a company opened up their envelopes and saw their paychecks reading $0.00? A riot would ensue! But, somehow, it's ok for artists not to be paid for their work? I don't think so.

Also, not being able to make money off their work does create an environment where artists either don't have the time or lose their interest in pursuing their art, thereby drastically limiting the amount of quality art out there, which would allow for more crap "art" to be available to the masses, significantly influencing what is mentally perceived and accepted as true art. SO many affects!

Thing is, you want free music? Listen to the radio. You want the LUXURY of being able to own music and manipulate what you listen to and when? Then, you gotsta BUY the music. Plain and simple.


  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #106 posted 04/02/15 8:59pm

MotownSubdivis
ion

I agree with that article, Soul but Tidal is nothing more than a "rich get richer" scheme and neither Jay nor his partners in crime are going to convince people otherwise.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #107 posted 04/02/15 9:17pm

SoulAlive

MotownSubdivision said:

I agree with that article, Soul but Tidal is nothing more than a "rich get richer" scheme and neither Jay nor his partners in crime are going to convince people otherwise.

I agree.That article really puts things in perspective! This is an interesting discussion.We'll see how this all plays out.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #108 posted 04/02/15 10:19pm

SoulAlive

Tidal Addresses the Backlash: 'There's So Much More to Do'

By Andrew Hampp and Glenn Peoples | April 01, 2015 5:54 PM EDT

Roc Nation's chief investment officer and Tidal's chief industry liaison talks to Billboard about Alicia Keys' speech, artist royalties and the hard work ahead.

If nothing else, Jay Z has got the nation talking about music subscription services. Tidal, the music subscription service Jay Z acquired for $56 million through a purchase of Aspiro AB, has been covered everywhere from NBC's The Today Show to NPR's All Things Considered and everywhere in between. Not bad for the reboot of a high-definition streaming service that had previously -- and quietly -- launched in late 2014.

But Tidal's re-launch, press event and overall message haven't been a complete success. Much of the public and media were either cynical or confused that 16 wealthy musicians demanding higher royalties were leading a Castro-style takeover of a subscription service. A nod to the Cuban Revolution isn't out of place here, especially given the tone of Alicia Keys' speech at Monday's press event. As Jay Z tells Billboard, artists involved in Tidal will be equity owners "in some kind of way" and will share in its success. Other commentators have noted that Tidal's plan to release exclusive content could anger fans using other services.

Vania Schlogel, Tidal's chief investment officer and chief industry liaison, sees things differently. Schlogel, who joined Roc Nation as chief investment officer in December after spending nearly six years with private equity firm KKR, says artists are being criticized merely for doing something different. "There is some bravery for what these artists are trying to do. It's not to fill their own pockets, it’s to create a sustainable industry."

Billboard: It's 48 hours after the big announcement. How are you feeling?

Vania Schlogel: Everybody’s super buzzed and excited. It’s awesome because the proof of concept is out there, but there still isn’t much sleep for a while.

There was a manager meeting Tuesday morning with Guy Oseary (Madonna), Ron Laffitte (Alicia Keys), Ian Montone (Jack White), Lee Anne Callahan-Longo (Beyonce) and others. What was discussed and how was the vibe?

It was a great meeting -- not that uncommon, obviously, because there’s not just one person who sort of makes creative decisions. It’s a real group effort. So we have these meetings very routinely. I think everybody felt really great about the fact that we’ve launched Tidal, and now there’s so much more to do -- we can do anything. Like “Hey, can we do this, can we do that going forward?” Then we just stopped and realized we can do anything.

What we’re promising to people is, “This is gonna continue to evolve,” and we really mean that. We’re a young company, we just took control of it not that long ago, so if anyone is skeptical at all about, “Hey you don’t have that feature or that activity in it,” just bear with us, hold, wait, be patient and invest that time because the artists, me, everyone want to deliver something that’s going to be incredible and continue to evolve.

Were there specific questions or concerns by the managers?

Yeah, like, “Hey we want to reach out to some of the people who signed up for Tidal yesterday." So that’s in the works. For example, there’s gonna be direct artist contact like, “Hey, thank you for supporting this.” There’s just been ideas about -- without giving out any marketing plans to competitors -- there’s been ideas around the artist showing up in places in an organic way to interact with people. It's just been crazy the level of commitment to this and shows we’re so committed.

