Apple quietly obstructing Jay Z's new Tidal music service?

Apple quietly obstructing Jay Z's new Tidal music service?
Jay Z's Tidal streamer might have just had a bad luck falling from 20th to 700th place on iTunes, or there might be something more sinister at play with the maligned launch of the hip-hop mogul's cloud music service. The demise of Tidal shortly after launch was chalked off to the numerous competing services, chief among these Spotify, that not even Jay Z's brand can fight. Tidal was launched as an alternative which will pay artists decent money for each play, not the pennies that Spotify throws at them. The announcement fanfare, however, with Jay Z, Beyonce, and other assorted millionaires, didn't leave the impression for starving artists, and when analysts examined Tidal, it turned out that the new service will distribute only slightly more of its revenue to the actual artists compared to Spotify.

In any case, Jay Z defended Tidal, saying that "Tidal is doing just fine. We have over 770,000 subs. We have been in business less than one month," with the statement part of a counteroffensive on his Twitter account, dubbed #Tidalfacts (some of which is hilarious). Yet Jay Z also slipped an interesting claim among its tweets, saying that there is a concerted effort for a "smear campaign" from other major streaming services, and if the latest NY Post publication holds water, he might be on to something.

The Post writes, citing anonymous sources from the music industry, that Apple, for example, which is due to launch a similar service very soon, has deliberately dragged its feet about approving the latest Tidal app update, which is already out and about for Android handsets. Not only that, but artists that sign exclusive deals with Tidal, instead of Apple's upcoming Beats streamer, are getting softly punished for that, it seems. 

As per the publication: “Robert told execs at Universal Music Group that Rihanna and other Tidal artists’ music would not be promoted as featured artists on iTunes if they put exclusive music out on Tidal.” That "Robert" in question can be none other than Robert Kondrk, the VP of iTunes Content, who is in charge of the exclusive deals. While it's true that Tidal costs more than competing services, yet doesn't give that much more to artists than the rest, it might also be getting the stink eye treatment from the rest of the industry, with Apple at the helm. What do you think?

source: NYPost

FEATURED VIDEO

50 Comments

1. HASHTAG unregistered

I used Tidal for a couple of weeks and I think it's a flop. First, the quality isn't much different than Spotify - not a lot of people are going to, or care to, spend $20 a month for "hi-fi" quality music. Second, Tidal doesn't really seem to differentiate itself too much from other free or paid music services. Lastly, I highly doubt they have that much subscribers compared to many reports I've read.

4. seven7dust unregistered

tidal is about rich celebrities becoming richer , what crock , these guys should be ashamed of B.S lies , helping the Music industry my ass. if jay Z is so charitable , ask him to do free music production for some upcoming indie artists rather than asking for more money to buy more gold stuff for himself.

5. TerryTerius unregistered

The way to help indie (and established) artists would be for everyone to actually start paying for music. The web is a double-edged sword, yes it gives you a platform to get your music out there to a massive crowd... But it is also extremely difficult to make a profit off the web. Spotify and services like it pay next to nothing to artists, meaning only those who already have huge names are making any real money off of it. Combine that with people's expectation for music to be free and the ability to easily download entire albums without paying a penny... and you start to see why it is almost impossible for people to make it now. Bundle that with music labels giving increasingly draconian contracts to new artists in order to make up for all of that lost revenue, and the reality of being a musician is even tougher. I guess people forgot that artists actually need to make money off of their work, and because people have stopped buying albums they've done nothing but hurt the very people they claim to support. Being discovered by the public is one thing, turning it into a career as something else entirely. There's a reason that the music industry has lost literally half of its value over the past decade. And with that reality comes fewer writers, fewer new artists, and fewer sustainable career paths. Even if Jay Z was to give every aspiring artist all the free production in the world, it wouldn't make a difference until the public is willing to pay for music and stop treating it like it should be free. Yes, the labels could certainly give better deals to their artists than these thieving 360 contracts. But, the underlying issue is ultimately the public.

