purplethunder3121 said:

I didn't get my money's worth from Lotusflow3r.com.

Agreed, but think about all the free bootlegs and out-takes we've got; I guess it balances out. Even within the last few days we got HRL for free.

Noodled24 said:

iZsaZsa said:

murph said:

murph said:

I don't think Tidal will be able to keep up with the Spotify's of the world. They really have to start dealing with exclusive songs, albums, and content to have a chance to win...But I can see why Prince would join in on Tidal's more artists friendly business plan, especially when it comes to the more established stars.... Prince is no different than Jack White. He wants to be compensated for his art....Just like Taylor Swift, ect...But I don't see anyone on this board calling THEM greedy....

They have to get exclusive from the hottest and the most recent...

And since everything now is so short..there are no 12" extended releases...

Sure, there is a House Techno mix of everything..., but it's not the same..

is he a part of this for monetary gain or to show support?

what if prince released a new album via Tidal and not on any other platforms? would you join then? or steal it?

jdcxc said:

BartVanHemelen said:

Phil Collins just licensed his whole solo discography to WBR for deluxe editions.

Prince should get 90% of the "Sussudio" royalties.

And Marc Bolan's estate should get 90% of the "Cream" royalties.

laurarichardson said:

murph said:

I don't think Tidal will be able to keep up with the Spotify's of the world. They really have to start dealing with exclusive songs, albums, and content to have a chance to win...But I can see why Prince would join in on Tidal's more artists friendly business plan, especially when it comes to the more established stars.... Prince is no different than Jack White. He wants to be compensated for his art....Just like Taylor Swift, ect...But I don't see anyone on this board calling THEM greedy....

Of course Taylor is not is not greedy she is just a savvy business woman!!! I think we all know what that nonsense is about😉

She's savvy/defiant because she's young. She's now the age Prince was when Purple Rain came out.

.

A older, legacy artist would welcome Spotify to add to their income -- not define their income.

Jay-Z/Tidal/That whole crew. Know how to launch an album. If Prince wants a hit...

Despite the atrocious name "FreeUrself" could have potential. "HARDROCKLOVER" has gone over well. His recent associations with Taylor Swift, Jay-Z, Kanye have undoubtedly cause interest. He also has that song with Rita Ora sitting about - who also has a new album. It's a cross-promotional wet dream.

Se7en said:

laurarichardson said:

Se7en said:

She's savvy/defiant because she's young. She's now the age Prince was when Purple Rain came out.

.

A older, legacy artist would welcome Spotify to add to their income -- not define their income.

I know Taylor is savvy. Why is Prince not considered savvy for going with the service that is paying more and maybe getting some equity in the company. Do you get my point?

With Taylor Swift (even though it's the same exact thing), it seems NEW and DEFIANT . . . and because she's still generating hits one after the other, it's perceived differently. She's the "IT" girl, so for any of the streaming sites to be missing Taylor Swift in 2015 would be a huge detriment to their numbers.

murph said:

I don't think Tidal will be able to keep up with the Spotify's of the world. They really have to start dealing with exclusive songs, albums, and content to have a chance to win...But I can see why Prince would join in on Tidal's more artists friendly business plan, especially when it comes to the more established stars.... Prince is no different than Jack White. He wants to be compensated for his art....Just like Taylor Swift, ect...But I don't see anyone on this board calling THEM greedy....

The prevailing opinion on Tidal is that all the artists involved are greedy based on the launch. I can understand the plight of the artist and they should be paid for their work but they come off as whiny and entitled the way they "fight for their rights".

I understand where Taylor and many other artists are coming from but the way she and others go on about how streaming services don't pay artists enough, you would think that's the only way artists make money. Artists make money from album sales, tours, public/ television appearances, interviews, merchandise, etc. yet they incessantly complain about streaming services not paying as much. Someone else asked this question in another topic and I'll ask the same thing: Have labels, bands, musicians, singers and/or songwriters ever gotten rich off of radio alone?

The answer is no and the same should be applied here. Artists who already have millions in the bank look so entitled when they complain about how streaming services don't pay them (i.e. themselves personally) enough yet want to act as though they're taking a stand for the sake of music as a medium and the lesser known indie/ underground acts who still aren't receiving half the attention the bigger stars who typically whine about this subject are. When the only complaints we hear from an artist is how they aren't making more money then it's hard to see them as being all about the music.

