a music subscription service at 20 a month is too much

[ljwales]

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

Boneyback I dare say they aren't, but why would you expect any other professional who gets paid based on what is essentially commission to offer their product for free?

It is in the interest of every artist that another system is developed so that the public can access music easily, while the musicians still get paid for their work. Being a performer, especially musicians and actors, is generally thought of as 'not real work', probably because it is a very swan-like industry for want of a better way of explaining! Appears effortless and glamorous from the outside, but everyone is scrabbling and working on a knife edge inside. The area I work, the attitude 'you are only as good as your last performance/track/etc.' very much applies. A mistake can cost you your whole career. People a very quick to criticise, and yet don't know about the revenue streams within the business. And it is a business ! Careers on the line here, and in the last few years the business really has been strangled.

Can you honestly say if you were a leading figure in your field, and the vast majority of people were accessing your product for free, penalising both you and those less successful than you, you wouldn't stand up and say something? Why shouldn't they protect the careers of musicians, including themselves? Why is that wrong? Is it because they are wealthy and successful? Bearing in mind they are the extreme extreme minority, and many performers struggle to break even, especially now. Is it because you believe it is too easy or fun to be a real job? Yes, it is a hugely rewarding and exciting and all those things but it is also really, really difficult and it is never, ever easy.

I'd be interested to know why you feel that it is your right to consume these products without paying the people who created them?

To really get the most out of Tidal's premium service, with its high quality FLAC/lossless streaming, you need good equipment to listen to it on. I only listen to music via iPhone/iPad and cheapo speakers/headphones so high fidelity streaming isn't of use to me. I love listening to music but the basic level streaming quality I listen to is enough for me. So I'm sticking to the cheaper Spotify for now (though I've heard Tidal have matched Spotify in price now for their basic quality streaming).

MrsBenadrylCrumplesnork i think your giving a very very inaccurate and biased view!

The big artists don't make tens of pounds from Spotify, Calvin Harris made close to 2'000'000 just one track last year just on Spotify, time said. So I'm sure they all make a lot.

Can't see how streaming is any worse than the radio for consuming for free. Then again record companies used to get mad that people could tape off the radio and tried to ban it lol.

Nork when I listen on Spotify I pay the amount the artist agreed per stream to licence their music. Your talking as if people are advocating piracy!

MrsBenadrylCrumplesnork

"I'd be interested to know why you feel that it is your right to consume these products without paying the people who created them?"

Could you show me where I posted this?

I have no problem with "artists" protecting themselves, but lets be honest, all they want to do is take a bigger slice of the money themselves.

Lets not forget that by signing up to this (Or any other service which they get money from) I don't actually own anything, no hard copy, not even a digital copy, as soon as I stop paying the fee, I am left with nothing.

MrsBenadrylCrumplesnork

Another point

If these artists are doing this to protect up and coming musicians, why are we paying £20 when the US is paying $20, if this is about the music surely we should be paying £14 (ish) given the exchange rate?

1. To make any significant sum from Spotify, you have to have a global megahit. The kind of song you can't avoid for months on end. I know a lot of musicians (I'm also in the music industry), some of whom you will have heard of. Their revenue from Spotify is so little they don't even mention it. Almost no musicians have global megahits. The vast majority never come near a hit of any sort. They make music for a small but loyal audience. Those people are not Calvin Harris. He is not a yardstick by which to judge musicians' earnings.
2. £20 a month to listen to unlimited music is not very much. It's seven cups of coffee. It's the cost of one and a half CDs before music piracy destroyed music retail.
3. This is musicians' job. It's not a hobby. They make their living from music. But because of the conditions created by piracy, people now believe music should be free, or at least heavily discounted. If no one wants to pay for music, who's going to be able to afford to make it in the future.
4. People do not make money from recorded music anymore. Tomorrow night I'm having a drink with a friend whose last album was No 1. You'll have heard of him, especially if you have teenage daughters. How much did he make from his last album, on which he wrote all the songs? Enough to buy a one bedroomed flat on a main road in one of London's less lovely districts.

And yet people are complaining about being asked to pay musicians for their music.

Time article referred to by lj

I don't think artists have ever made much from music sales, have they? I was under the impression that the record releases were to publicise the music and get people to attend the gigs. Of course, concerts are so big and spectacular now that they cost the artists megabucks to put on...

I agree that venues thinking bands should play for 'publicity' (or 50 quid split four ways or whatever) should think again.

I think where Tidal sticks in the average, non-industry related craw is the pictures of all those already hugely, hugely wealthy people on that stage.