Why did you select Alicia Keys to be the spokesperson?

It’s almost self-evident, right? You just saw her charisma and talent when she was up there. Alicia was such a great artist, someone who stands for the values of Tidal. And on top of that, her being such an elegant and poised woman to deliver that message just felt right. We were all so happy to stand there with her and have her deliver that message.

The speech Alicia delivered that quoted Nietzsche and outlined Tidal's mission, who wrote it?

That artist manifesto didn’t happen overnight. That was literally something that came as a group effort where everybody contributed. We really wanted that one to be something meaningful -- not just to do it -- and pay homage. We wanted it to be really significant and explain what Tidal is.

Explain the partnership with SoftBank and Sprint.

When the timing’s right we’ll put more meat to the bone there, for now we just feel like they’ve been very supportive in our discussions, and when the time is right we’ll unveil more of that. It was to say, "look they’ve been great partners to us thus far and we’ll continue."

Jay Z indicated that there were a group of founding investors -- can you confirm that it was 12 artists? Who was part of the second tier of four artists?

I won’t go into the details, but to us all the artists are important and they’re equally as committed to this. When it comes to the nature of their participation in the company, that’s someone else’s business.

What happens to WiMP, Aspiro's original subscription service?

We’re rationalizing the brand portfolio, and basically allowing the WiMP subscribers to migrate over to Tidal. We didn’t want to yank the rug out from anyone and say, “Wow, your service is shut off.”

So the 540,000 subscribers figure you shared last week, where do those come from?

WiMP and Tidal, all those subscribers, are from the holding company, Aspiro.

What will royalty rates look like?

Because there isn’t that free tier, the royalty payment on a per-stream basis will be multiples higher on a per-stream basis than services that offer music for free. That’s point number one. Point number two is artists that join -- when it comes down to it, technology is distribution, what they bring is the art. And without their art and their content, this distribution is meaningless. So it’s important for us fundamentally that artists participate in the equity of this company. Number one, they’re gonna be paid multiples higher than on a per-stream basis. Number two, they're gonna be participating in the equity upfront, and that’s a real, core tenet.

Some critics are already saying that yesterday’s announcement looked like a meeting of “music’s 1%,” that these were just superstars looking to make themselves richer. What would you say to that perception of Tidal?

I would almost say it’s the reverse of that. Ok, these are established artists who care enough about the sustainability of the industry, stepping out on a limb and doing this. Of course there are going to be people who are cynical. But look, at the end of the day, if any established artist goes out and gets an endorsement deal -- no one’s gonna criticize them for that because that’s how they make money. But if an established artist goes out and steps outside of the box and says, “I’m trying something different,” that invites criticism. There is some bravery for what these artists are trying to do. Its not to fill their own pockets, it’s to create a sustainable industry.

By virtue of that definition, because that is our thesis, if we’re not treating music like a loss leader, then that’s good for indie artists, emerging artists, songwriters, producers. Music is a whole industry and it takes money. The reality is it takes money to create music. It doesn’t just happen for free. We want to make sure music continues to be made, that songwriters are able to actually write songs rather than having to say, “I do a 9-to-5 in New York, and don’t have time to write songs. That doesn’t make it a sustainable industry.

Among the exclusives available at launch on Tidal, you were able to secure Daft Punk’s obscure short film Electroma, which isn’t available on any other digital video service.

That just shows the belief that Daft Punk has in this movement that we’re doing. And, by the way, that’s such a great illustration. Artists of this caliber, they could go out and do a big licensing deal and have their content go out that way, rather than including it in a platform that is just starting up and is nascent. This isn’t about the artists trying to make money, this is about the artists trying to say, “You know what? The world catalog of music is at your fingertips. Yes, that’s something that, if you really care about the music and the artists you support, then you’re gonna want to subscribe to this service or other services instead of pirating their music.” That kind of fundamental thinking is important to understand.

What do you hope Tidal accomplishes this year?

