A new music platform called Tidal is coming out, created by and for musicians, and it’s touting the top tier artists that have signed on to it. The basis of the service is that nothing is for free, but even other musicians are wondering who really will benefit. Peggy Binzel of Free Radio Alliance offers some thoughts.
That’s Entertainment
By: Peggy Binzel, Spokesperson, Free Radio Alliance
The music industry certainly has been entertaining for the last 10 days – and that’s way before you get to the actual music.
The Internet lit up with pithy chatter only minutes after Daft Punk, Madonna, Jay Z and numerous other star-studded compatriots took to the stage in New York City on March 30 to announce the launch of Tidal, which the group collectively proclaimed to be the “first ever artist-owned global music and entertainment platform.” Kudos to Alicia Keys who even managed to weave Jimmy Hendrix and Nietzsche’s words into the mix.
The celebs’ key points about Tidal can pretty much be summed up as “artist-owned,” “nothing-for-free,” and “lossless fidelity.”
That’s right, unlike Spotify, Pandora and other music streaming platforms, Tidal won’t offer a free tier.
But not all artists are applauding the “artist-owned” venture. Ben Gibbard of the indie rock band Death Cab for Cutie told the Daily Beast in a recent conversation that Tidal “totally blew it by bringing out a bunch of millionaires and billionaires and propping them up onstage and then having them all complain about not being paid.”
Consumers had a lot to say about the $20 per month minimum tier, as well as the fanfare that accompanied it. Most of what they had to say wasn’t pretty, but it was admittedly fun to read. For example, ponderings abounded about the joint net worth of stage-standers Madonna, Jay Z and Beyoncé. “$2 billion,” one commenter surmised. More down-to-earth musings about what the monthly fee meant, ranging from one commenter’s highly-valued monthly nail salon money to half-a-month’s rent over a year and also some comments that might best not be printed. And, why pay when plenty of music is available for free, many wondered.
Meanwhile, industry insiders and Wall Street types were quick to note the already crowded field of streaming services that Tidal would be joining. They questioned the benefit of the touted “lossless” fidelity advantage, which, they say, would be mostly obviated either by wireless connections that compress the lossless signal or inadequate consumer equipment that would result in a similarly degraded quality – the result being that only a thin tier of high-end consumers would actually benefit from the feature.
Time will tell how Tidal fares. More note-worthy than Tidal’s success or failure though may be two themes that seem to be recurring as of late: music industry attempts to move away from free-to-consumer music and heightened friction between artists of all genres and their music labels.
To the former point about the music industry’s drive to end free music, Tidal is not alone. Re/code published an article that accurately described the trend by large music labels to make free music less accessible to the public.
To the latter, if the multitude of lawsuits out there are any indication, more than a few contracts are overwhelmingly stilted in favor of the labels. And, that’s just among the big name artists who can afford to sue. Why artists would agree to be the face of record labels’ campaign to get Congress to impose a new tax on radio stations, the majority of which would continue to go to the record labels, is curious.
The good news is that the market will sort out the appropriate business model for streaming music. It’s worth noting that amid all the angst and uncertainty about the future of music, radio stands out as the option whose sole business model is to offer consumers music, news, sports, community affairs and more, all with a local twist and all for free. Policymakers are apt to think that’s a good idea. At the Free Radio Alliance, we certainly agree.
Peggy Binzel is spokesperson for the Free Radio Alliance, a coalition advocating to keep radio and other businesses that play recorded music strong for communities across the nation by opposing a performance tax.
