“This collaboration feels so… ego-less,” Beyonce says in a video announcing TIDAL, the new streaming platform brewed in the mind of Jay-Z with intentions of taking down the monolithic Spotify (yeah, right). The camera immediately pans to a member of Daft Punk, sitting in on the meeting discussing the platform next to similarly ultra-successful recording artists. He is wearing a space helmet teamed with a leather jacket. Money can buy most things, but it can’t buy self-awareness.
TIDAL is being billed as a new, empowering platform for musicians to get their music in the ears of their fans whilst also giving a cut of the profits to musicians. The music industry has suffered a major dent over the past decade or so thanks to the continued rise of piracy and, as the likes of Taylor Swift and Radiohead would suggest, the advent of streaming platforms such as Spotify, which give musicians an oft-debated percentage of cash for each time one of their tracks is played using the platform. Some artists have argued that this percentage is too low, whilst others have gone on record to say that they have no problem with it, as it’s a decent alternative to having their albums downloaded from torrent sites for free along with giving them good exposure.
TIDAL: Jay Z’s Musical Titanic is Already Sinking
The latter group always seem to be less financially fortunate than their anti-Spotify peers, making the majority of their profits from live performances rather than the cash thrown their way by the streaming platform. It is this group of artists that you’d imagine would be more interested in making the switch from Spotify to a supposedly more financially viable platform, then, but instead TIDAL’s press conference consisted of a who’s who of the most profitable names in the entire industry. That TIDAL is being advertised as a way for us, the average Joes & Jills, to give something back to them, the lowly multi-millionaire recording artists, is staggering in its lack of self-awareness. It’s even more staggering that these people seem to be of the belief that they can somehow rival Spotify with a pricier, less robust platform based upon little more than the suggestion that TIDAL is an example of musicians taking back what is theirs: your money.
Though they may not think like normal humans do, the uber-famous still indulge in some of our awkward human social practices, such as going in for a high-five and ending up with a forced hug.
If you’re of the belief that this many famous recording artists couldn’t possibly back such a ridiculous project, then let’s compare it directly with the elephant in the gold-plated room, Spotify:
Sound Quality
Spotify
The free version of Spotify streams music at 160kbps, while the Premium version streams at 320kbps.
TIDAL
TIDAL streams music at a bitrate of 1,411kbps. However, us mere mortals who do not have a pair of speakers in our possession powerful enough to deflate our eardrums will struggle to tell the difference. Yes, TIDAL does boast higher sound quality, but this is somewhat nullified when you take into consideration the next comparison…
Price
Spotify
You can subscribe to an ad-supported Spotify for free, while a Premium membership will cost you $10 per month. This membership will give you unlimited access to the service’s library of music, along with the ability to create offline playlists that you can listen to without the need for an internet connection.
TIDAL
Oh boy. Considering that TIDAL is the new kid on the block, you’d think that Jay-Z & co. would have bolstered its debut with a competitive price range, but nope. Instead there’s no free membership (there’s a 30-day free trial, but you must enter in your credit card information in order to get your hands on it), along with a $10 per month “Premium” service that offers standard quality music, “expertly curated editorial” and HD music videos, because apparently YouTube doesn’t exist anymore. Then there’s the $20 per month Hi-Fi option, which will grant you access to the aforementioned 1,411kbps audio quality, along with the music videos and editorial pieces. That’s $240 annually, if you don’t fancy like doing the math.
Considering that Tidal has fewer artists aligned with it, fewer tracks and far fewer subscribers, how on Earth anyone believed that a $20 monthly subscription would be a good idea is beyond me. Essentially, TIDAL is offering you a service with Spotify’s audio quality only with less music to listen to for the same asking price as its biggest rival. For twenty bucks you get the whole shebang, with the shebang in this instance being indistinguishably greater audio quality, music videos that you’ll never watch and a selection of articles, because God knows there aren’t enough of those on the internet that you can read right now.
Spotify isn’t perfect by any stretch of the imagination, and there are differing opinions on just how much/little it offers up-and-coming artists. However, TIDAL has been created under the wild assumption that the average consumer could be guilt-tripped into supporting a project looking to put the music industry (money) back into the hands of the artists, when the artists who are the face of the company are multi-millionaires. If Jay-Z really wanted to make us all feel sad for the poor musicians, he should’ve released a commercial featuring a member of some non-descript UK indie band playing in a shit-hole pub in Manchester, not fucking Madonna.
Photo: Getty Images