9. NexusX

Posts: 613; Member since: May 16, 2013

we should pay contemporary musicians like doctors, engineers and lawyers because they contribute so much to humanity with songs comprised of a many tracks and chords and special effects from garageband

16. corporateJP

Posts: 2458; Member since: Nov 28, 2009

Ha..."special effects from garage band"...LOL...WTF?

18. NexusX

Posts: 613; Member since: May 16, 2013

all contemporary music is bullshiit and you know it, anyone can write a song on garageband or similar softwares if you are in it for career then you make a big mistake they are only good for the radio when you are stuck in a traffic jam

30. TerryTerius unregistered

Anyone can write a song. But 99% of people cannot write a GOOD song. And those that can (writers) aren't being paid (and are therefore choosing other careers and wasting their talents), for two reasons. One, the laws that dictate what you can get away with paying them were written back in the days of the gramophone and don't reflect modern economics. Two, the entire industry is HEMORRHAGING money due to this attitude that music should be free... which is bogus. The entire reason "contemporary music sucks" is because there are less writers because the industry is losing money and therefore paying them less, or eliminating them altogether. Without writers, quality of songs degrades. And without quality music, people are less inclined to pay. It's a vicious cycle that WE (the consumer) created. You wouldn't walk into a store and demand a painting, a shirt or statue for free. Music is art, like any other. Its immaterial nature doesn't make it any less labor intensive, it doesn't require any less talent to be of note, and it isn't any less impressive a medium. Let's see YOU write verses like a Kendrick Lamar or Sam Smith if it's such a trivial task. So if you think Music is unimportant and unneeded, then fell free to live in silence for the rest of your life devoid of rhythm and vibe. But don't dump on those who chase their passion/talent for a living simply because it doesn't fit in your world view of priorities. If that was the world we lived in, one free of the arts... One lacking music, movies, television, art & sculpture... it isn't one you'd want to inhabit for very long. And it wouldn't exist without those passionate individuals chasing their dreams and exploiting their talents.

35. Dr.Phil

Posts: 2431; Member since: Feb 14, 2011

I'm pretty sure there are art museums and symphonies all across the world that are free to attend. Some do charge for entrance, but even those that do charge are only asking for a small fee to see many works. Also, why are you not arguing for the increasing of salaries of the actual writers behind songs? I think the real problem is that top artists like Jay-Z and Taylor Swift and so on are acting as though they are being screwed by the music industry when they are making millions upon millions of dollars. By the way, they found that Tidal only pays slightly more to artists than Spotify.

36. TerryTerius unregistered

Right, but those museums have to buy those pieces from the artist (or whoever the artist sold their work to, or whoever owns that artist's work) unless they're donated to the museum. The artist/owner still made a substantial amount of money off of that piece, even if you're seeing it for free. That isn't the case when an artist's songs are stolen millions of times by people downloading it for free via a combination of you-tube and a site specifically created for you to download content off you-tube without cost. Or by a torrent, or whatever other method of non-paying download you chose. Neither the artist, label nor writer(s) get paid a dime with that. False equivalency. And I am arguing for increased salaries of writers. I thought my saying that they're underpaid, or barely paid;with slightly different wording each time was inherently stating my stance on that. I suppose I should've been more specific. If you actually read what Taylor Swift said, you'd agree with her. She basically said if she was barely making anything off of Spotify with her hundreds of millions of streams then there was no-way any new or indie artists were being paid anything substantial. How is she incorrect? How is Jay Z's statement that streaming services don't pay artists ANY less true just because he's rich? I never said Tidal is the answer. I said that people are unwilling to do what they used to, and buy albums. Until either people start paying for albums, or streaming services start paying some real money to artists... Then this goal of talented musicians of taking their talents main-stream will continue. The internet makes it easier to be discovered as an artist. It also makes it nearly impossible to make a living as one. If your argument is basically that artist's should just be happy that people are listening to their music, or that they should just be happy doing what they love and ignore the fact that they're starving... Then that's essentially advocating for all artists to be like student athletes. Put in hundreds of hours of practice, work every day to the point of exhaustion... And get nothing in return for your efforts, but be happy about it. I don't think you'd find many artist's that like that proposal.

