Jay-Z launches new streaming service Tidal with all of his rich friends


I don’t use Spotify, but CB does and she says she likes it. But the big-name artists have gotten mad at Spotify. The big-name artists have decided to take their toys and launch their own exclusive, expensive, artist-owned streaming service, courtesy of Jay-Z. Jay-Z bought – for $56 million – the streaming service Tidal. Yesterday, Jay-Z and all of his celebrity musician friends did a big launch/press conference thing. Gawker called the event “bonkers” and said “the entire music industry stood on a stage in a collective display of how rich and out of touch they are.”

At an event in New York on Monday, Madonna, Beyonce, Kanye West, and 13 other performers announced they had become co-owners of Tidal. The service launched last October, but was recently bought by rapper Jay Z. It is hoping to compete with the likes of Spotify, Deezer and Google Play.

However Tidal offers 25 million music tracks, fewer than the 30 million offered by many rival services. As well as a standard subscription for $9.99 a month, Tidal offers a “high fidelity” option for $19.99, which claims to deliver better sound quality.

Singer Alicia Keys spoke on behalf of the artists as they all lined up on stage at Skylight at Moynihan Station in Manhattan. Describing the event as a “graduation”, she said the artists hoped Tidal would alter musical evolution. “So we come together before you on this day, March 30th, 2015, with one voice in unity in the hopes that today will be another one of those moments in time, a moment that will forever change the course of music history.”

Their mission, she said, goes beyond commerce and technology.

“Our intent is to preserve music’s importance in our lives,” she said.

Notably, the majority of the company will be owned by artists, a symbolic move in a business where musicians often have little control over how their work is distributed and consumed. Jay Z’s strategy will include encouraging artists to lobby their labels to give Tidal new music a week in advance of other services, giving it a short window of exclusivity.

[From BBC]

Eh, my thought? Let the market take care of this. If people really care about paying more for music just because the service is “artist owned,” then Tidal will be a success. But I assume most people really won’t care and the market will swallow Tidal. Jay might even make a profit when he sells it to iTunes or whatever. CB thinks that this is just a shallow cash-grab by already-rich and well-established artists and I tend to agree. That being said, I doubt it will really go anywhere. We’ll see.

Photos courtesy of Getty, WENN.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

120 Responses to “Jay-Z launches new streaming service Tidal with all of his rich friends”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. OSTONE says:

    I saw the video yesterday, everyone talking about the “art” when in reality is all about the money for them.

    • sammy says:

      The argument for why people won’t support this are so stupid! So it’s okay for a bunch of suits and venture capitalist to exploit these artists but they are not allowed to take the reigns back and do that for themselves? If the argument is you don’t want to support rich people who start new businesses you all need to stop supporting a lot of ish. Also this service costs as much as Spotify.

      • Jan Harf says:

        I completely agree with you.

      • lucy2 says:

        In theory I agree – I support artists being paid fairly for their work, regardless of how successful they’ve been. If this new service pays all of the artists more than Spotify for example, then it could be a good thing. If they’re paying the same, or pennies more, no thanks. I want to see actual numbers on this, not just a bunch of celebrities saying so.

      • ybxdlas says:

        Twice as much actually and there are no freebies.

      • Sky says:

        In Spotify you don’t need to pay for 30 days trial and you can listen it for free, but tolerate commercials.

    • klein says:

      True.

      But at least Beyonce is getting some much needed exposure through this ;)

      • me says:

        Twitter is exploding with pics of Beyonce’s signature. That can’t really be her signature. Is this some hoax or something?

        I just find it funny they had to do a press conference for this and say what they are doing is revolutionary. No it’s not. It’s the same as other services just more expensive and exclusive. That is all.

        Lastly, Jay-Z needs to stop with the diet. He’s lost too much weight and it’s not good on him.

  2. RockytopNC says:

    Who is gonna pay 20 dollars a month to listen to music they can hear for free on the radio ?!…….I think they really missed named that thing and should call it “GREED we need more MONEY ” .
    and I news for you Jay Z and company …Hip Hop and whatever those others call their music is NOT the only music in the world ….This will not last long……!

    • Gea says:

      I always wonder, when is good enought for some people (like this so called artist) to have truly enough money and fame. There is fine line behind creating and becoming one and being discovered/ fame etc. Here we have top of moneymakers and perhaps few talented, rest of them driven by huge ambition, wanting even more and circle goes on and on. Many truly gifted artist will never have chance and circle goes on and on. I will forever pass on Tidal and all who ask for money and stick around for free music, that is the way it should be.

    • db says:

      Radio isn’t free though. It is free to the listener, but the payment structure is supported advertising, same as network television. The great thing to me about streaming it is free of ads and has more variety.

    • HH says:

      “and I news for you Jay Z and company …Hip Hop and whatever those others call their music is NOT the only music in the world ….This will not last long……!”

      One, the wording of this is ridiculously awful. Two, was it mentioned that they would only play music associated with the artists who launched the platform? From what I understand, Tidal was actually a foreign-based/owned company (Scandanavian, I believe) and already had an existing, wide catalog, hence the 25 million songs. Where are you getting your information for the above comment?