Genesia said:

I still don't get why I'd pay to listen to Prince's stuff on Tidal when I have it already. (And you know they're only going to play the "legal" stuff there.)

.

I only listen to streaming services when I'm in the kitchen cooking because my wife's computer is in the next room. So I will throw on Pandora and chop away. Sometimes when I'm out on the porch, I'll put on the jazz station on Pandora.

.

But if I'm in my car, or at my desk, or on a plane, I'm loaded up with my own beloved tunes. I would NEVER pay for streaming. It doesn't work for my lifestyle.

.

And as someone pointed out above, Prince's Tidal stream is only going to be the known, "legal" stuff. Most of my Prince playlist is "semi-legal"!

MotownSubdivision said:

murph said:

I don't think Tidal will be able to keep up with the Spotify's of the world. They really have to start dealing with exclusive songs, albums, and content to have a chance to win...But I can see why Prince would join in on Tidal's more artists friendly business plan, especially when it comes to the more established stars.... Prince is no different than Jack White. He wants to be compensated for his art....Just like Taylor Swift, ect...But I don't see anyone on this board calling THEM greedy....

The prevailing opinion on Tidal is that all the artists involved are greedy based on the launch. I can understand the plight of the artist and they should be paid for their work but they come off as whiny and entitled the way they "fight for their rights".

I understand where Taylor and many other artists are coming from but the way she and others go on about how streaming services don't pay artists enough, you would think that's the only way artists make money. Artists make money from album sales, tours, public/ television appearances, interviews, merchandise, etc. yet they incessantly complain about streaming services not paying as much. Someone else asked this question in another topic and I'll ask the same thing: Have labels, bands, musicians, singers and/or songwriters ever gotten rich off of radio alone?

The answer is no and the same should be applied here. Artists who already have millions in the bank look so entitled when they complain about how streaming services don't pay them (i.e. themselves personally) enough yet want to act as though they're taking a stand for the sake of music as a medium and the lesser known indie/ underground acts who still aren't receiving half the attention the bigger stars who typically whine about this subject are. When the only complaints we hear from an artist is how they aren't making more money then it's hard to see them as being all about the music.

U r thinking too hard on this. Artists, no matter their tax bracket, want to be paid for their work. Hell, even a tech savvy, politically minded, salt of the earth dude like Thom York has called out Spotify for the peanuts it pays to music acts. Fuck looking entitled...lol....The only reason Jay-Z got called out when he launched Tidal is he didn't include any independent acts for the rollout of the company. THAT was the real issue; not millionaire artists wanting to be compensated for their work....

murph said:

MotownSubdivision said:

The prevailing opinion on Tidal is that all the artists involved are greedy based on the launch. I can understand the plight of the artist and they should be paid for their work but they come off as whiny and entitled the way they "fight for their rights".

I understand where Taylor and many other artists are coming from but the way she and others go on about how streaming services don't pay artists enough, you would think that's the only way artists make money. Artists make money from album sales, tours, public/ television appearances, interviews, merchandise, etc. yet they incessantly complain about streaming services not paying as much. Someone else asked this question in another topic and I'll ask the same thing: Have labels, bands, musicians, singers and/or songwriters ever gotten rich off of radio alone?

The answer is no and the same should be applied here. Artists who already have millions in the bank look so entitled when they complain about how streaming services don't pay them (i.e. themselves personally) enough yet want to act as though they're taking a stand for the sake of music as a medium and the lesser known indie/ underground acts who still aren't receiving half the attention the bigger stars who typically whine about this subject are. When the only complaints we hear from an artist is how they aren't making more money then it's hard to see them as being all about the music.

U r thinking too hard on this. Artists, no matter their tax bracket, want to be paid for their work. Hell, even a tech savvy, politically minded, salt of the earth dude like Thom York has called out Spotify for the peanuts it pays to music acts. Fuck looking entitled...lol....The only reason Jay-Z got called out when he launched Tidal is he didn't include any independent acts for the rollout of the company. THAT was the real issue; not millionaire artists wanting to be compensated for their work....

The absence of independent acts was just part of the reason why Tidal got the backlash it got. The reason it got the raction it did was because of its presentation. Without any unknowns alongside the likes of Beyonce, Kanye, J. Cole, Calvin Harris, and Madonna, the launch pretty much looked like rich, high profile acts crusading for sympathy because they aren't rich enough.