We need to fundamentally change the discourse that we’re all -- and I’m not making this an indictment -- that everybody has been trained to think that music is this cool thing in marketing used to sell other things, that music doesn’t have a value in itself. And it’s like, no we can’t do that, we can’t allow that to be the conversation in how things are going. Everybody else gets up, we go to work and do our 9-to-5, we get paid. Intrinsically music itself has a value. It doesn’t just have a value because it sold consumer electronics. We all feel that emotionally, and now it’s just making sure we marry up that emotional connection with the real understanding of all that’s gone into the industry and gone into making that song continues to produce a sustainable music industry.

You were most recently at private equity firm KKR. Did they have a role in investing in Tidal?

No, this was a purely personal passion of mine and something I really wanted to do. Madonna onstage at the Tidal launch event #TIDALforALL
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #109 posted 04/03/15 3:26pm

mjscarousal

The thing about this whole thing is, the backlash could have been easily avoided. All Jay Z had to do was explain the service, how the service is different from other services and how we as the consumer benefit from this service. That is how you sell products. You don't just call up a bunch of pop stars and ask them to show up and sign a piece of paper for a photo of OP. confused

Did Jay Z really use Aloe Blac as an example of stream numbers? Why wasn't Aloe Blacc at the press conference then signing that phony paper razz He is so full of shit! Camel said he went to the governors office during Ferguson because laws can't be changed by marching..... mad He didn't do a damn thing but pose with the governor for a photo op.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #110 posted 04/03/15 3:39pm

mjscarousal

SoulAlive said:

I found this very interesting commentary on another forum.....what do you guys think? hmmm

Why do some people think they're "entitled" to free music?

This younger generation is ridiculously entitled and have grown up in an environment promoting free ownership of music. Also, unfortunately, many poor people immediately hate on those with money and throw logic and reason out the window when it comes to them, as a result. And, they have been used to getting help, hand-me-downs, aid and assistance from either the government or those who have money. So, for them to, seemingly, have to start paying for something they've been getting for free is a huge insult to them and is seen as yet another "rich getting richer, poor getting poorer" scenario.

Thing is, on what are they listening to this streaming music? Isn't it on a relatively expensive, electronic device you had to pay for? What would happen if streaming music or file-sharing was never invented? Wouldn't you, then, have to count on getting your free music by listening to the radio? And, what would happen if you loved a song so much that you wanted to own it for yourself? You'd have to go and, GASP, BUY it! And, as so many have said, what would happen if, at pay day, employees of a company opened up their envelopes and saw their paychecks reading $0.00? A riot would ensue! But, somehow, it's ok for artists not to be paid for their work? I don't think so.

Also, not being able to make money off their work does create an environment where artists either don't have the time or lose their interest in pursuing their art, thereby drastically limiting the amount of quality art out there, which would allow for more crap "art" to be available to the masses, significantly influencing what is mentally perceived and accepted as true art. SO many affects!

Thing is, you want free music? Listen to the radio. You want the LUXURY of being able to own music and manipulate what you listen to and when? Then, you gotsta BUY the music. Plain and simple.


Thanks for sharing Soul. However, I thought this commentary was a bit jugemental. So everyone from this generation who streams music illegally doesn' work for anything in life? Because that is pretty much what this post is saying. Don't get me wrong there are a ton of things that are not right with this generation and the way this generation "thinks" but then again the same thing can be said about past generations as well. This commentator s missing the big picture though in this fiasco.

Instead of questioning why this generation feels "entitled to free music" why not question why TODAYS generation of artists feel THEY are entitled to money because of who they are and not based on the quality of a product they are trying to sell. Its almost like "Oh because your Jay Z, a rich rapper you deserve my money" to me this sends the message that everyone else in the world is beneath you and are peasants who should just give you money because of who you are. Who cares who you are, TELL ME about the product. How is this product different from other products that are on the market?That is what people want to know.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #111 posted 04/03/15 3:45pm

Qazz

Tidal has generated over 100,000 subscribers in three days. Looks like there was no "backlash." Heh. lol
"Janet Jackson is like an 80s sitcom that's been off the air for over 25 years; you see a rerun and realize it wasn't that great..."
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #112 posted 04/03/15 3:52pm

mjscarousal

Of course they are going to get some dumb people who will fall for the okie doke. lol That is really not a lot if you look at the number of other subscriptions from other services. That is actually a very small number lol They will get more subcriptions but it won't be a massive success when there are services that are free and are a lesser amount.