      • Danskins says:

        Agree @ HH.

        It’s funny how when Tidal was previously run only by suits, no one really said anything but now that it’s being run by artists (includung those of color) suddenly it’s an issue for them to be empowered.

  3. Virgilia Coriolanus says:

    Sooo…..this happened because they want to make more money?

    • HipHipHorray says:

      Yep. They aren’t happy that their over produced, auto-tuned garbage isn’t making them as much money as they ‘think’ they deserve.
      As someone who works in the music industry, sites like Spotify allow less established bands to make a name for themselves and we love them. Profit is made on world tours and merch these days, something that none of the above ‘artists’ are lacking. It is clear that they just wish to further monopolise the industry. Sadly for them, they are too shuttered to see that the industry is fast moving away from pop acts such as these. People dont want to share everything anymore, like they did in the days of hyper-Facebook. They want to be unique, not follow the crowd and all listen to the same thing. This isnt 2011. If you imagine the pop band culture of the 80′s and its transition into the far cooler 90′s, we have reached a similar stage. Of course, these artists wont go away, but they will no longer have the power that they think they have today. Im shocked at how long this deal took them though. Certainly gave the rest of the music industry time to prepare and ignore them, so thank you for that.

  4. misstee says:

    Hey ridiculously rich people – you want us to stick it to ‘the man’ without appreciating the fact that you ARE the man.

    Idiots.

  5. HiHeyHelllo says:

    Meh. I won’t buy it but I know a couple of people that will. O can’t get mad at someone who is about their money. I would do the same if I was in that position. Rich don’t stay rich without pimping something!

    • me says:

      The people that will pay the extra money just to get a song a week early are those mother effers who always have to have the lastest sh*t and like to brag on twitter and facebook. Basically all the rich teens who never worked for their money and want to appear cool. Tidal is for them.

  6. meme says:

    Can you imagine being at that board meeting with all those humongous egos at the table?

  7. Allie says:

    This made me so mad yesterday. This is how rich celebrities unite? To make even more money by ripping us off? Stand up for something that makes a difference in the world. Don’t pretend this helps anybody but the extreme rich musicians.

    • Katie says:

      AMEN! Don’t give me your first world rich people problems and expect me to applaud you for your “bravery”. Take that money you make and do something for people far less fortunate than you instead of buying diamonds and designer clothes for your toddlers!

      I agree 100%. This is NOT about preserving their “art”; it’s about money. History lesson: most artists have been poor and unrecognized during their lifetime.

    • ava7 says:

      But it totally defines their “Do what thou wilt” a la Alistair Crowley worship-your-own-ego religion.

    • Linn says:

      Ripping you off? That’s pretty arrogant of you! Last time I checked, there was no right to get all the music you want for free. I assume you expect to be paid for your work, no?

      It needs a lot of work to create something, so if I was a musician I would certainly be pissed, if I was expected to give it away for nearly nothing. And not everybody in music is Jay Z or Taylor Swift. Plenty of musicians make the bare minimum to stay alive and could certainly need some well-deserved extra money.

      I probably won’t use Tidal, but I don’t see any issue with artists trying to get their fair share. I also don’t complain if somebody decides to not put their songs on spotify etc, I’m happy if somebody does and still tend to buy their music, if I really like it.

      • Trillion says:

        I’m in your corner, Linn.

      • HK9 says:

        I think musicians need to get their fair share, especially since they are constantly being ripped off because people think they should get their work for free. I don’t know if this will help new artists but I have no problem with people having reasonable control over the things they actually create. And just so you know, just because a lot of artists (musicians/actors/writers) get screwed out of money, doesn’t mean it’s the way it should be.

      • misstee says:

        I don’t see them giving a higher percentage to new artists? showcasing new artists? intending to use profit as a foundation to develop new artists? This is all about artists that already have too much money to count consolidating their wealth – not saying the music business doesn’t treat musicians like crap – just saying this is NOT some poor artist in a garret eating air and mould saviour.

        And I say this as someone who has created music in the past, so I know the work involved.

      • minime says:

        I agree with you…partially. Unfortunately there are a lot of artists that can barely survive with the money they do from their art, effort and hard work. That doesn’t apply to the few artists here. We are talking about the huge music mass industry, who are filthy rich even if they are not the most talented artists out there (we have to convey, some of them, indeed are not that talented). To think that this initiative is intended in any way to help the small or medium musician, giving his first steps, or that lives in the shadows of no PR/scandal/image/connections shenanigans is to deceive yourself. This is about filthy rich people wanting more money.

        Edit @ misstee: was writing my comment when yours got posted! That’s exactly my opinion ;)

      • Linn says:

        @minime
        I don’t believe, that Jay Z bought the service because he wants to help smaller or medium musicians, but they still might profit if theres’s more of an alternative to getting nearly nothing from spotify.
        Spotify might have to reconsider their payment structure if more and more artists decide to forego spotify and look for other providers.