39. Dr.Phil

Posts: 2431; Member since: Feb 14, 2011

It's a righteous equivalency because in the case of a symphony it is quite easy to download their music as well for free. Also, artists don't get a lot of money after they sell the rights to their work. It's just a one time payment, so over the course of time they get nothing. Musical artists, on the other hand, are still getting paid millions of dollars through YouTube ad sense and ads on streaming services. So, actually musical artists are making out more than regular artists. What salary do you think they deserve then? Also, while I understand you are advocating for indie artists, there's a reason that they stay in the niche market: it's because they produce something that isn't widely consumed. I listen to some indie artists, but it doesn't mean I think they sound good enough for the masses. Also, indie artists actually support streaming services like Spotify because they know it's the best shot they have at getting their songs out to the public. As the public keeps streaming their songs, they get more and more money for it. It takes about 30 streams on Spotify to get the equivalent of selling a track on iTunes. That's not that hard to reach, especially with people most likely playing their songs over and over again or sharing it with followers to listen to as well. And they are counting on those same people to want to go to concerts to see them live. So, I disagree with this notion that indie artists are somehow suffering. Not everyone makes it big. Not everyone is going to make millions of dollars or even $100,000. They know that going into it. The system of downloading for free became that way because artists began charging more and more for their work while people don't make enough to afford it. It used to cost about $25 to go to a Taylor Swift concert when she had 2 CDs under her belt, now she's charging upwards of $100 or more for nosebleed seats. Just admit the system is broken on both ends, and I tend to not blame the consumer for the greediness of the artists that want more money.

41. TerryTerius unregistered

Stealing= no pay. Selling= pay. Simple. I don't have time to type all this out. I'll just give you this link, this dude makes all the points I want to, but far more eloquently. And someone FAR more qualified than you or I to speak about it music. All i'll say is you're categorically wrong about streaming. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NvZAEk7rWAk I'm advocating for up and coming artists as a whole. Being unable to get your music to a larger market and not fit for it are two COMPLETELY different things. I'm aware not everyone makes it big. But not being able to make anything off your music is not simply "not making it big" aren't the same. Saying artist's support streaming services because it's the only way they get paid is like saying you love to eat apples because it's the only food you can grow. Lack of choice does not in any way shape or form equal quality or preference. Again, false equivalency. As for your assumption about youtube, that pretty much only applies to those who can do so consistently and have large fan-bases. Which is more or less restricted to major artists and a handful of lucky others. Far from the average artist's experience on youtube. The system of downloading for free started with Napster, limewire and the like. When albums were still on average about $15 in the year 2000. This is 6 years before Taylor swift even dropped an album or anyone had even heard of her. Again, watch the video. your entire assertion that it's both parties fault is totally false. To put it another way, artists were making tens of millions of dollars before the internet ever existed. The industry was thriving before the dawn of the download. The current state is on us.

42. Dr.Phil

Posts: 2431; Member since: Feb 14, 2011

If we went with what that person wanted in the video, then every single person that uploads a cover to YouTube would have to pay whatever royalty fee is set by the artist to do so. Do you think that it would be fair to charge a 16 year old girl whatever fee just so she can sing a song and upload it for people to hear on YouTube? That's what he's advocating for. I also believe that the industry now is doing a lot better than what it was before when LimeWire and Napster came onto the scene. During that time, artists were getting nothing for their work. Now, they are being compensated a decent amount for what they put up. A niche indie artist makes about $3,300 a month just from Spotify. I would say that's a decent amount to be paid considering your music isn't widely known. If you expect people to stop downloading songs or streaming for free, then you're going to be sadly disappointed. Even if you take away free streaming services like Spotify, you will still have people looking up videos on Youtube just to listen to a song for free.

