Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

a music subscription service at 20 a month is too much

95 replies

ljwales · 31/03/2015 06:53

Why is jay z launching his own service? Its expensive and doesn't he have enough. I pay 1/3 of that for Spotify, will be annoyed if artists pull their music and force you into paying three times as much

OP posts:
BoneyBackJefferson · 31/03/2015 19:29

The thing is Spotify won't be a good service if all these artists start pulling music off it.

That would depend on what music you listen too. I can't think of one artist that has gone to this "new" system that I will miss.

CuppaTeaAndAJammieDodger · 31/03/2015 19:30

These "artists" are leaving an incredibly bad (read money grabbing, self important) taste in my mouth.

I heard an interview with Neil Young recently, someone who I regarded highly, he was creating something similar (or maybe he was going in on it with Jay Z?) and the way in which he was justifying it was so up his own arse it really made me loose respect for him - and to top it off he fucking CROWDFUNDED it!!

ahbollocks · 31/03/2015 19:36

Yanbu im a massive fan of one of the artists who has joined and I'm gutted! Its just not worth it to me, I mean I pay 6 quid to Netflix and have more than I could ever watch so awesome value for money, its just not comparable

inabeautifulplace · 31/03/2015 19:44

Think it's £20 for the high quality version. Complete bargain in my view, as in the past I'd regularly buy 10-20 CDs monthly. Access to millions of tracks is great value.

Didn't see the press release, are they stating better royalties for the artists? Spotify is pretty shocking :(

ilovechristmas1 · 31/03/2015 19:46

i really hope this goes belly up

its greed pure greed

cleanmachine · 31/03/2015 19:48

Alicia keyes speech was sickening and she needs to work on her pronunciation of names. Greedy bastards the lot of them. Was saddened to see Chris Martin up there.

confused79 · 31/03/2015 19:48

I pay the Spotify so I can listen offline, don't want to be using my data whilst I'm out and about. I get it half price though as I use my brothers student discount. Even that was hard enough for me to face, I don't like spending money Grin. This new music site has no chance of getting £20 off me a month!!

inabeautifulplace · 31/03/2015 19:54

Just read the PR. Seems a bit fluffy on the "we'll pay the artists more" front. 15 million tracks. Not worth £10 a month? Greedy???

Ubik1 · 31/03/2015 19:55

Have you seen the launch video? It's on YouTube. Just one big cringe fest. Millionnaires behaving like they are the flipping UN.

Bunbaker · 31/03/2015 20:03

If we all stopped paying for music then no-one would put anything online for us to listen to.

I listen to CDs or the radio. But I am old.

pinkje · 31/03/2015 20:15

I think in the artists' eyes £10 or £20 is nothing - of course to us, the paying audience, it could add up to quite a % of disposable income.

ljwales · 31/03/2015 20:32

Tbh apart from Alicia I've never paid for any of their music, what I am concerned about is the precedence and knock on affects it has.

They are cutting out the middle man and charging significantly more. Hope it flops big time greedy fuckers.

OP posts:
DoctorLawn · 31/03/2015 20:43

I use Spotify - love making playlists and listening to ones Spotify themselves make. Would never have heard of The Wombats otherwise - they're my new big love.

I saw the video of the announcement / promo thing of Tidal today. Was a bit sickened to see that all the people who were on stage are pretty well set for life in terms of money - JayZ, Kanye, Madonna, Chris Martin... all of them. Seems a bit greedy to be asking for more. Was gutted Arcade Fire and Daft Punk are involved. I'm hoping smaller bands will continue to be a part of Spotify.

NoRockandRollFun · 31/03/2015 20:47

If this new service was a way for smaller unknown bands and artists to cut out the middle man and earn more money then yes great but err I get the feeling that's not the aim....... Hmm
I'll be sticking with Spotify until someone comes up with a more democratic version not fronted by a bunch of egotistical twats.

ljwales · 31/03/2015 20:56

TIDAL | #TIDALforALL:

Oh my that is very wank. What a load of self important idiots. Some people go to bed cold and hungry.

OP posts:
TeapotDictator · 31/03/2015 21:07

I think someone needs to tell them never to all be filmed in the same room together ever again. Spoof worthy.

DoctorLawn · 31/03/2015 21:18

Everything they say 'It's about art... giving art to the people' yada yada... how is that different to Spotify / Beats by Dr Dre / YouTube / Radio 1? Grin

They were all very careful not to say 'It's about the money, yeah' Biscuit

Madonna and her leg though... Grin Grin Grin

Sapat · 01/04/2015 00:34

I got very bored watching the clip. Lots of words, very little meaning. Might have been a historic day for them, but for me... Meh.

depecheNO · 01/04/2015 01:08

I'm a current Spotify user (student discount so £4.99/m), testing Tidal on the free trial to review right now as just heard of it on here. I clicked on this thread prepared to outraged, but so far nothing about Tidal offends me heavily. Disclaimer: I don't work for or even like Jay-Z.