        I also don’t believe that people are not allowed to make more money, just because they are already rich. If they donate the money or give stuff away for free than that is great but I don’t think that they are obligated to do so.

        I wouldn’t want to listen to Jay Z if I got paid for it, but if other people consider the music worth their time, than who am I to tell them otherwise.

        When it comes to music many people just seem to think, that they have the right to get everything for free everywhere and all the time. Some people seem to think that everybody who is still willing to pay for music is an idiot without realizing that a big part of it would never be made if everybody would think like that.
        Would Taylor Swift become impoverished if she hadn’t pulled her music from Spotify? Obviously not, but I still won’t judge her poorly because she decided it worth more than a couple of pennies.

        On the other hand I have hope because there still are many people that are willing to support artists on pages like kickstarter or patreon.

      • minime says:

        @Linn
        I’m divided here. You make a very good argument and I very much agree that everyone should be fairly paid for their work. I think my question is about what it is “fair” payment. Of course that the money comes from somewhere…so if it’s there and it was earned by them, it’s fairly theirs…but does this system where (some) artists make more money in a week than a ground breaking scientist does in his whole life really makes sense? And is it really reasonable then to make a drama because they can’t buy their 50th mansion somewhere? Like @misstee refereed they didn’t announce any novelty about how they would be really supporting new and smaller musicians, that are actually the ones who loose more money with these streaming services (although they also earn from publicity).
        I don’t know…every profession has some level of stuff you do for free/almost for free/or low payment. Going back to a scientist, he needs to publish to stay relevant…and no one is paid for that. The all money from subscriptions goes to the publishers.
        Anyway, I think its legit for people to see this as a gauche movement from greedy people, specially the ones who make it a lot harder for modest artists to reach some level of fame. If it’s their right? Yes, indeed. If it’s petty? IMO it is.

      • ybxdlas says:

        Fair share isn’t hundreds of millions.

      • HH says:

        It feels like people are more upset about the misrepresentation of why the company was started, rather than the idea of the streaming service itself. However, are there any services in which the majority of profits aren’t going to extremely wealthy individuals?

  8. Dawn says:

    I know there are plenty of idiots out there who will sign up for this but I will not be one them. I refuse to pay for them to make music. If they cared about their fans they would make it easier and less expensive for them…but this is just to fill their already overflowing coffers. Forget them. Zero respect for these people or the garbage they are spewing.

    • Liv says:

      Amen. Why not giving their music away for free from time to time? I believe they make most of their money with tours anyway. And if I like an artist or a song, I’d still buy a cd. This ist about money and control and it’s ridiculous that it comes from people like Jay and Beyonce who are unbelievably rich.

      • gianiko says:

        Are you kidding me? Aren’t some of these so called artist the ONE that tries no actually steals well deserved AWARDS from well deserving hard working , multi instrument playing artists? It’s so obvious these are a bunch that want to keep the fame and money within a circle of hand picked friends and they’ll make sure the Queen wins all awards and they get all the money. Give gross Kanye my money HELL NO!

  9. Norman Bates' Mother says:

    I love Spotify. I’m a shameless music junkie – it’s not something murmuring in the background or something I listen to when I’m at a gym, it’s a huge part of my life but I can’t afford to buy all those albums I would want to and Spotify is a great way to listen to all those great artists legally without having to sell my kidney. I don’t care if Beyonce, Rihanna or Kanye will be on Spotify but I saw that Jack White posted a Tidal recommendation on facebook and I’m now afraid that all the albums of all of his various bands will move there and it will be a sad day for me. I understand that artists don’t get much money from Spotify because their production companies take a lion share of it but opening another service that is too expensive for most people to use is not a solution. Why there always has to be one side suffering? There has to be some middle-ground somewhere. Plus it’s not like Jay-Z and his friends have to struggle financially without expensive streaming services. It’s all about greed, no matter how eloquently Taylor Swift’s team tries to explain it.

    Somehow, those less known and less supported artists don’t try to boycott Spotify or even torrent sites. It’s always the richest ones. Sufjan Stevens’s (who is recognized but nowhere near Jaz-Z) new album leaked 10 days before its premiere and I read a statement from the company he owns stating that they don’t mind fans torrenting it, if they can’t afford to buy it, but they hope those fans will recommend the album to their friends. And that they are happy people listen to it either way. The album is now on Spotify. That’s a healthy approach.

    • lemon says:

      Haven’t musicians always made most of their $ from touring anyway? And selling rights? Granted, they get a lot less from Spotify than they used to from selling $16 CD but that hurt the business more than anything else.

      I suppose this was foreshadowed by Taylor Swift yanking her songs from Spotify in that if you’re successful enough you don’t have to participate, like the Beatles holding out on Itunes. Probably the Jack White types will be watching closely to see what happens to Tidal. I suspect it will be a big flop because it’s just the nature of economics that people don’t accept price hikes.

    • Franca says:

      Jack White was there.

