The Rising Tide
what TIDAL is, what it isn’t, and the bigger issue at hand
“I am not the target market.”
“I don’t need to stream my music.”
“I certainly don’t need to pay to stream my music.”
Those are the sentiments I keep repeating to myself in the time I’ve been spending with TIDAL, the Swedish streaming platform that was purchased and recently relaunched by a Who’s Who of musical heavyweights, spearheaded by Jay Z.
I’ll clear a few things up quickly, so my stance is made clear. I buy all my music. Physically. I have spent likely less than $30 on iTunes in my entire history with the program, and yet I have well over 150GB of music that I can point to on my digital drive, and then somewhere on a shelf in another room. I’m not here to talk about why I love physical media, that’s a separate issue. I’m just trying to connect with TIDAL.
I’m trying to understand why people who are on top of the music game have spent countless hours this week saying the system is broken. I want to know why they think yet ANOTHER streaming service is the answer to the problem of artists being fairly compensated for the art they create. I want to know why they think TIDAL is different. I am not the target market. I don’t need to stream my music. I certainly don’t need to pay to stream my music.
But I love music. I spent probably half my income on music. The idea that artists, many whom I have a vested interest in, have come together to create a platform for musical discovery and (as far as Jay Z is concerned) musical creation, should excite me.
But it doesn’t.
I’ve spent hours on TIDAL. Hours. I’ve been listening to albums on TIDAL that I have in my iTunes, because I purchased them on CD or Vinyl. I sat with TIDAL, expecting something to, I don’t know, happen? Something would just click, and then suddenly I’d go “OH, the new Sufjan record on TIDAL is a different experience than the vinyl!” SURPRISE: it isn’t. That album on wax though? Breaks my heart. And you CAN hear it.
I’m not here to rip on TIDAL. A million fucking dissident articles popped up with 8 hours of the relaunch, espousing this as a failure on par with the Mini Disc, or for a more recent comparison, Neil Young’s Ponoplayer. I keep telling myself TIDAL sucks, because it doesn’t do anything for me, and that’s true. But… I am not the target market. I don’t need to stream my music. I certainly don’t need to pay to stream my music.
Can I put myself in the shoes of someone who doesn’t buy as much music as myself? I’ve had conversations with these people, some are close friends. One of them said to me “I like Spotify. What’s a few ads, it’s a small price to pay for free music.” She has a point. But there’s minute flaws in every angle of that ideal.
People pay for cable TV. I pay for cable TV. I only really want certain channels, and on those channels, certain programs. But for some reason, I don’t mind. Paying for cable is the only legal way I can watch those shows. I skip the commercials, and that’s that. I don’t resent my cable bill.
But something happened along the way, and good God help us if it can be traced back to Napster AGAIN, (that’s probably it) but somewhere along the way, people decided they shouldn’t have to pay for music anymore. Is it because music has always, in one way or another, been around for free on radio? Maybe. And there’s ads. Again, small price to pay, people put up with it, but the radio isn’t on your terms.
Remember satellite radio? I say remember because honestly, who gives a fuck about satellite radio anymore. When it dawned in the early 00's (XM in 2001, Sirius in ‘02) it was to be the death of radio as we knew it. “No commercials? They can say whatever they want? Shit man, it’s HBO for your ears!” Well, here we are over a decade later, and the need for satellite radio is about as relevant as the need for movies from Sylvester Stallone. We all know it’s not gone, but no one in their right mind will actively seek it out. The late Mitch Hedberg said it best
“I did a radio interview with XM radio… they said “You can swear on XM radio.” No shit, cause nobody can hear it. You can swear in the woods, too!”
People just don’t want to pay for music, but they want all the music all the time. Satellite radio also suffered a blow when a certain little rectangle came in to existence, allowing people to become their own radio stations. “No commercials, and I also don’t have to hear anything by Lenny Kravitz ever again? Sign me up!” said everyone who ever had a shred of taste. iPod culture took off, but a funny thing happened. When the honeymoon was over, people realized that iTunes was essentially just a nice little place to keep your tunes, but that if you wanted to hear anything NEW, you’d have to acquire it. And I say acquire, because downloading music became a goddamn sport, and everyone was winning. Except artists.