44. TerryTerius unregistered

No, and that's not what he was advocating for. He was saying that people have the expectation for music to be free. Which they do, and they simultaneously want well written songs and quality material. Not realizing the disconnect. He didn't advocate a particular solution, but said there has to be a way for musicians to make money off of their material and satisfy the public desire for content. The only thing he specifically advocated for was writers to be paid by standards that weren't set during the days of the gramophone, and for people to buy CD's. That's a delicate question. I don't think people that listen to a free song should be fined, or jailed. But I do think there has to be a way to stop individuals from downloading music without paying for it. Everything else has to be paid for in life that someone created, no reason music should be exempt. In reality, that's only possible so long as companies allow it to be. That's part of the reason the corrupt RAA is going after youtube. The music industry began churning out one hit wonders at a phenomenal pace after the advent of LimeWire & Napster, and used the high-turnover rate of generic formula's to generate revenue. It's why you had that ridiculous surge in no-name artists from 2003-20011. Or if you'd like an article on that. http://www.cracked.com/personal-experiences-1288-7-things-record-deal-teaches-you-about-music-industry.html As for streaming, put it this way, if a well established artist can get 100,000,000 streams off of an album and only make around $40,000 off of it... what exactly makes you think an indie/upcoming artist makes anywhere near $3,000 a month with not even a 20th of that kind of traffic? Those numbers don't add up. You'd have to be pulling down huge numbers to sustain that level of income from Spotify and services like it. No, I don't expect people to stop downloading songs. Once you get used to something being free you'll never pay for it. What i'm saying is the current status quo cannot hold in the long run. I would bet my bottom dollar on that. Apparently you think we live in some golden age where musicians are thriving and the industry is doing well. Lets just agree to disagree. I've worked with/around artists & labels long enough to have a high understanding of the current situation. Fun talking to you :)

32. TerryTerius unregistered

Right. Who said we shouldn't? I'm confused. You're presenting a false choice, there's literally no reason completely separate industries with zero overlap can't coexist and thrive. Difficulties pursuing those careers and a lack of individuals fulfilling those needs is ENTIRELY due to the ludicrously high costs of education (at least in the U.S) which has everything to do with student loan policy/for-profit education and nothing to do with the music industry. You can run all the PSA's, awareness campaigns and start drives to get people interested in those fields that you want. Doesn't matter if they can't afford (or aren't approved for) the loans, parent's can't afford the tuition, or you have a system designed to keep you in debt for decades for committing the sin of learning. Take your complaints to your congressmen, but your post isn't even relevant to the subject at hand.

33. NexusX

Posts: 613; Member since: May 16, 2013

being paid fairly for your effort is one thing. you don't think jay z and kanye west are overpaid for the type of music they churn out? do these guys even compose their own soundtracks or do they just pay some poor snob with music degree to synthesize their bullshiit lyric with some catchy tune the public is not the problem. the problem is the watered down music industry/hollywood turning creative industry into circuit full of clowns like kanye west and jay z

34. TerryTerius unregistered

I don't care what they're paid because it doesn't effect me in any way shape or form. If we were talking about the CEO of a giant corporation, a senator/congressman, a banker, or anyone else with significant soft-power to influence policy and people's lives via action then yes, but I could care less what entertainers make. I may disagree with any given celebrities stance on something or their message, but their finances are irrelevant. Jay Z & Kanye primarily make money when someone buys a ticket to their show, buys a single of theirs off itunes/whatever, watches their videos on youtube (via their official channels), streams a song from them, pays for their album, or buys a product they're selling. In other words, their pay is directly connected to public demand for it. "hollywood" or the music industry can't sustain ANY artist (or movie) via pure willpower. If that was the case, no album or movie would ever flop. The PUBLIC chooses what is and isn't to their taste by voting with their dollars. Aside from that, because the public doesn't want to pay for music writers don't work (because they aren't getting paid), great songs don't get written and you get what you call "watered down music." It's a cycle. The music industry didn't begin its slow implosion 10 years ago because of celebrities or some grand plot to push mediocre music on the public. If it intentionally contracted YOY for a decade straight to lose half of its annual revenue over that span of time... then that's the most idiotic conspiracy in history. The advent of napster and the rise of its copycates, the modern formula of streams that pay literally tenths of a penny per stream to artists, the pirating of billions of dollars worth of songs for free. All that money lost had to hit somewhere. And it did. You can't have it both ways. You can't have great music & musicians, and then not want to pay them for their work. They're not paid for their "effort" their paid for their talent. Concluding that because you personally dislike any given artist that they're "overpaid" or "worthless" is stupid. Who the heck are you to decide that? If someone dislikes the musicians your'e a fan of, do they suddenly become valueless as well?