      • shinymarbles says:

        Nonono. Artists have not always made all of their money from touring. This started when labels started forcing artists into agreements where they owned the masters, artists couldn’t start making money until the “recouped” the exorbitant costs associated with recording, and artists couldn’t make money off of their record sales anymore. This was never fair, but it’s the way the industry adapted so artists could still survive. And do any of you know how exhausting it is to run a profitable tour as an independent artist? And would it surprise you to know that many major label artists’ tours are not profitable at all?

        I’m so sad to read all of this opposition here because there’s so much confident misinformation-spreading and a misunderstanding of the fact that recordings are property. Wanting to be paid for it has nothing to do with greed. Smaller artists cannot survive today without investors and this is part of the reason why you’re getting more crap on the radio. Record labels are like banks and will only lend (artist advances, putting money into an album, etc.) when you’re generating revenue and you can’t do that these days without putting lots of money in.

        Although independent artists might not be totally into Taylor Swift’s music, I can tell you that most of us are super thankful she took a stand against Spotify because when we do it – no one cares. They pay a teensy fraction of a penny per play. If Tidal is willing to pay more, it doesn’t matter if it looks like greed to you, it means that smaller artists can have a fighting chance to a) gain new fans and also get paid for it, b) be able to afford to tour and have people show up when you do, and c) send a message that our art is actually worth something. Not all of us want to make our money from Coke commercials or sponsorships. Plays might not have much to do with the revenue strategy of independent artists anymore, but that doesn’t mean that it’s right.

        I’m SO happy so many huge artists that are being paid well actually care about this because believe me, their labels will always find a way to be greedier than they are. Music is fun to make and a reward in itself, but come on…

      • Geekychick says:

        Yeah, but I think that artists should deal with music industry which took away their rights and share, not hike up prices for the consumer who has even less money than 10 years ago. OTOH, there are painters, sculptors and all the other artists who can’t and won’t charge you when you snap a photo of their work on your mobile phone and who also live off their arts. Who’s protecting them?

  10. Myriam says:

    Psh. Stupid

  11. Lucybelle says:

    I don’t care about this because I don’t listen to a single one of these “artists”. I just wanted to ask if someone in that video is wearing enormous Mickey Mouse ears?

  12. Outstandingworldcitizen says:

    Just another prospective revenue stream for the Carters et al. They expect money off of a model that Pandora & other music streaming services are finding a hard time doing. Good luck. Even if it is a loss they will not lose much or anything. Sure a bunch of knuckleheads will “buy” into this service only to brag that they have it. Utter nonsense. Buy my records, shoes, clothes, perfume, movies etc. How many times can you “work” a fan/consumer?

  13. db says:

    I’m torn on this subject. On one hand the subscription is ridiculously high, which I tend to find offensive in any case. On the other, I have stuff on spotify, and believe me, to read statements and see 1000s of plays around the world and you get fractions of pennies in return is beyond frustrating, it is impoverishing.

    • MP says:

      The artist may get pennies but their record company may get thousands. Is that Spotify’s fault or does the artist just have a bad contract with his/her company? I think streaming is still so new that a lot of musicians have not been able to negotiate a new contract that takes that into account.
      After Swifty pulled her music Spotify said they had paid her company 6 million dollars last year for streaming her songs. How much she got I don’t know but it sounds like a decent amount for no extra work.

      • lucy2 says:

        Spotify said someone like Swift COULD earn up to $6 million/year from streaming. They said she made $2 million from streaming that year. Her label said they received just under half a million from Spotify. There’s a lot of room between $500K and $2 million, so someone’s not being truthful.

      • MP says:

        @Lucy2
        I read the article in Rolling Stone and Swifty’s company is talking about “domestic streaming”. I’m sure she has millions of fans outside the US so that could be one reason to explain the difference in numbers provided by Spotify and her label

      • db says:

        Streaming is great, but there’s a significant downside. The biggest names naturally have the leverage to negotiate better deals, usually, but for indie musicians streaming produces next to nothing. It not pennies, but fractions of pennies, per stream. I just have to laugh when I get my taxes done :)

        I wish Tidal the best, but hope we can find a happy middle ground where artists receive at least pennies and not fractions, and listeners aren’t being gouged by subscription prices.

  14. lindy79 says:

    As someone pointed out Netflix is around 8euro (or currency equivalent) per month and offers some of the highest quality tv and movies so I’d love to know why they feel its justified to charge over double that.

    • Venuslotus says:

      good point. man, i love netflix.

    • PrincessMe says:

      I was thinking about Netflix as well, with the same point in mind.

    • lucy2 says:

      I think there are some comparisons, but don’t forget that most of their content has already aired on TV or played in a theater, and made the majority of its money before ending up on Netflix. If songs are being streamed as soon as albums are released, I can see the argument that it’s eating into sales, if someone can just play it all for free or for a small subscription vs. buying the song or album.

  15. Artemis says:

    I get that they want compensation for their work and pirating is ruining many industries but they are not offering their customers any incentives such as offering never before seen footage behind the scenes, unreleased track/albums/videos etc.

