The music streaming business got another competitor Monday with the launch of Tidal, a high-fidelity music-streaming platform, launched by none other than the talented, collaborative rapper Jay Z.
According to its website, Tidal will combine high fidelity sound quality, high definition music videos and expertly curated editorial content as part of its services. A number of popular artists supported the launch of the platform on Twitter over the weekend, including Kanye West, Madonna, Daft Punk, Jason Aldean, Rihanna and, obviously, Beyoncé. It hasn’t been ascertained, but such artists could potentially use Tidal to debut albums or add past albums to its list of options. It’s said to compete with other powerhouse platforms such as Spotify and Pandora. Sounds interesting and exciting, right?
Wrong.
Tidal is subscription-based only. It offers two options, $19.99 a month for Tidal HiFi or $9.99 a month for Tidal Premium. None of its services are free, except a free 30-day trial offered with each option. If you’re like me, you probably thought: “So what?” Other music streaming platforms still have the “listen for free” option available. But such artists like those listed above could decide to remove their music from websites like Spotify, so listening to those particular artists’ music for free will no longer be an option. This would also prevent fans from previewing new albums artists release exclusively through Tidal. So, basically, the only way fans can listen to their favorite artist’s new album would be to pay Jay Z every month.
This is not fair for people who are, in less modest terms, broke. College students are probably not going to pay $10 to $20 a month to listen to new music, simply because we just can’t afford it. I support the use of technology and hard work that is being used to create such innovative music, and I realize that it probably isn’t cheap to do so. But having to pay an obscene amount of money to listen to the final product is just unfair. Spotify still offers music for free and earns a profit from its 15 million paying subscribers.
I am more than positive Tidal could achieve the same outcome, especially with the support from all the artists who have outwardly spoken about the company.
The motive behind Tidal seems greedy. Yes, artists and companies need to make a living just like everybody else, but they need to realize not everybody has the option to just throw out money to listen to a playlist every month. Especially when other sites offer an alternative. And if select artists decide to remove their music from these platforms, that is even more greedy and unfair than the cost itself. Taylor Swift has already confessed to Tidal being the home for her music after she pulled her songs from Spotify last year.
Will this result in fans having to pay Tidal to listen to her music being streamed? Fans already purchase her music worldwide; that’s what iTunes is for. It defeats the purpose of streaming music altogether.
I am sincerely curious to see whether Tidal will become an ultimate success or fail. Apple is reportedly working with Beats on revamping its music-streaming platform due to the significant increase in music-streaming subscriptions compared with CDs.
This could potentially be the cause of Tidal’s downfall because Apple and Beats are striving to offer the same type of content that Tidal is advertising.
Despite the competition, Jay Z, his team and selected artists who support the company should consider the economic status of the world before depriving fans of listening to free music and Tidal’s innovative product.
It’s a shame more people will not be able to experience music in this new way simply because they cannot afford it.
Grace Hudgins is a UF journalism junior. Her column appears on Wednesdays.
[A version of this story ran on page 7 on 4/1/2015 under the headline “Launch of Jay Z's streaming site Tidal deprives fans from innovative music experiences because of cost”]