The thing is artists are getting paid... lots. Nobody is saying they shouldn't be compensated for their work but they're complaining about streaming services (today's radio), a music platform which like radio, is not the main source of payment for the artist not paying them as much as touring or album sales do. With streaming services at least the lesser knowns will be compensated alongside the bigger acts but the biggest reward for them is supposed to be the notoriety gained which in the long run will lead to more money if they break through to the mainstream. Everybody expects to be paid overnight, as though making music automatically qualifies that you should be getting paid top dollar. What happened to earning it?

MotownSubdivision said:

murph said:

U r thinking too hard on this. Artists, no matter their tax bracket, want to be paid for their work. Hell, even a tech savvy, politically minded, salt of the earth dude like Thom York has called out Spotify for the peanuts it pays to music acts. Fuck looking entitled...lol....The only reason Jay-Z got called out when he launched Tidal is he didn't include any independent acts for the rollout of the company. THAT was the real issue; not millionaire artists wanting to be compensated for their work....

The absence of independent acts was just part of the reason why Tidal got the backlash it got. The reason it got the raction it did was because of its presentation. Without any unknowns alongside the likes of Beyonce, Kanye, J. Cole, Calvin Harris, and Madonna, the launch pretty much looked like rich, high profile acts crusading for sympathy because they aren't rich enough.

The thing is artists are getting paid... lots. Nobody is saying they shouldn't be compensated for their work but they're complaining about streaming services (today's radio), a music platform which like radio, is not the main source of payment for the artist not paying them as much as touring or album sales do. With streaming services at least the lesser knowns will be compensated alongside the bigger acts but the biggest reward for them is supposed to be the notoriety gained which in the long run will lead to more money if they break through to the mainstream. Everybody expects to be paid overnight, as though making music automatically qualifies that you should be getting paid top dollar. What happened to earning it?

I try not to search other people's pockets and lecture them about how much they should be getting paid. Like I said, the only talk surrounding Tidal would have revolved around its lack of a robust musical catalogue and tech issues if Jay Z's team understood that no one feels sorry for millionaires (again, indie acts would have drowned out such noise).....

All this other talk about when/what artists should expect to get paid for their work is bordering on hubris...

MotownSubdivision said:

murph said:

I don't think Tidal will be able to keep up with the Spotify's of the world. They really have to start dealing with exclusive songs, albums, and content to have a chance to win...But I can see why Prince would join in on Tidal's more artists friendly business plan, especially when it comes to the more established stars.... Prince is no different than Jack White. He wants to be compensated for his art....Just like Taylor Swift, ect...But I don't see anyone on this board calling THEM greedy....

The prevailing opinion on Tidal is that all the artists involved are greedy based on the launch. I can understand the plight of the artist and they should be paid for their work but they come off as whiny and entitled the way they "fight for their rights".

I don't think I've seen a single article calling the Tidal owners greedy. Tidal is Spotify by a different name, but they pay more. If you're selling something and someone offers you 0.4 cents and another person offers you 2.4 cents. You take the higher offer. Simples.

I understand where Taylor and many other artists are coming from but the way she and others go on about how streaming services don't pay artists enough, you would think that's the only way artists make money. Artists make money from album sales, tours, public/ television appearances, interviews, merchandise, etc. yet they incessantly complain about streaming services not paying as much. Someone else asked this question in another topic and I'll ask the same thing: Have labels, bands, musicians, singers and/or songwriters ever gotten rich off of radio alone?

Artists don't make so much off record sales these days. The time when an album could shift 20 million copies is long gone. Even the likes of Taylor Swift are struggling to sell 10 million worldwide.

You're right that artists have multiple streams of income. However since album sales are in decline album streaming needs to make up that deficit. If you're not famous then you can't tour, and don't have many people buying merchandice, and no magazine is going to pay a nobody for an interview.

The answer is no and the same should be applied here. Artists who already have millions in the bank look so entitled when they complain about how streaming services don't pay them (i.e. themselves personally) enough yet want to act as though they're taking a stand for the sake of music as a medium and the lesser known indie/ underground acts who still aren't receiving half the attention the bigger stars who typically whine about this subject are. When the only complaints we hear from an artist is how they aren't making more money then it's hard to see them as being all about the music.