    Furthermore, the lossless sound quality (the 20 dollar option) only works for people who can shill out thousands of dollars for audio equipment which only audiophiles would do. The 10 dollar option has poorer quality sound than the rival companies. What’s the point of Tidal then?

    If all these artists are going to pull their music off Spotify than they are just going to force people to pirate, especially those who simply do not have the funds to pay for this nonsense. The Tidal customers will upload it online and that’s Tidal done.

    Also it would be nice if indie artist benefit from this, they are the ones who need this the most.

    So many on point comments online about how they are going about this like this is some charity, when it only benefits the rich their bank accounts. Quite disgusting campaign tbh. Jay Z and his Occupy Wall Street shady ass has learnt nothing.
    Add to that the ridiculous bios of only female artists. They are throwing so much shade at some of these women (except against Beyoncé, she gets a glowing bio and no mention of her dip in sales for ’4′). What are they doing over there?

    Madonna was doing the most as usual. And Beyoncé with her ‘it’s so egoless’ is killing me with second hand embarrassment.
    This is the weirdest thing I’ve seen lately.

    • Linn says:

      Nobody is forcing people to pirate. People could just accept, that they don’t have the means to buy and have everything they want.

      If you see a gorgeous dress in a store that’s about you budget, does the shop foce you to steal it, too?

      I love music, but I accept, that having nearly all the music I like is a big luxury and not a basic right.

      • misstee says:

        ‘People could just accept, that they don’t have the means to buy and have everything they want.’

        Yes why didn’t the French Aristos say this to all those avaricious peasants griping about carbohydrates.

        People back in the 70′s 80′s even some of the 90′s invested a healthy percentage of their pay packet on music because it was pretty affordable – even teenagers and kids from poor families could afford some of the albums and singles.
        The invention of CD format completely changed that in a power grab by the music business that shafted the punter and the musician – MUCH cheaper to produce, lower audio quality, yet much larger profit margin – piracy today is a reflection of that greed. The music industry wasn’t dying back in the 80′s when we all still borrowed bootlegged mix tapes.

        That’s what rankles me – they are charging twice the money for better music quality? fuck you Dre – people should be able to access the BEST quality created in the studio regardless of if they have a Bose system or a tinny mp3 player.

        THAT is a greed grab – what artist would want to pay barrier hearing their music at its best?

      • Linn says:

        “Yes why didn’t the French Aristos say this to all those avaricious peasants griping about carbohydrates.”

        I think comparing not being able to feed themselves properly and not buying all the newest music is pretty disgusting.

        As I said: Being able to get tons of music for free is a big luxury, getting enough carbohydrates to stay healthy is clearly not or at least it should not be.
        I find it pretty insulting that you try to make it sound like I said people deserve to starve.

        There will still be plenty of free legal music around be it on the internet, the radio or cheap second hand CDs.
        Taylor’s debut album is on amazon.com for as much as 0.01$ the same goes for Jay Z’s The Black Album.
        It might just not always be the newest Taylor Swift of Jay Z album and yes, I think that’s ok.

      • Artemis says:

        @Linn

        Spotify has plenty of users. They can access the service with a student account for instance, that’s an incentive.

        I don’t stream, I listen to Youtube but I would use Spotify if I had a decent job. If artists would pull their music off Spotify, I would rip it from Youtube. Why pay for a service that is worse than Spotify? If you pay the lower price on Tidal, you lose quality of sound (Spotify is better for the same price) and the audio files eat up your data like crazy. The high price has Lossless which is useless without extremely expensive audio equipment.

        This is a money grab, plain and simple and trying to put Spotify out of business, will lead to piracy. People are already pirating, if Tidal offers a shitty service and no incentives, people will just keep on pirating. Whether or not you like that, is not my problem but it will be a problem for Tidal’s business. They think they can outsmart the people…

        Also, how is Tidal any different than Spotify when the label decides where the money goes to? Spotify can’t help the fact that labels are greedy. Tidal isn’t any different either.

        But of course, it’s the consumer that feels entitled right?

        And I think that art should not be a luxury or an entitlement, it should be available for everybody to enjoy. Art is there to open your mind, to experience the world in a different way and to share it with others. It’s a beautiful thing. Their service does NOT reflect their love of art. It reflects their love of MONEY. Plain and simple. They want to be exclusive, they think they stand against the man when they ARE the man. They’re so delusional it’s pathetic. I hope it flops big time but still they can sell and still make money so who cares in the end?

      • misstee says:

        I was being sarcastic – you appear to have a very poor sense of humour….but bang on about that rather than the bulk of my reply which was solid.

    • Geekychick says:

      Artemis-spot on.

  16. Silvia says:

    I can see the illuminati gang have not been lazy in stuffing their pockets with yet another billion. This is pure greed. Nothing else, and they are the elite of the music industry. How richer do Carters or Kanye Kardashian need to get? They have so much money they will never be able to spend it!

    If it were about the music and art and equality, I’d support it as an artist myself. But this is pure, unashamed, evil greed. The rich wanna get richer. Sorry Jay, you can’t get a monopoly on the music, eh sorry ART. I hope it’ll flop. I’ll donate 2o$ to my local charity on Sunday in honor of your stream Jay.