There is a discernible difference in streaming quality between this and competing services, but it may or may not be beneficial to a given user depending on such tricky variables as data plans, level of fussiness, quality of hearing, quality of speakers, etc. The artist radio function does seem to have been curated by a human being and not a computer program. It's pleasantly reminiscent of a tailored radio show but without the chatter. The way I see it, just because the people running Tidal (may?) have less than philanthropic motives doesn't mean they can't be bullied into fair payments for smaller artists too if they aren't offering such already. (Not that the product will necessarily become popular enough at £19.99/m - unfairly $19.99 in the US, but that's typical of all streaming service price conversions - for them to consider offering the little guys a bigger cut.)

Spotify is by no means a shining example of fair royalty payments - it's just that the group of artists who can actually afford the loss of accessibility (and thus new fan acquisition) aren't exactly the ones being hit the hardest by that in the first place in terms of level of reliance on specific music "discovery" services. They are in more of a position to call the shots than an unsigned band such as my friend's which relies on the use of any popular service which isn't actively charging them to participate, let alone directly paying them anything at all. For this reason I'm excited to give any new service which is significantly different a chance, and interested in setting the facts straight r.e. music streaming for the curious-but-uninitiated.

depecheNO · 01/04/2015 01:08

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

meglet · 01/04/2015 10:28

Is it just me who has no idea how spotify or tidal even work. So you can just pick any songs you like, but you don't get to keep them?

QuizteamBleakley · 01/04/2015 10:38

That's it, in essence, meglet. You can choose an artist / track / radio station / genre and play music. You don't 'own' them, you get to listen to them. There're loads of other things you can do but it's basically that. I use Deezer and, say I hear of a new band or hear a track I like, I can listen to the whole album via my music subscription (currently free, thanks to Sonos offer.)

MrsBenadrylCrumplesnork · 01/04/2015 10:59

I work în the music industry, so hopefully should be able to show a little insight. At the moment, purchasing music in every single form is down, except vinyl. CDs, album downloads, track downloads, everything is down. Vinyl still only comprises 6% of the industry sales, so even though that's up it doesn't really make a dent. Streaming is going through the roof, and while this presents a huge opportunity, the way it is currently handled means even the big artists make next to nothing per stream. I'm talking hundredths of a penny. Even someone as famous, with as many tracks as Lady Gaga makes tens of pounds, if that, a year from spotify, for example.

What this means is that recording and releasing music is becoming unsustainable. It is expensive, you have to take into consideration equipment, experience, it is as designed and manufactured as a chair or shampoo and requires all the steps that it takes to get them market ready. Each song has to be written, session musicians hired, recording studios paid for, sound engineers, producers, it has to be mixed and mastered... You have to pay all of those people to employed, and for all their experience. It has to be marketed, plugged for radio etc. etc. and on top of that the publishers and labels, a and r people take their cut too. Even when CDs were the norm, when you bought a £10 album, the artist (assuming they were the songwriter, which was unusual) they would be lucky to make £2 from your £10. In th streaming age that seems very generous! Please remember that all the work, if not more, that you were prepared to pay £10 in the past took place for the tracks being released today, except there is no physical copy! Is the CD and the case really worth £10?

Now, when you are as successful as Jay-Z, even the small sliver of the profits he gets adds up to an awful lot. He also is a very astute business man and gets a much bigger portion than your average artist. It also has the effect (affect?) that the labels can't afford to take a risk with artists anymore, which is why a lot of the music we hear in the top 40 etc. sounds uninnovative and similar, the labels know they will sell and make a profit.

However, this means for your smaller artists it is simply unaffordable. Free streaming has also created this mindset that music should be free, and I've also seen an increase in venues excepting musicians to play for publicity. You can't pay your rent with publicity! I understand that it leaves a bad taste to see these unimaginably wealthy, successful, attractive, famous people saying "it's so unfair", and I often feel jealous myself, and I know how the industry works and personally believe it is unfair! But the fact is, if my artists, even the ones who can sell out tours across the country (and you've still never heard of them), stood up and said "this needs to change!", no one would care. The only people who can change it are the powerhouses of the industry.

squoosh · 01/04/2015 11:12

Free streaming has also created this mindset that music should be free, and I've also seen an increase in venues excepting musicians to play for publicity. You can't pay your rent with publicity!

I agree completely.

BoneyBackJefferson · 01/04/2015 16:14

MrsBenadrylCrumplesnork and squoosh

"Free streaming has also created this mindset that music should be free, and I've also seen an increase in venues excepting musicians to play for publicity. You can't pay your rent with publicity!"

I agree with this but, (IMHO) if you believe that any of the (big) artists that have given money for shares in this are doing this for altruistic reasons then you are fooling yourself.