38. 14545

Posts: 1835; Member since: Nov 22, 2011

Oh, you're one of those. Oh the "CEO" is wayyyyy overpaid, but the likes if Kanye West aren't? But which one here actually adds value..... Hint, not the later.

40. TerryTerius unregistered

Right, let me clarify this so you understand. Keep this phrase in mind I said earlier: " or anyone else with significant soft-power to influence policy and people's lives via action". Let me amend that; "Or anyone else with significant soft-power to influence policy and people's lives via action" (via bribery be it soft or explicit, dis-empowering their employees, or attempting to influence/promote policy intended to disenfranchise the working class, circumvent their economic patriotic duties, or put in harm's way any group of people for personal financial or influential gain.) I do not care what a CEO makes. The only time I do, is when they use their wealth as a cudgel to reform the country in their image, buy politicians, corrupt policy, or bring about gain for themselves (or business) at the expense of others. For example, Larry page is worth nearly $30,000,000,000, oversees a company with 56,000 employees and during his tenure Google has topped the list of the best places to work in America 6 times. You know as well as I how innovative Google has been, and how much they've contributed to society in only 17 years. Including The walton family on the other hand are worth $152,000,000,000 collectively. Though Douglas Mcmillon is the CEO, they still own it. Walmart employs 2.1 million people (1.4 million in the U.S), nearly 1% of the entire U.S work force. However, wal-mart has a huge portion of their employees subsidized by the public (your money) via government assistance due to the fact that they only pay them $8.75 (which they are increasing a whole 25 cents to $9). They have no benefits and are forced to work on the holidays. Wal-mart has also lobbied to repeal anti-bribery laws in Congress, works actively to crush any attempts at unionization/punishes any employee who even thinks about it, and has done everything in their power to pay their workers the least amount possible. Add that to the fact that when wal-mart shows up in any given area local businesses are run out of business because of an inability to compete on price and they destroy more jobs than they create. Including (as I mentioned earlier) being a burden to tax payers. The worst thing Kanye has done is say some stuff you disagree with. The most he can do is say something that makes you think, inspire fashion, start an awareness movement or create a new phrase. He has no real power compared to someone like a Larry Page or Douglas Mcmillion. Both of whom can affect the lives of millions of people with a mere decision, albeit in different ways. My comment was about net-worth. It was about power. And if you think there's no value whatsoever in music, well. That's your folly. That's all I can say. I really do pity you.