    • ava7 says:

      Illuminati wannabe gang, that is. For sure they sold their souls for fame and fortune, and they use occult symbolism, but they are certainly not Illuminati. They are just puppets.

  17. Josephine says:

    I don’t use these streaming services, but I have no problem at all with the musicians wanting to cut out the middle men. While these musicians don’t need the money, plenty of musicians would benefit from being able to retain more of the proceeds from folks downloading their music.

  18. pretty says:

    why would i pay these greedy people or even spotify when i can just rip mp3 files out of all the youtube videos with music. lol i’ve never used an Apple product so i don’t know aobut I Tunes thing-y too,

  19. Jen43 says:

    Talk about a bunch of ingrates. They only want to fleece their fans. I miss the early 90′s bands that put an end to the excess of the 80′s LA scene. Kids today.

  20. maeliz says:

    How much more money do they need? These greedy bandits are ripping people off and don’t care as long as they get paid. I still buy cd’s

  21. Kori says:

    Just a side comment–one article noted that Jay-Z appeared to take a swipe at Dr Dre by either using or offering a set of earphones in competition with Beatz. Don’t know how much validity–I thought he sold the company–but it stood out. They also mentioned how awkward everyone looked lined up since Alicia Keys was one of the only speakers from the group. I think it would’ve been far more entertains to let Kanye go on a rant.

  22. Catelina says:

    this ‘service’ is all about getting them more money (even though they have way more money than the people they are asking for money from). there’s no incentive for the consumer. pass.

  23. Jan Harf says:

    Who was the first to sign?

    • gianiko says:

      I’m sure it was God Kanye the one that really really wants to help other artist by STEALING their moment and AWARDS and giving it to his QUEEN.Help other artist? that is laughable.So GROSS!

  24. Dani says:

    I wouldn’t pay $20 a month for music when Spotify is free. And when there is youtube. And soundcloud.

  25. Harryg says:

    I would actually pay not to have to ever hear music from some of the people in the photos above.

  26. FingerBinger says:

    It could work. No one thought people would pay for radio and SiriusXM is doing ok.

  27. lucy2 says:

    Are they going to pay ALL the artists more than Spotify and other streaming services? I don’t see anything about that anywhere. And if the answer is no, then this is no different than the others, except the people benefiting will be famous.

  28. Marisa says:

    Meh. I’ll stick with SiriusXM and iTunes

  29. Scal says:

    Someone did the math yesterday and figured out that the combined wealth of people on that stage was 2.6 BILLION dollars. So I don’t have a great deal of empathy for superstar musicians. (Notice even Taylor Swift was smart enough not to sign up for this) Those musicians lower on the totem pole that aren’t just shilling a product I feel for and will purchase their music.

    It’s funny, because piracy became so rampant and out of control in the first place due to the high price of physical media, coupled with the fact that most cds coming out at the time would consist of one really good song, 2 mediocre songs, and the rest being absolute filler crap.

    When services like Spotify, Pandora, iTunes, etc were introduced, the rate of piracy began to plummet, the simple reason being is that users were now able to pay a reasonable price for obtaining music, and pick and choose what songs/titles they wanted. It didn’t eliminate piracy, but it definitely helped curb it.

    So now what are they doing? Pulling their music from services which have shown to be successful, introducing them into their own closed network platform, and charging twice as much. Congratulations, you’re creating more pirates.

  30. Mean Hannah says:

    Wow. I can’t believe most people’s comments here. If you think this is a money grab, you don’t know the music industry. I don’t like Jay-Z, and I’ve posted here a few times that I think Alicia Keys and Beyonce can’t sing as we’ll as they and their fans think they do. However, this is not a money grab, except maybe for the Carter’s.

    Their subscription fee is in keeping with other providers, as is the higher premium for higher fidelity. So many people think music is free and I don’t know how we got there.

    I am so angry reading this post and the majority of comments. All the more so because I am one of many people who has seen the decline of music business over the 15 years I’ve been involved in and had my livelihood and earning potential greatly affected by this attitude. We are not all “the man” taking advantage of artists and ripping off listeners. Many of us are hardworking music lifers with specific skills that most people seem to think should go unpaid. Ugh!

    • AlmondJoy says:

      Mean Hannah, I’m with you. I’m not seeing why people think this is a bad thing. I’m surprised at alot of what I’m reading in this thread. I think dislike for Jay-Z may be fueling some of the comments…

    • Scotchy says:

      I am also someone that also works in the music industry. I can see where you are coming from and why you might think this is good. Personally I think it will just incite more people to pirate releases. It doesn’t really appear thus far to benefit those artists that are not in the top tier as there is no mention that those indie and developing artists are going to receive any more than any of the other streaming services gives them. If there was a mention of the intent to support up and coming artists outside of the hip pop already established genre’s perhaps it would be a good thing, but there isn’t. It’s all greed.