I'm old enough to remember when music wasn't free, and I agree £20 isn't a massive amount for a music fan to spend a month. Artists used to make millions from record sales didn't they. I'm surprised they play for free now though, I assumed festivals and gigs was how they made their money nowadays, ticket prices being what they are.

AllFallDown

Will your friend be making more money out of this or (as I believe) get paid the same pittance with the majority of the money going to a different person?

All fall even if tidal pays double, double!e of not very much for poor musicians is not very much still. Of course only a few make big money that's the same for every creative industry. However a hit song will earn more just in spotify than the average nmw makes in their lifetime.

20 is a massive amount! That's 240 a year post tax. Just to rent something digital, a d never own anything.

To Madonna it isn't much.

Well I can easily remember when I'd spend £20 a month on 2 CDs so it doesn't seem so bad.

ijwales/BoneyBackJefferson … I'm not sticking up for Tidal. I don't see it offering much benefit to smaller artists. What I'm complaining about is people here who think even a small fee for music is too much. It's an attitude of entitlement that diminishes the hard work of others.

DoctorLawn … Until record sales started tumbling in the early years of the last decade, recorded music is where musicians got the vast majority of their income. Touring was to promote the album. That has reversed, which is why gig tickets are now significantly more expensive than they used to be, and why even at the smallest gigs you'll see bands hawking their merch after their set. In the 80s, when I was a kid, a band even in the top 10 of the indie charts might sell 30,000 copies in a week, and get nowhere near the proper charts. Now that would have you straight in at No 1 in the proper charts.

tinkly

(black cat time)

I can remember going in to music shops and paying £16 for an imported version of a cd because it had 3 extra songs that were only available on the import.

I can rmember when we had a decent internet market and I could purchase imported albums for 2/3rds or half the price.

This really isn't a step forward. (IMO)

All fall people aren't complaining about a small fee, people are happy to pay Spotify fee. 240 a year isn't small.

allfalldown

But (as someone that pays for hard copies of music) I have no control over who gets what share of the money.

After being bitten by DRM I won't be buying (or renting in this case) digital copies of music ever again.

It has been said for along time (at least in the music circles that I am in) that the music industry has for a long time been bailing out a sinking ship.

Books are going the way of music too.

BoneyBackJefferson …

It's £20 a month for the lossless/FLAC option. It's £10 for standard streaming quality. But still my point applies: it's not very long ago at all that you were expected to pay £13.99 for a new release CD. If you buy vinyl now, you will often be paying north of £20 for one new record. If you have any interest in music, £20 is not a lot. It only sounds a lot because people have got used to not paying musicians for their labour, and now resent being asked to do so.

I'm not going to stan for the record companies here, who a) ripped off consumers when times were good and b) failed to respond to the internet until it was too late. But if there weren't record companies, how do you think any of you would hear about music? The record companies pay for a track to be recorded; they pay for pluggers and publicists to draw it to the attention of radio and press, who in turn draw it to the attention of the public if it's any good. They pay for it to have a profile. Music without a profile almost never gets discovered. It languishes, unheard. Musicians starting out cannot do that by themselves, or - more accurately - the vast majority can't. Very, very occasionally you get a breakout star who has bypassed the label system and who gets held up as a new paradigm of how to make it, rather ignoring the fact that the very rarity of such examples suggests they are the exceptions that prove the rule.

There's an excellent book called How Music Got Free, by Stephen Witt, being published by Bodley Head in June. It's not a business book. It's a narrative of three people, and it's a must read for anyone who thinks that the move to free was just the way things went, and it's been great for all of us.

tinkly

try bookbub they have all sorts of deals for e-readers. and some of the stuff is free.

Allfalldown

£20 sounds like its not much, it can be a lot to some families, but again if I pay the money I come away with the sum total of nothing. When I buy an album/cd I, at least, own a copy of it.

Boney that's what I mean, there is increasing access to free books. That would seem like a good thing, but is it going to cause the same sort of problems for writers as it has for musicians?

tinkly

I think that one of the main differences is that writers can now (pretty much) self publish through various outlets.

Also various writers have started off as bloggers as have been picked up by major publishing houses through existing work.

But the truth is that I don't know.

Boney yes of course you are right, writers do self publish, and presumably see a lot more of their sales revenus by doing so. Shame there is no mechanism for artists to do the same. Obviously there would be initial costs to produce a record but there should be a way for them to sell direct digitally.

An artist can self release music on google play / Amazon. No sure about apple as they are cunts and usually make it difficult and take a far higher cut. There maybe a one off 50 fee though for google play.