43. 14545

Posts: 1835; Member since: Nov 22, 2011

A) just because you don't feel like a company has added value, it's shareholders and the general public feel otherwise. If they didn't, then they wouldn't shop there. (Speaking in terms of Walmart). If you don't like how they operate, feel free not to shop there. I don't. But you can't ignore the added value that they have brought to poor people. They are almost always much cheaper than your average grocery stores. Then you whine about "pay" for their employee's, well their employees voluntarily sign up to work there. It's not like someone is holding a gun to their heads and forcing them to be there. If you have a problem with their employee's leaching of the government (like I do), then change the laws to get right of many of these BS "safety nets" the government has created. It would add back some responsibility into having a family and caring for them. (Note, I don't have kids, nor want them) When you subsidize something, you get more of it. We have been subsidizing these multi-kid families of teenage mothers with no father in sight for generations. Then the problem gets worse with every generation and these terrible employees then want 15/hr for unskilled labor. What gives? Why does an unskilled employee deserve what some college grads make when they aren't smart enough/willing to go to school and earn that pay? Also, why should walmart be forced to pay it's employees more when it's competition (the normal grocery stores, like food lion) don't have to? Or target? Given that you come out with an argument like this, it tells me you spend far to much time watching cable news. B) A corp has no more ability to affect "policy" change than a "rapper" whining about people being underpaid. If anything, using your own argument about "art", one could say the "artist" has more of an ability to affect change than that of a sole corporation. But let's not let your own argument cloud rational judgement...... C) I never said that "music" itself doesn't hold value. I said the shart that passes for "music" nowadays doesn't have value. If I want music, I'll go to a symphony. That's real talent, and they don't get paid near what these whiny snot-nosed brats get, or want. Luis CK has proven that people will pay for what they value. I gladly pay for artists albums whom I feel are worthy and ignore the rest. You should really read my comment before passing judgement.

45. TerryTerius unregistered

A.) No, i don't. I think that productivity should be connected to wage, as it was until the 80's. People used to be able to afford to pay their rent & bills with pretty much any job. Cost of living and wages divorced from one another roughly 30 years ago...Which is the exact moment when wages started to stagnate and stayed that way for 30 years. You basically just gave the corporate by-line they've been giving for years as a justification for our current situation with roughly 125 million Americans being underpaid. If that's all gravy with you, then we'll never see eye to eye and debating this is pointless. Honestly, I would love to take your ENTIRE argument apart piece by piece. Because your'e so hilariously misinformed that it'd be a public service for me to do so. You in? Honestly, you just repeated word for word the corporate logic that fox news has been giving on why poor people deserve to be poor. It's almost unreal you accused ME of being the media sheep. I don't even watch CNN, MSNBC or FOX. There isn't enough space on these forums for me to debunk those asinine arguments you just made, I need another format. But i'm all for it if you are. B.) If you honestly think intense lobbying, campaign finance that puts our lawmakers in the pockets of corporations, well funded groups and rich individuals, and influence peddling DIRECTLY in the senate/congress has less effect on public policy than a song then you're either lying to yourself or blind. Or your'e a loyal partisan attack dog. Either or. C.) Oh, in other words you think only the music you like holds value. So if it's something you personally dislike, it's worthless. Your personal tastes are irrelevant in judging value to anyone else but YOU. But let's not let your own argument cloud rational judgment....

46. 14545

Posts: 1835; Member since: Nov 22, 2011

Oh, please take my argument apart piece by piece. I would love to see it. Did you ever stop to think about what happened in the late 70's and early 80's? Hint, it's not as political as you pretend it to be. Next, you are a f-ing fool, as evidenced by your comments if you think I am a partisan hack. Get this genius, I'm an anarchist. So please tell me what party I am a "hack" for? What, I assume you mean the statist dochebags on the right? Yeah, that's it...... Or maybe the nanny state morons in the left, of which you seem to have to talking points down pat on. If you can't see that both sides funnel your money into a black hole, then you are amazingly naive. Not a big shocker. Just by living doesn't entitle you to a "comfortable" lifestyle. Also, if you can't make ends meet on the current minimum wage, even as low as it is, then you have bigger problems than the nanny state bug brother can handle. Lastly, I never said that only music I like holds value. Again, your own interjection here. There is plenty of valuable music. Just not what passes as music now. It's formulaic and meant for the people that shop at Walmart. If you have taken the time to learn the music, and actually have vocal or instrumental talents, then that statement isn't directed at you(generic version of you). If we are talking about the Kanye West type of music, the that isn't music. It's sophomoric, childlike rhymes that you could program a computer to create. The sample to some dubstep and you have replicated Kanyes success. Woo hoo. I'm sorry most artist these days that are good, get paid. The market works....... Unless you are blind and can't understand economics 1100...... Much less advanced macro economics dealing with economies of scale. I'm sorry, despite your misguided efforts, a functional moron that can't spell "cat" does not deserve 50k a year just because of some irrational fairness you have developed in your mind. It would do you a favor to turn off cable news and read an encyclopedia or, better yet, an economics book. Then take some time to learn about the tech bubble, the Fed, and government intervention that lengthened the great depression and japan's depression of the late 80's. Any one if those things would be a great start. Or you can bury your head in the sand and pretend like your vote matters and that "your side" actually cares about you...........