    • Geekychick says:

      Yes, then maybe you should talk with music industry firms and bosses. You had CD’s, you priced them unreasonably high comparing the production cost and numbers you were selling-and thus-piracy! All of these problems are result of people in the music bussiness being greedy. Picasso exhibition is not 20$, but a Cd with 2 hits, 2 meh songs and 10 crap-fests was 20$. Industry changed. Why not re-negotiate with music industry and ask for higher percentage for your own work? If all the artists are so endangered, why don’t they unite against their boss, not the customer? Is it customers fault that music agencies are taking 40 or how much percent of profits? Or musician’s rights to a song? No, it’s fault of musicians who let that bussiness model stand.
      OTOH, if you have one guy who’s arranging your song, one who’s producing, 4 musicians you have to pay, and a team of songwriters-of course, you won’t make much of it because, ideally, you’ll have to share the profit. But then again, if you need all those people, you’re not an artist.
      I have a family member who is a jazz musician-he got the full education: music school from age 5, academy, MA, exercising for 8 hour straight every day. He has numerous awards for his jazz work, but lives from producing, arrangments, pop concerts. I’ve never heard him whine about it-he is happy he cant still create things he loves while earning for his family with his “day job”.

  31. AmandaPanda says:

    As someone who used to work in the industry, I think this is the best thing that could have possibly happened…for Spotify. Let’s see how long it takes before a Tidal artist is complaining about the pennies they receive for royalties/it goes bust/the labels tell them to eff off. I give it 6 months. Very arrogant of them to assume they can run a business that even Apple and Spotify struggle to make money from.

  32. Katie says:

    I’m embarrassed for them.

  33. WhiteQueen says:

    I like this idea because as someone who is making living off of creative work I would hate it if some producers would claim most of profits. Some – yes, but not at the level they are getting now. They don’t create anything, just supporting a platform they’ve made and let the money that others worked hard for, flow to them. THEY are the greedy bunch not the artists! It’s time to support the people who do the work!

  34. Gi says:

    I feel conflicted about this. On the one hand I want the artists to get payed properly not just the suits and record companies. On the other hand I love spotify and its allowed me to listen to a great range of music without ruining my bank balance.
    However I don’t feel bad for any of these artists it’s the less successful ones I feel bad for.
    My golden rule is I pay for the cd if I really want to support the artist.

    Another thing didn’t dr dre already launch a streaming service in America? Beats? It’s not yet out in the uk I believe.

  35. karen says:

    The glorious obviousness here is that none of us have to subscribe. Why are some people acting like this is some personal slight to them ? Nobody says you have to subscribe. Period.
    I don’t begrudge these artists trying to money, at all. I would much rather my $$$ go to them than a bunch of businessmen that TRULY don’t give a s#it about music. Yes, there is enough ego on that stage to sink the Titanic but there is also a equal amount of talent, regardless if you like their genre.
    As a die hard Jack White fan, I could care less about the others. Will I pay 20.00 a month….probably not. It doesn’t make me any less of a die hard Jack fan.

    • TessD says:

      “Yes, there is enough ego on that stage to sink the Titanic but there is also a equal amount of talent, regardless if you like their genre.” – exactly. It’s their work, product of their efforts and they should absolutely make more than the business wigs who don’t give two hoots about music or art and are simply in it for the money. Money, that is created by the talent and hard work of someone else!
      We need to support the artists of every kind. Businessmen will ALWAYS find a way to make money. Off of others in particular.

    • Lucy says:

      I’m not really down with this whole thing, but you do have a good point, karen.

    • Geekychick says:

      Ok, but I don’t get why should we compensate them for their bad bussiness deals? If they have something against the percent producers are taking, why not turn against the producers? Why charge the customer more?

  36. minime says:

    I use Deezer and I’m very happy with it. It has most of the things I want and good subscription prices. I will not change any time soon and specially I wouldn’t change to make these specific already rich people, richer (I also don’t have ANY of them on my playlist, so I don’t really care). As others said, most of these services lowered the music piracy because finally it gave an affordable solution to the music consumers. I think musicians (as other artists) should be fairly paid by their work but, opposite to what some want to make believe, the problem is more in the big machine behind the industry than in the consumer.
    I support the bands and artists I like by buying their cds and specially by going to their concerts, but one thing that helps me know a lot more bands is definitely to have a streaming subscription…I think it works like that for a lot of people. So in the end this also translates in something good for the artists (the vast majority that have no huge PR machine behind them…and probably less auto-tuning).

    I’m not really sure how these specific people can think that they are being ripped off by Spotify and similar services…how much more money do they want?

  37. Jayna says:

    Good for them. This means all the artists that are played on Tidal will make more money compared to Spotify,. I don’t understand the hate for this. All artists should make more money if it works. There are so many complaints by artists regarding Spotify, and it’s why Taylor wouldn’t let her new album be played. There won’t be any free option, so everybody will pay for a subscription. Hopefully, if it is successful, all artists will receive more for their music compared to Spotify. And they are offering it in high fidelity sound ((lossless format) for a higher subscription rate.

    This could fail. These people are investing a lot of money with a chance to lose it or make no profit or little profit compared to a different investment. Whether you use it or not, why the hate because they are the investors compared to someone else?