[Edited 4/3/15 15:53pm]

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #113 posted 04/04/15 9:28am

MotownSubdivis
ion

Qazz said:

Tidal has generated over 100,000 subscribers in three days. Looks like there was no "backlash." Heh. lol
Free trials.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #114 posted 04/04/15 9:08pm

lowkey

Qazz said:

Tidal has generated over 100,000 subscribers in three days. Looks like there was no "backlash." Heh. lol

its free for 30 days

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #115 posted 04/04/15 9:11pm

lowkey

mjscarousal said:

SoulAlive said:

I found this very interesting commentary on another forum.....what do you guys think? hmmm

Why do some people think they're "entitled" to free music?

This younger generation is ridiculously entitled and have grown up in an environment promoting free ownership of music. Also, unfortunately, many poor people immediately hate on those with money and throw logic and reason out the window when it comes to them, as a result. And, they have been used to getting help, hand-me-downs, aid and assistance from either the government or those who have money. So, for them to, seemingly, have to start paying for something they've been getting for free is a huge insult to them and is seen as yet another "rich getting richer, poor getting poorer" scenario.

Thing is, on what are they listening to this streaming music? Isn't it on a relatively expensive, electronic device you had to pay for? What would happen if streaming music or file-sharing was never invented? Wouldn't you, then, have to count on getting your free music by listening to the radio? And, what would happen if you loved a song so much that you wanted to own it for yourself? You'd have to go and, GASP, BUY it! And, as so many have said, what would happen if, at pay day, employees of a company opened up their envelopes and saw their paychecks reading $0.00? A riot would ensue! But, somehow, it's ok for artists not to be paid for their work? I don't think so.

Also, not being able to make money off their work does create an environment where artists either don't have the time or lose their interest in pursuing their art, thereby drastically limiting the amount of quality art out there, which would allow for more crap "art" to be available to the masses, significantly influencing what is mentally perceived and accepted as true art. SO many affects!

Thing is, you want free music? Listen to the radio. You want the LUXURY of being able to own music and manipulate what you listen to and when? Then, you gotsta BUY the music. Plain and simple.


Thanks for sharing Soul. However, I thought this commentary was a bit jugemental. So everyone from this generation who streams music illegally doesn' work for anything in life? Because that is pretty much what this post is saying. Don't get me wrong there are a ton of things that are not right with this generation and the way this generation "thinks" but then again the same thing can be said about past generations as well. This commentator s missing the big picture though in this fiasco.

Instead of questioning why this generation feels "entitled to free music" why not question why TODAYS generation of artists feel THEY are entitled to money because of who they are and not based on the quality of a product they are trying to sell. Its almost like "Oh because your Jay Z, a rich rapper you deserve my money" to me this sends the message that everyone else in the world is beneath you and are peasants who should just give you money because of who you are. Who cares who you are, TELL ME about the product. How is this product different from other products that are on the market?That is what people want to know.

that article is condescending as hell. so now everybody who dont pay for streaming music is poor and on goverment aid?who wrote that shit madonna?

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #116 posted 04/04/15 10:09pm

mjscarousal

lowkey said:

mjscarousal said:

Thanks for sharing Soul. However, I thought this commentary was a bit jugemental. So everyone from this generation who streams music illegally doesn' work for anything in life? Because that is pretty much what this post is saying. Don't get me wrong there are a ton of things that are not right with this generation and the way this generation "thinks" but then again the same thing can be said about past generations as well. This commentator s missing the big picture though in this fiasco.

Instead of questioning why this generation feels "entitled to free music" why not question why TODAYS generation of artists feel THEY are entitled to money because of who they are and not based on the quality of a product they are trying to sell. Its almost like "Oh because your Jay Z, a rich rapper you deserve my money" to me this sends the message that everyone else in the world is beneath you and are peasants who should just give you money because of who you are. Who cares who you are, TELL ME about the product. How is this product different from other products that are on the market?That is what people want to know.

that article is condescending as hell. so now everybody who dont pay for streaming music is poor and on goverment aid?who wrote that shit madonna?

lol lol lol

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #117 posted 04/06/15 12:33pm

JoeBala

I agree.