47. TerryTerius unregistered

Right, if you think the destruction of the unions & labor laws and the advent of trickle down economics coinciding with massive pushes to dismantle legal protections wasn't "political"... I don't know what is. I'm well aware of the 90's tech bubble, your claim that the government lengthened the great depression is hilariously debatable at best, Japan's continued problem's with deflation, and all of that. Even with you randomly citing things, i'm even more sure you don't know a single word of economic theory because all you've done is list talking points. Completely ignoring institutional suppression, the war on drugs which has targeted poor communities intentionally as a source of revenue, gentrification, the extraction of wealth from poor communities, the usage of real estate as a cudgel to separate socio-economic groups from one another and so on and so forth. If you honestly think the state of things is mere economics, and all poor people are undeserving lazy sloths who are only where they are because of lack of ambition or effort. You don't know anything of history, economic theory, weaponized social policy and racism. Honestly, I think you're some middle class kid who listens to rage against the machine and thinks he understands everything. You. Are. Wrong. Your statements align literally perfectly with conservative talking points despite your "edgy" label as an anarchist. You're literally parroting FOX talking points word for word. So yes, I think you're a partisan hack -_- Word for word. Call yourself whatever you will, your policy standpoints are cloned from the RNC. "The shart that passes for "music" nowadays doesn't have value." "If we are talking about the Kanye West type of music, the that isn't music." The statement here being that you dislike modern music and in your opinion it doesn't qualify as "true" music. As well as implying only certain genre's and artists are "worthy". Which inherently implies that only what you perceive to be "real" music counts, and therefore only it holds value. Those are YOUR words. I didn't put one syllable into your mouth. "I'm sorry, despite your misguided efforts, a functional moron that can't spell "cat" does not deserve 50k a year just because of some irrational fairness" Right, false choice. And again, the by-line against raising the minimum wage word for word. Which is why I called you a partisan hack. Evidently the concept of middle ground is foreign to you if you think i'm advocating for that. From your attitude, I know you've never been poor. You've never lived in a poor neighborhood, you don't actually know poor people, and all your characterizations come from the internet & TV. If you genuinely think they're all lazy and everything is their fault, then you're categorically wrong. Nevermind, I don't want to argue with you anymore. You're so blind & vitriolic it's depressing. You win I guess. Goodbye.