You can't compare Spotify directly to Radio. If I listen to Radio1 and you listen to Radio1 - we both hear the same thing. Radio is a major factor in promotion. Spotify grants access to whats being promoted. If we both listen to spotify we don't hear the same songs. Spotify is replacing CDs and mp3s not radio.

Also the amount an artist "has in the bank" is irrelivent. How much they already have is't a factor in how much they want to charge for the next thing. Nobody considers how much Pepsi has in the bank when they reach for some overpriced sugar water.

Indie artists constantly whine about how much they're not being paid. Only the people at the top of the pyramid have the ability to alter that paradigm. IIRC "Jughead" mentions Little Richards plight? He drew a lot of attention to TLC when they had issues.

I'm not saying Prince's crusade was entirely selfless. He is without doubt the centre of his own world. He did end up perhaps accidently, making a good point though.

Prince tweeted a link to a verge article about Spotify and Sony. Spotify apparently pays Sony an advance each year. Which makes Prince's comment about Apple not paying him an advance much more understandable IMO. Since wft does a record company need an advance for?

[Edited 7/9/15 12:23pm]

thedoorkeeper said:

What new Rita Ora album?

She was on TV the other night performing her new single "Poison". It's in the UK top 10. Apparently her boyfriend produced the second album (Calvin Harris) but since she's split from him I'd assume it was either scrapped or reworked.

IIRC There are at least 2 versions of "Single Most Amazing" and the "I'm From West London" "menacing" sounding song.

I cant remember where I saw it, but Portishead made $2500 for 34 MILLION streams.

I mean I made more than that in one month with my self-produced exercise videos that I sell off my own url.

When u see that, its easy to say F-YES remove it all Prince. I mean seriously can you blame the artists for being upset? I really can't.

But TIDAL is still a TURD sandwich.

Apple should give Prince an advance since he acts as his own publishing/music label, so if spotify is giving sony an advance, then Princes publishing/label should also receive an advance.

The shiesters here are the record labels (surprise) and to be honest the answer isnt charging MORE (tidal) its forcing change with the record labels ....

and that is why TIDAL and all its celeb corporate shills is a turd sandwich. Jay Z & Madonna could be forcing the labels to pay out better, BUT INSTEAD OF GOING AGAINST THEIR MASTERS, they jack the price up and gouge the consumer.

The biggest BS disappointment in tidals awful launch was the pathetic attempt at rebelliousness - instead of railing against the people who are stealoing their money (labels) they just want the consumer to pay more...because at the end of the day - none of them have the nerve PRINCE DID when he went solo.

TIDALS entire crew of bloated self-congratulatory corprate titty-suckers do not equal the balls of one PRINCE.


If Prince let me handle some business, I'd figure out a way to make his streaming figure as an advertising EXPENSE --- Prince sweetie, call me - I'm a shark in a hot minidress lololol

[Edited 7/9/15 12:39pm]

Maybe Prince has forgotten that regardless of which channel is used to steam his music, the recordings that are still owned by Warners will still see Warners getting paid. And as we all know, he isn't going to like that!

Why are some people disrespectful to record companies?

How many of you have worked for one?

If it wasn't for Warners investing in an unknown artist, then Prince may have never become a recording artist.

You see, that is what record companies do. They invest profits in developing new artists. Many of those new artists go nowhere and sell nothing.

So who pays for that? The artist? Of course not as they lost millions in recording and marketing.

When an artist sells, they are paying to support the whole business called music.

Just remember that.

[Edited 7/10/15 12:22pm]

darkroman said:

Why are some people disrespectful to record companies?

How many of you have worked for one?

If it wasn't for Warners investing in an unknown artist, then Prince may have never become a recording artist.

You see, that is what record companies do. They invest profits in developing new artists. Many of those new artists go nowhere and sell nothing.

So who pays for that? The artist? Of course not as they lost millions in recording and marketing.

When an artist sells, they are paying to support the whole business called music.

Just remember that.

[Edited 7/10/15 12:22pm]

Well of course, you're right...and that said, Prince BEST albums were done under a system that allowed him to experiment relentlessly.

but many artists are really in debt to the label...modeling like that too - you have to work off and make back what the 'patron' invests in you....but the landscape has changed immeasureably, and when it was changing at least 20 years ago, they didnt look to change with the technology or try to get ahead of it.

their antiquated business model and their dinosaur thinking is why they've become the evil in the situation.

