-
WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!
New Music on Tidal
- Thread starter dallasjustice
- Start date
Indeed, rumours has it.
I bought the CD since at that time she was insisting that it would not show up on streaming services.
NorthSky
Major Contributor
- Joined
- Feb 28, 2016
- Messages
- 4,998
- Likes
- 976
That's how they make their money...false rumors. 
Phelonious Ponk
Addicted to Fun and Learning
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2016
- Messages
- 859
- Likes
- 218
I'm personally kind of fond of actually paying artists for their work.
Tim
Tim
OP
dallasjustice
Major Contributor
- Thread Starter
- #6
I agree. For me, there's no reason to buy CDs anymore. Tidal streams CD quality and I'm already paying $20/month for that. My understanding is that Tidal cuts the artist in more so than Spotify. But artists make a lot more from Spotify because there's way more subscribers. I think a lot of the artist complaints come down to the deals those artists made with the record company or the streaming services. Some small artists actually make quite a lot from streaming if they don't have a record company to pay. I think it's the artist's responsibility to make a good deal for themselves and it's foolish for the artist to blame the consumer for streaming and not buying.
Phelonious Ponk
Addicted to Fun and Learning
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2016
- Messages
- 859
- Likes
- 218
It's the deals the record companies cut with the streaming services, and small artists don't make squat from streaming services unless they can somehow manage to be "small artists," without record company contracts, who are getting millions of plays. Who might that be? The real problem isn't even the record companies or the streaming services. The business guys will always take all the money, given the opportunity to do so. That's like a natural law or something. The problem is that our copyright laws haven't been updated since the '70s, and don't protect artists in the world of digital distribution. It will eventually discourage people from entering the business, blunt creation of new product, and our do-nothing Congress will be forced to act. When they do, the price of streaming, which is unnaturally low, will go up significantly and/or the record companies and streaming services will get a much smaller cut. You should, and hopefully will be paying for the amount you listen, to the artists you listen to, and the streaming services will get a small cut of their income instead of the other way around. Free streaming will become a thing of the past. Personally, I'm keeping an optical drive to burn CDs to my library until that day arrives. $20 a month is nothing. Less than two CDs. 13 songs - less than one CD - on iTunes. It's a great deal for listeners, a great deal for the streaming services. Artists short of huge pop stars getting millions of plays can't even make a decent living from it and it is stifling innovation in an area where innovation is everything.
I won't participate in the destruction of the art.
Tim
The problem here is deep and old. The notion of selling us an hour full of music was to put one or two good songs in it and fill the rest with fillers. Then charge a lot more than they would have with a single. This hugely inflated the revenues for the record companies for years and years. First blow came with Apple breaking the album into 99 cent tracks. Then came subscription. Both sharply reduce the amount of money the label/artist get relative to selling a full album. And as such, it is a battle between will of the mass consumers versus the artist/label. The system was forcefully optimized in favor of the consumer as the Record companies were throwing parties and giving themselves big bonus checks. They fell victim to where the technology took them....
Individuals can publish their own music, we don't really need record companies anymore.
All a artist needs it a IT tech guy, a recording venue and producer and engineer etc plus pr and a manager to book venues and coordinate the team.
No record executive needed, the public pick the talent now too via the Internet so they are not even needed for talent spotting anymore.
When you start out you can do a lot of the above yourself.
All a artist needs it a IT tech guy, a recording venue and producer and engineer etc plus pr and a manager to book venues and coordinate the team.
No record executive needed, the public pick the talent now too via the Internet so they are not even needed for talent spotting anymore.
When you start out you can do a lot of the above yourself.
You can and many do. But how would anyone know you exist? That is what record companies do: marketing.
Well that's what the PR man does, it can be done by specialists internet gorilla marketing experts. You don't need Sony records.
It's not like the old days, you don't need connections at MTV or in printed media.
The record companies should of been the ones to offer the streaming services, they were sleeping on the job and now are finished. It might be messy and take a while but it is bye bye to them.
Similar threads
