By: Joseph Kurbanov
Earlier this month, Jay-Z and friends (Alicia Keys, Beyonce, Rihanna, Madonna, the list goes on…) took part in the official re-launch of the music streaming service; Tidal. The subscription based streaming service offers a $9.99 rate for standard resolution of audio streaming, becoming a viable alternative for Spotify. However, an attractive alternative is the “Tidal Hi Fi,” option for $20 a month, offering CD quality (uncompressed) music streaming.
Jay-Z the super music mogul intends to flip the industry on its head with this new service. Tidal has been designed from beginning to be the ultimate and universal music resource for fans of hi-fidelity music, offering playlists and recommendations curated by experienced musicologists and journalists on top of 75,000 music videos.
TIDAL is portrayed as a “platform owned by artists” with a goal “to re-establish the value of music.” Alicia Keys explained, “We want to create a better service and experience for fans and artists. Our mission goes beyond commerce and technology.” The idea of this artist-owned streaming company reflects its plan to pay almost double to artists, songwriters, and producers. However, the most plays benefit of course. Therefore, the money is greater for big name artists (uhemm… Jay Z, etc.) We can’t expect our indie electro-folk artists to get excited about the prospect of more income.
On the darker side of things, TIDAL is now opposing at least three heavy rival music applications that have potential for profits and are experiencing a strong surge in momentum (especially after attacking campaigns made by TIDAL). The CEO of TIDAL needs to discover a way to clean up after the “let-down” March launch and shift Tidal in a crowded market… which is NOT making consumers feel sorry for big moneymakers or giving competition more credibility.
The question remains; is TIDAL a fallacy?