[Edited 7/10/15 12:49pm]

terrig said:

darkroman said:

Why are some people disrespectful to record companies?

How many of you have worked for one?

If it wasn't for Warners investing in an unknown artist, then Prince may have never become a recording artist.

You see, that is what record companies do. They invest profits in developing new artists. Many of those new artists go nowhere and sell nothing.

So who pays for that? The artist? Of course not as they lost millions in recording and marketing.

When an artist sells, they are paying to support the whole business called music.

Just remember that.

[Edited 7/10/15 12:22pm]

Well of course, you're right...and that said, Prince BEST albums were done under a system that allowed him to experiment relentlessly.

but many artists are really in debt to the label...modeling like that too - you have to work off and make back what the 'patron' invests in you....but the landscape has changed immeasureably, and when it was changing at least 20 years ago, they didnt look to change with the technology or try to get ahead of it.

their antiquated business model and their dinosaur thinking is why they've become the evil in the situation.

[Edited 7/10/15 12:49pm]

I don't see how you can justify any of those points.

Of course artist run up a debt but not all costs are recoupable, such as some advances, and marketing is only 50% recoupable.

There are numerous artists that never pay back a penny. The record company then has to suffer the loss.

How has the landscape changed? We have more channels, yet music is still produce and music is consumed. 'Mechanicals' have been in place for decades to manage these. That basic fact hasn't changed at all.

Record companies have changed (when required) with the times and embraced new technologies. 20 years ago even before consumers had embraced DVD, record labels were pioneering the format. With the world of digital, all creators, distributers and consumers alike have morphed simultaneously in order to find system of distribution and consumption that works for everyone.

However, early pioneers of digital distribution, such as Apple, have seriously screwed consumers and labels. And still do. How is that the labels problem and doing?

How are record companies old fashioned? How is their thinking dinosaur? How are they evil? I can't see any examples or justification.

Look at these case studies; Blur didn't have a hit until their third album, Katy Perry had three development deals before having a hit and it even took Prince from 1978 to 1982 until he had a cross-over hit of any significance. So, who do you think pay for this artistic development?

In fact record companies do a great job in delivering to us the music that is the soundtrack to our lives at a cost that is every decreasing.

Prince can choose to be an independent artist. He was very successful with the Crystal Ball package and distribution, but he doesn't have the resources to promote and market himself in each territory as affectively as a record company can.

[Edited 7/10/15 14:51pm]

darkroman said:

terrig said:

Well of course, you're right...and that said, Prince BEST albums were done under a system that allowed him to experiment relentlessly.

but many artists are really in debt to the label...modeling like that too - you have to work off and make back what the 'patron' invests in you....but the landscape has changed immeasureably, and when it was changing at least 20 years ago, they didnt look to change with the technology or try to get ahead of it.

their antiquated business model and their dinosaur thinking is why they've become the evil in the situation.

[Edited 7/10/15 12:49pm]

I don't see how you can justify any of those points.

Of course artist run up a debt but not all costs are recoupable, such as some advances, and marketing is only 50% recoupable.

There are numerous artists that never pay back a penny. The record company then has to suffer the loss.

How has the landscape changed? We have more channels, yet music is still produce and music is consumed. 'Mechanicals' have been in place for decades to manage these. That basic fact hasn't changed at all.

- napster changed everything in 1999 - you litigated instead of partnered with new distribution. you attempted to squash innovation rather than embrace it, you didnt foresee ways to account for performance in various streaming formats in ways that were accessible and consumer FRIENDLY

Record companies have changed (when required) with the times and embraced new technologies. 20 years ago even before consumers had embraced DVD, record labels were pioneering the format. With the world of digital, all creators, distributers and consumers alike have morphed simultaneously in order to find system of distribution and consumption that works for everyone.

-- record companies didnt morph simulatneously in fact they resisted until the pretty much the IPOD happned and then they really had no choice.

However, early pioneers of digital distribution, such as Apple, have seriously screwed consumers and labels. And still do. How is that the labels problem and doing?

