Post by Johnno Wong & Veronica Sabo
Last year Jay Z purchased the company ‘Tidal’ for a reported $56 Million. This streaming company is a rival to Spotify however unlike others it does not provide a ‘free’ service which members can access music with adverts. Conversely, artists like Taylor Swift are pulling out from ‘free stream’ music companies and signing onto ‘Tidal’.
What is their reason? Purely to preserve the integrity of their music to combat their industry pressures of illegal downloads and losing profit to main stream sites. Jay Z has agreed to pay 75% royalties to the artists who sign onto the company which is above industry standards. One would argue that they make enough money already so what is the big deal? Surely the money make in records and endorsements alone would be enough? Would the profits from Tidal be a pinch of salt compared to how much money they make?
Artists such as Alicia Keyes, Daft Punk , Rihanna, Beyonce, Madonna and others are relaying together to fit for their music. The company claims to offer higher sound quality music compared to its competitors, provides videos and insights into the creative genius of the artists along with tapping into the public’s sense of compassion for these artists whose music is being given for ‘free’ or illegally downloaded.
For the common day person who may not be an expert in music and sound quality – why would we pay for a streaming service when we could opt for a free option such as Spotify? Looking back in the history of music production one would have argued why one should buy records when you could listen to music for free on the radio or with the access to illegal downloads people would still buy CDs. However we find people are still willing to pay the price for high quality accessible music. The big question amongst this stream of questions is: Are the music lovers and music lay people of the world feel bad for these artists losing out amidst industry pressures or will we continue to opt for free means of streaming?