Lily Allen Speaks About Tıdal

[ThatSLAYGUY 68]

I agree with her comment on the Sound Quality ... it really depends on what you listen to it on 

[MyQueen 2,409]

It is expensive!

I will see Madonna live for that money!

[Raikov 183]

This article illustrates my point better than I could.

Here's how the money from premium subscriptions to Deezer and Spotify is split up:

20% goes to the platform! But I thought Spotify was keeping all the money for itself?!? Spotify doesn't even make a profit. Notice how the label gets 45%...

 

Way back in 2012, we noted that the target of these musicians' anger appeared to be misplaced, as the CEO of Merlin (which represents a ton of indie labels) admitted that the real problem was that

Spotify paid lots of money to labels and it was the labels not giving that money to the artists.

Yet, rather than blaming their own labels (or their own contracts), these artists lashed out at Spotify and other streaming services. Just a few months ago, we covered this issue again, with even Bono admitting that the real problem was the lack of transparency from the labels.

 

The issue isn't Spotify not paying. The issue is labels not paying their artists, and Tidal will not change that. Tidal will make sure the label gets more money and some big players get more money, but if you're not a superstar this won't help you. The money that goes to labels isn't going into recording or promotion (if you read the Courtney Love article above, you'll see musicians often have to fund their own projects... sound familiar?). Musicians will never be fairly compensated until this model of "label gets everything" is changed somehow. Tidal reinforces this model instead of challenging it, which is why it's being so heavily promoted.

Conclusion: if you are truly worried that artists aren't being fairly compensated for their work, don't blame Spotify. They're just giving the money to the label, who then has the job of divvying up who gets what, which is how it's always been done (and how it continues to be done - once again, look at the article about how much money from music sales goes to artists). The problem is much deeper than just "spotify no pay enough."

[Whispering 18,865]

​But you as a consumer don't have to pay for it. It's free. Period. You know what they call tv stations that are broadly available without extra cost and have commercials on it? Free-to-air.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free-to-air

You have a very strange definition of free, appearently nothing ever is free as long as it has an ad on it. I guess Facebook is free as well because it has advertisments.

That's right. It's free for me, but the advertisers are paying the networks. That's how the networks are making money to provide programming for the channel.

Same with the Spotify service that is free to music listeners. The ads are what is paying for thst service. 

[ARTPOPchamp 292]

Lily Allen is rich so why does she care.

​Because she is approaching it from the eyes of average consumers who don't have money to waste, She is defending the little guys who aren't millionaires. 

[elijahfan 23,564]

She has a point. But I just wish everyone went back to buying physical CDs........... Artists should put some effort into their packaging to make people want to buy the real deal. That's what they do in Japan - their physical CDs are incredible, and there's no wondering why the physical market is one of the strongest on the planet there. I suspect Gaga has tried to do something like that with the foiled ARTPOP cover.

[Echo 326]

There are just so many variables when it comes to streaming.

[HausOfGuy 10]

i agree with her. although i do think artists should more valued and need to be in charge of the industry, i also think we need to be realistic. in the world we live in, where i can download HD movies and HQ albums for free, expecting people to pay $20 for it is BS. I think that what really needs to change is how record labels work. 

[HausOfGuy 10]

This article illustrates my point better than I could.

Here's how the money from premium subscriptions to Deezer and Spotify is split up:

20% goes to the platform! But I thought Spotify was keeping all the money for itself?!? Spotify doesn't even make a profit. Notice how the label gets 45%...

 

 

The issue isn't Spotify not paying. The issue is labels not paying their artists, and Tidal will not change that. Tidal will make sure the label gets more money and some big players get more money, but if you're not a superstar this won't help you. The money that goes to labels isn't going into recording or promotion (if you read the Courtney Love article above, you'll see musicians often have to fund their own projects... sound familiar?). Musicians will never be fairly compensated until this model of "label gets everything" is changed somehow. Tidal reinforces this model instead of challenging it, which is why it's being so heavily promoted.

Conclusion: if you are truly worried that artists aren't being fairly compensated for their work, don't blame Spotify. They're just giving the money to the label, who then has the job of divvying up who gets what, which is how it's always been done (and how it continues to be done - once again, look at the article about how much money from music sales goes to artists). The problem is much deeper than just "spotify no pay enough."

​

yess this! very enlightening 

[Kayla 7,595]

She has a point. But I just wish everyone went back to buying physical CDs........... Artists should put some effort into their packaging to make people want to buy the real deal. That's what they do in Japan - their physical CDs are incredible, and there's no wondering why the physical market is one of the strongest on the planet there. I suspect Gaga has tried to do something like that with the foiled ARTPOP cover.

​I actually like that music is more digital for the environmental reasons, tbh.

The experience of getting a CD in a case is way better, but that's a lot of plastic.  

But I do agree with the idea that artists should put more effort back into their packaging. 
If we want people to take music and art seriously, we need to give them things worth taking seriously and stop putting the "fast food" of music and art at the forefront. 

[JEANBO 364]

You can see queen Lily is from England because she's spilling some serious tea.
 

Also, if you are a true artist, would one care to get as many people as they can to listen to their music? Then, money is basically a positive externality. As a businessman/woman getting Tidal is ok, but don't go around IT'S ALL ABOUT THE ARTIST!!!1!
 

[Fiona Apple 13,006]

I love Lily

[StrawberryBlond 13,289]

Thank God, an artist speaking sense. Lily, of all people, who once famously rallied against illegal downloading, at that. Not her biggest fan at all, but she's finally speaking some views that are completely right. It's hard enough to get people to buy music at all - how is establishing yet another streaming service with even bigger fees than the biggest streaming brand going to encourage people to switch? It's like saying: "Don't bother with that Spotify rubbish and come and join us - we've got an even MORE expensive service for you to subscribe to!" Uh, no. I especially love her point about how unless you buy 12 or more albums a year, this service is just ripping you off. Unless, like me, you're an amateur music reviewer who listens to around 100 albums a year and you're a full on music lover who listens to new music all the time, you're paying all this money every month for a service you don't even use. I listen to music free through YouTube and if it's not available there, I search for a free stream. I don't understand why anyone would pay to stream music at all, especially if you only listen to one or two artists. You're paying a monthly fee for listening to music you don't even own. If you're going through a bad patch in your life and music is the last thing on your mind, you're throwing all this money down the drain month after month. I listen to music through YouTube, which isn't owning music either, but at least it's free! I'm not still paying for it if I stop using it for a while, but with paid streaming sites, even when you're not using it, you're still paying for it. If you only buy, say, 3 albums (or less) a year, just buy them and you'd save a whole bunch of money as opposed to listening to them via a monthly Spotify subscription! I don''t understand the public sometimes.

$240 a year merely to LISTEN to music (not purchase it) is atrocious and is the very reason why illegal downloading took off. This is just basic logic. Slashing prices is the only way to get sales these days in this tough economy. Expecting people to fork out hundreds of their hard earned money on entertainment when they already subtract so much to tax, bills, food, etc. is simply not flying in this day and age. Most entertainment services are realising this and trying to find ways to make money with an "if you can't beat em, join em" approach that is paying off. But not every business wants to play ball and will continue to be delusional and think we can go back to the heydey of mega sales. And it's time to wake up to reality.

[Dorothy Gale 7,575]

I can't at people who feel they are entitled to free music. It's like saying that because a director or actor is rich you shouldn't have to pay to see their movie. Music is a luxury, not a necessity.

[Tropico 4,145]

Damn. Lily is spilling the tea.