-- most consumers dont feel screwed over by apple where music is concerned. i dont happen to be a fan of the tech sector coming in and devaluing content the way they have, but they have in fact locked down distribution, coincidentally, in the way the record companies had for decades. apple screwed labels the way the labels have historically taken advantage of and screwed artists! they kicked your asses becaue labels are corporately slow, unable to quickly adapt because of bloated infrastructures and systems and were litigious against tech instead of able to see the future in digital distribution ......

How are record companies old fashioned? How is their thinking dinosaur? How are they evil? I can't see any examples or justification.

one might say had record companies been more forward thinking - they could have partenered early on with the tech sector and had at least some foot in the game of the changing distribution model. they are evil because they used their massive resources to start suing everyone instead of partnering --- the reocrd companies alientated themselves from the public when they started suing everyone

Look at these case studies; Blur didn't have a hit until their third album, Katy Perry had three development deals before having a hit and it even took Prince from 1978 to 1982 until he had a cross-over hit of any significance. So, who do you think pay for this artistic development?

You're exactly RIGHT! ---since the decontrol of the distribution, and the collapse of the physical format (vinyl, cd) you can't charge as much for mp3s which means your whole business model has to evolve.... and it hasnt.

In fact record companies do a great job in delivering to us the music that is the soundtrack to our lives at a cost that is every decreasing.

Making music costs much less now now though, also because of the tech sector. One of my grammy winning clients used to have a studio that was at least 1500 sq feet in nyc. now its contained in software a desktop and a bank of hard drives and computers. in his apartment. in brazil. your costs for artist development are way way way less.

Sony got a 45 million dollar advance from spotify. Portishead made $2500 for 34 MILLION streams. WHY? why is that ok? Why doesnt the label pay out and advance to artists like they get an advance from spotify?


WHY CAN TAYLOR SWIFT MAKE APPLE PAY UP FOR THE 3 MONTH FREE TRIAL ON APPLE MUSIC, BUT THOSE RAGING MUSIC INDUSTRY LAWYERS CANT NEGOTIATE BETTER STREAMING DEALS FOR THEIR CONTENT?

Prince can choose to be an independent artist. He was very successful with the Crystal Ball package and distribution, but he doesn't have the resources to promote and market himself in each territory as affectively as a record company can.

---True, so youre saying record labels are marketing and advertsiing agencies, and i'd agree with you, they are no longer much in artist development - they do sales.....

(and I believe Princes work was more cohesive in the confines of a label, but Prince was right, in that the labels were too slow to market his music because the whole system even back then was a dinosaur and not keeping pace with the speed of creation, music software made music releasing much faster)

Remember awhile ago when some artists (Prince included) talked about releasing music independently on their own website or own record label? It sounded like a simple,easy concept,huh? And yet,even "independent" artists must deal with leaking and file-sharing It's not nearly as easy as it seems

darkroman said:

terrig said:

I cant remember where I saw it, but Portishead made $2500 for 34 MILLION streams.

I mean I made more than that in one month with my self-produced exercise videos that I sell off my own url.

When u see that, its easy to say F-YES remove it all Prince. I mean seriously can you blame the artists for being upset? I really can't.

But TIDAL is still a TURD sandwich.

Apple should give Prince an advance since he acts as his own publishing/music label, so if spotify is giving sony an advance, then Princes publishing/label should also receive an advance.

The shiesters here are the record labels (surprise) and to be honest the answer isnt charging MORE (tidal) its forcing change with the record labels ....

and that is why TIDAL and all its celeb corporate shills is a turd sandwich. Jay Z & Madonna could be forcing the labels to pay out better, BUT INSTEAD OF GOING AGAINST THEIR MASTERS, they jack the price up and gouge the consumer.

The biggest BS disappointment in tidals awful launch was the pathetic attempt at rebelliousness - instead of railing against the people who are stealoing their money (labels) they just want the consumer to pay more...because at the end of the day - none of them have the nerve PRINCE DID when he went solo.

TIDALS entire crew of bloated self-congratulatory corprate titty-suckers do not equal the balls of one PRINCE.


If Prince let me handle some business, I'd figure out a way to make his streaming figure as an advertising EXPENSE --- Prince sweetie, call me - I'm a shark in a hot minidress lololol

[Edited 7/9/15 12:39pm]

if prince pulls out of this..itll have monumental effects..dont u think? so he does have a lot of power