  38. Lucy says:

    I really like many of the artists who signed up to this, but I’m still conflicted and confused about whether this is a good thing or not. I’ve seen lots of negative responses to his so far…we’ll see what happens.

  39. word says:

    Rich people trying to get richer. That’s all I see in that photo.

  40. Nev says:

    It’s funny that nobody has an issue with Wall Street or Silicon Valley making billions but artists who have mostly started from the ground up and the top players from each genre represented who want to make more millions is a problem. They are the ones doing the work. They should want more. Always. Who cares if they are already rich? What does that have to do with anything?

    • me says:

      Do you not remember the protests on Wall Street a few years ago? Hey everyone has a right to their own opinion, as do you.

      So Tidal is all about “exclusivity”? Isn’t this what Kanye was against? Who cares about getting a song a week earlier. Do people really want to pay extra just to brag about hearing a song 7 days earlier than anyone else??? Big deal? How is that revolutionary? I wish Beck was on stage next to Kanye. That would have been a great pic.

    • Danskins says:

      Perfect comment, Nev!

      This is just a way to get some up in arms over underrepresented artists attempting to regain control of their products instead of letting the Wall Street suits profit from them, as they’ve always done. And who cares if Jay-Z gets richer? Why does that even matter? No one is being forced to support his venture.

  41. Hannah says:

    The way I see it, musicians should release their music and make money off appearances and concerts. People don’t pay for music anymore and I really can’t see the world going back to music being paid for all the time. The internet changed a lot of things and they should be keeping up with the times rather than fighting it. Let’s be honest, no one deserves the amount of money they make anyway. Where do you think their insatiable egos come from? Not that there is any way to control how much they make but I have zero sympathy for them.

    • word says:

      I agree. They will probably want to charge us to view their music videos too. This is getting ridiculous. Why would I pay for a song that I can hear on the radio for free. I would just have to wait a week longer than someone who pays for it. Big deal. Most of the money made in the music industry is not from record sales anyways. It’s from endorsements, concerts, and paid appearances.

    • Lola says:

      “Let’s be honest, no one deserves the amount of money they make anyway. ”

      Exactly. So many comments are all like “Won’t someone think of the artists?”, since when is writing a song so relevant and important? It’s not like they’re saving lives by sampling what ANOTHER musician created 40 years ago. Beyonce plagiarizes other artists ALL the time, same goes for Madonna.
      They’re humans who are not contributing to society in the same way as researchers, teachers or nurses. I can’t believe some people think a musician in entitled to something the rest of humanity isn’t.

      See the working conditions of people all over the world in the fields, mines and factories before becoming indignant of how a guy is not becoming a millionaire for singing a song he probably didn’t even write.

      • WhiteQueen says:

        @ Lola – you’d make a perfect citizen in Gorge Orwells’ “1984″ with your view of the role of art in our lives.

      • Jayna says:

        The music industry has changed drastically since years ago. For most, records aren’t selling. People are just streaming off of Spotify. They are making pennies for their music compared to how it used to be, people that valued buying the physical product or even the digital product. They spend a lot of time and energy on their music. Each year it is worse and worse and has been talked about widely. And it has gone to they have to be on the road nonstop to make money. The Beatles took years off and just made albums and didn’t tour. I don’t consider it fair what has happened in the music industry, so I don’t see what is wrong in investing in this and if it brings more money to the artists who put their music on Tidal .

        Not all of singers or bands put out art, but I consider music an art form that affects many people’s lives. I consider many albums masterpieces and songs or albums that got me through tough times or I owned at a significant point in my life that had a huge impact. What the music I might consider art, you may consider garbage. That’s subjective.

  42. als says:

    Can someone explain to me which of the “artists” at this press conference actually write their own music? Like by themselves? Not with the help of a thousand sound specialists and producers and song-writers? I remember hearing Kanye talking in an interview about the army of people he brought together for his Yeezus album. Why Kanye? If you are a creator, go ahead and pull that rabbit out of your hat, man! You can have 1 or 2 or 3 people to help you, but if you bring in tens and tens of people for your album, what is your art? Same goes for most of the people there (that I know of).
    If you take all the music down and put it on Tisdal I think I’ll stick with my audio cassettes of Roxette and Queen – that I actually paid for, and I will listen to them over and over because that shit is forever.
    Rihanna (my favorite of the bunch), although a very beautiful, pouty and attractive woman is nothing but a woman with a good voice. Beyoncé has a good voice and can dance. But if there were no song-writers what would they sing and dance for?

  43. skeptical says:

    So no “free” (meaning ad-supported) option.

    How would a new band get fans if you have to pay just to hear them for the very first time?

    This is just a money grab by those already rich. You’re not helping new artists by locking them up behind a paid-subscription wall.
    These guys just think they’re too good for poor people.

    Also I’ve seen nothing that would show a different pay-structure. If the music industry setup is the problem, then the solution is to change the industry structure, not just throw out yet another knockoff with a higher price tag.