.

April 6, 2015 11:52

Lily Allen says Jay Z's Tidal service will make people 'swarm back to pirate sites in droves'

'I care about the future of music, I care not for the current business structure,' Allen says

Photo:
Lily Allen has criticised Jay-Z's new music streaming platform Tidal, claiming that it will lead to more piracy and illegal downloading.

The subscription service was launched by an all-star cast in New York last week (March 30) with Kanye West, Madonna, Beyoncé, Rihanna, Arcade Fire, Jack White, J Cole, Nicki Minaj, Deadmau5, Daft Punk and Alicia Keys all attending the live-streamed event.

"I love Jay Z so much, but TIDAL is [so] expensive compared to other perfectly good streaming services," Allen wrote on Twitter. "He’s taken the biggest artists & made them exclusive to TIDAL... people are going to swarm back to pirate sites in droves sending traffic to torrent sites."

Allen continued: "Up and coming artists are going to suffer as a result. Maybe I’m missing something, and really it’s amazing and will change everything for the better."

The singer later added that Spotify, Tidal's main competitor, "is not the enemy of the artist", before adding : "I don’t think music should be free, at all. But I’m afraid that we have to adapt as the world and technology advances... I care about the future of music, I care not for the current business structure."

The Project Panther Bidco company, co-owned by Jay Z, acquired Tidal from its Norwegian parent company Aspiro for 464 million kroner (about £47 million). Tidal Hifi already offers more than 25 million songs and 75,000 music videos to more than half a million subscribers in Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Germany and Poland.

Tidal launched with a number of exclusive releases for its initial subscribers. Video figures highly among the exclusives with The White Stripes' first-ever television appearance and Daft Punk’s 2006 film Electroma both available. Additionally there are playlists curated by Arcade Fire, Jay Z, Beyoncé and Coldplay.

Jay Z has said that Tidal is not a direct rival for Spotify, rather than an attempt to "strike an honest blow" in shaping the future of music.

Just Music-No Categories-Enjoy It!
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #118 posted 04/07/15 6:53am

KoolEaze

avatar

Even if I were remotely interested in signing up for TIDAL, Alicia Key´s speech would be enough for me not to sign up. Why does that woman always have to be so embarrasingly pathetic?

" I´d rather be a stank ass hoe because I´m not stupid. Oh my goodness! I got more drugs! I´m always funny dude...I´m hilarious! Are we gonna smoke?"
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #119 posted 04/07/15 9:49am

JoeBala

Erykah Badu Releases All-Star Cast Black Western Film on TIDAL

The TIDAL exclusives are really rolling in now. From Beyoncé to Rihanna, major artists have been dropped singles and videos on Jay Z’s TIDAL streaming service this past weekend.

Erykah Badu joined in on the fun with the debut of the short Western film, They Die By Dawn.


The 50-minute movie, directed by The Bullitts’ Jeymes Samuels, portrays real-life experiences of African-American cowboys and cowgirls. The all-star cast includes Badu, Michael K. Williams, Rosario Dawson, Jesse Williams, Isaiah Washington, Giancarlo Esposito, Nate Parker, Bokeem Woodbine and Karry Lennix.

“In a town with no rules, four outlaws play a deadly game. Murder and mayhem ensue, TheyDieByDawn,” Badu wrote on her Facebook.

When talking to Life + Times in 2013 of the film, Samuels said, “I’m gonna assemble almost every single real character that existed and I’m [going to] assemble them like the Avengers and put them in one place at one time — in one of the first Black settlements post-slavery, 1890 in Langston, Oklahoma.”

[via Billboard]

They Die by Dawn Poster

Just Music-No Categories-Enjoy It!
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Page 4 of 6 <123456>
  New topic   Printable     (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)
« Previous topic  Next topic »
Forums > Music: Non-Prince > Jay-Z's epic, game-changing, $20/monthly not Spotify