And it’s important to clarify which artists. Because many people will be quick to point out the Metallica v. Napster case, which ultimately was boiled down in a South Park episode to this conclusion: if you’ve got a big enough profile, the money is in touring, so shut up. And it’s true. Madonna’s recently been on yet another Madonna-grade high horse, saying that her stinking album sales of her new record are a direct result of the album being leaked earlier in the year.
No. You just made a shitty record. That’s the deal. If Madonna had made a good album, people would be sympathizing. Instead, she’s just running around re-appropriating quotes from political and social icons (at a time when that couldn’t be in poorer taste) and bitching about how the industry needs to change. Oh, and she’s already sold out almost every date on her upcoming arena tour, probably netting her between 60–90 million minimum in revenue, BUT HEY, MY ALBUM!
Free music also didn’t hurt the little guy as much as certain indie musicians would have you believe. That’s been made abundantly clear time and time again. Free music online means people will hear you if they have NEVER HEARD OF YOU. You’re using your art to take a calculated risk to hopefully get signed and promoted so you can tour, and you know, actually perform your music, and that’s that. It seems like a simple enough analogy to state: just because a painter is good doesn’t mean the first painting they ever paint will be a masterpiece. But if someone sees it, and goes “Hey! You did that? I respect that! I would like to pay you for your talent, and have you create more like this, for me!” that’s the artist/appreciator transaction.
What free music has led to however, is the notion that you can have everything you want all the time for nothing. That is the issue. Eventually, the bubble pops. One single stream of a song isn’t going to break the camels back, but the general notion that it should all be available at no cost is wrong. You have to participate, as a listener. That’s what streaming is trying to do, but its preaching to an audience that theoretically, has no conscience. They don’t give a fuck about music, they’re the ones that stole it in the first place, and hey, that works pretty nicely for them. TIDAL is preaching to deaf ears on every account, because I pay for my music, but ONLY my music. I have plenty of resources to discover music on my own, institutions new and old, be they print or Soundcloud, or good old fashioned word of mouth. I’m not going to shell out $10 a month to help support Nicki Minaj, I want to know where my charitable dollars are going.
TIDAL has made promises of exclusive content. And there is some. There’s a fascinating White Stripes video of their first televised appearance, and that’s awesome, I watched it, it was of significant enjoyment to me. Was it worth $10? Are you insane? No. TIDAL has the current “exclusive streaming rights”, whatever that means, to the new Rihanna song (I say that with confusion because YouTube is still a stream in a way….) but I am not a Rihanna fan. I’ve accidentally drank too many hard lemonades before, thrown up, and I know the smell, so I don’t need to know how that smell SOUNDS (I was once forced, on assignment, to review a Rihanna show. It did not go well.). That “exclusive incentive” is useless to me. I’m not getting my $10 worth.
The nature of this article has gone off the rails, I want to try to pull it back together. TIDAL isn’t inherently BAD, it’s just nothing NEW. The artists have spent time trying to explain that they’re dedicated to making something great, and they’re not trying to win the battle between streaming services, they just want their project to work. But it’s like trying to pour a pitcher of beer through the tiny hole in a straw, your target is so small, and there’s so much rushing past you, and for the sake of this analogy, consumers are dumb, drunk idiots who think it’s their god given right to have everything now Now NOW. Streaming music may be the way of the future, but people aren’t going to pay for it unless they HAVE to, and considering that the most popular show on television is on a premium network (Game of Thrones), but is also the most pirated TV show around the world, that signals that there is no end to this battle. Just a line drawn in the sand: those who can, and will, pay for their art, and those who just want to watch the show for free and buy the fucking t-shirt.
Maybe if TIDAL had dragons it would be more popular.
