TIDAL: A Step Backward in the Digital Music Industry

Published: May 15, 2015

'Together, we can make music history'. This is the phrase that was repeatedly tweeted by some of America's top ranking musicians leading up to the official launch of the new premium music streaming service.

All of its VIP ambassadors had transformed their Twitter profiles teal blue to match the company's branding, accompanied by the highly imaginative hashtag 'TIDALforALL'.

Originally called 'WiMp' and founded in 2009; the Swedish music service was bought in March 2015 for $56 million dollars by a company under the command of musician and entrepreneur Jay-Z aka Shawn Carter. With the help of its representative already being an established musician himself, TIDAL has presented itself as the 'first artist owned global music and entertainment platform' in the world.

TIDAL promises subscribing artists more profits and glory in comparison to other current rivals like Spotify and Napster and upcoming rivals such as iTunes Beats and YouTube's upcoming 'Magic Key.' Taylor Swift - who pulled her catalogue off Spotify last year - is among those to feature on the new streaming service. Other artists consisting of this revolutionary 'artist ownership' platform include: Jay Z's own wife (Beyoncé); an artist who never concealed his admiration for Jay-Z's wife (Kanye West); his most successful signed artist (Rihanna) and other exclusive members of his celebrity-fueled entourage such as Madonna, Usher and Nicki Minaj.

All of them claim to be determined to 'restore the value of music' to its listeners; but it would seem more like they are determined to restore the value of their music to their paychecks. TIDAL is so far the most expensive of the many subscription streaming services currently available - justified by its access to exclusive videos, higher quality sound and in depth editorial.
The big discussion around streaming websites is how much or how little artists and songwriters can gain from them. TIDAL promises artists it can pay them more, but what difference does that really make for its listeners?

Whether fans would pay $20 dollars a month simply in order to watch an exclusive video a week before its official release is very questionable. It would almost seem as though TIDAL has forgotten the source behind the popularity of early streaming services such as Spotify and YouTube - their ability to share content free of charge, free of any subscriptions and its position as a virtual public space where absolutely anyone can participate.

Musicians ranting about revolutions, rights and earnings - however understandable they may be - ultimately come across as a self-serving revolution amongst artists. Listeners are becoming increasingly aware that there is an open hunt for their subscribing power.

The post TIDAL: A Step Backward in the Digital Music Industry appeared first on WAM.

Gear / Tech / Business
follow us on Twitter      Contact      Privacy Policy      Terms of Service
Copyright © BANDMINE // All Right Reserved
Return to top