48. 14545

Posts: 1835; Member since: Nov 22, 2011

The fact that you have to resort to catch phrases for economics you don't understand, proves you are a political hack. Next, I would love for you to show me a "faux newsian" that claims themselves to be an "Anarchist"? Do you even know what the word means? Do you understand what I mean when I say that? It means that I used to be a strong libertarian, that realized that as small as the COTUS constrained the government to be, it someone manged to balloon into this bloated nightmare we have today. Next, I love your assumptions that based on my comments I can't have ever been poor. Or, you know, put myself through college. You couldn't be further from the truth. Not that I have to explain myself, but I came from a single mother and paid 50k to put *myself* through school while also earning income for myself and paying some of my mothers bills. To date, I have given her 3 cars and I have and still continue to pay for her to have a phone. So yes, tell me how my generalizations come from the "faux news conservatives." You should really learn to actually research things, you might be surprised at what you have been lied to about from your brand of media. It is not even remotely debatable that the government lengthened the GD or Japans lost decade. (I'm sure that faux news surely covered that quite a few times..... Rolleyes) Or how in the early 20's under Harding he cut government spending and size to see a recession just as deep at the GD recover to full employment of about 1.5 % in only 24 months......(not that you knew full employment during that time was far < the current 4ish percent considered full employment now) Next, if you don't want your job eliminated by a robot...(me, and my engineer pals are great at this) then learn a trade to future proof yourself. A job at Mcdonalds does not warrant engineering intern pay. Just because you are shat out does not mean you deserve healthcare or 50k a year. However, I am very much for liberty. If you want to marry a cat..... Be my guest. What you do in your *personal* life is your business as long as it doesn't affect me or my property. Busting up "unions" is not what caused jobs to be relocated. The employees themselves have rendered themselves useless when they can be replaced by a robot. That is technology. Couple that with the fact that a dependence on oil has always allowed recessions. (look up the graphs of crude prices between the 60's and early 00's, and you will see that there is a correlation between recessions during those times and crude spikes). Then, let's not discuss the Feds role in all this mess. I mean a private bank, that isn't accountable to anyone, can control the entire countries banking system...... That seems like a flawless plan....... Music, just like art have to be something that can't be replicated by a machine. Otherwise, it isn't "real music" or "art". I am sorry, splatter paintings aren't real art either. I am in no way an "artist", but I can make splatter pain

49. 14545

Posts: 1835; Member since: Nov 22, 2011

Post # 2: I can do splatter paintings all day long. I could "rap" to Dr. Seuss all day long. That means that my tone deaf azz can create "quality" art along the lines that "Kanye I'm so full of myself West" can create. If a "non artist" can replicate your work, then it isn't art. Art requires talent. Something that is required to be a "Hendrix" or a "Beethoven". Even a "Sam Smith" type of person I would consider art. Not art I care for, but he has actual talent. The same can't be said for a rapper. I don't thing that "everyone" that is poor is "lazy", etc. However, I am not naive enough to think that the large majority of them aren't. If you can't pay your bills (my mother) or put food on the table, but you can find 300 a month for cigarettes, your situation is *your fault*. If you are a single mother that *didn't* lose your significant other, especially if you have multiple kids to different fathers, that is *INDEED, YOUR FAULT*. If you make a poor investment and go bankrupt, it is still your fault. If you go to the doctor for a heart-attack that is a direct result of your lifestyle, that is your fault. (does that mean it's every heart attack, no. There can be specific genetics involved that make it not). Unlike you, I don't speak in absolutes. Not everything is black and white. There is gray. But hey, I'm just partisan hack that thinks the government shouldn't be involved in marriage at all. Meaning zilch. Or a partisan hack that believes it is not the US governments responsibility to destabilize regions around the world to bring false "democracy". Or protect "oil interests". Or whatever other reason governments use to blow up other sovereign nations. Note, people generally are against war..... IT is BIG STATIST government that is for war to pay back political allies...... Including your own party. This isn't a left-right phenomenon, it is a big government problem. But yes, I am sure I probably heard that on fox news too, right? I don't need talking points to make my arguments, as I have actually looked into the history of what I say. But go ahead and believe I am just a parrot drone that can't think outside of my fox news fix. I mean clearly I am just towing the party line......Oh wait, that is you. But hey, according to you I am just a racist, gun toting, fox news "conservative", kid...... Right? Please tell me what "wealth" there is to extract from poor communities? I would love to hear this. You have to have wealth before it can be extracted. You can't extract oil from water...... But I guess you can extract "wealth" from "poor" people? What? No, I am 30, with a Bachelors of Science in Mechanical Engineering that I earned through no parental support. I make just shy of 6 figures a year and I have earned everything I have. So maybe you should stop "thinking", since clearly you are extremely misguided. It's hilarious that you assume that I am against drugs when I am an *ANARCHIST*. I am for the legalization of all drugs.....

50. 14545

Posts: 1835; Member since: Nov 22, 2011

Post # 3: GET IT YET? If you are an adult, and you want to off yourself, or string yourself out on drugs, or just smoke a joint every now and then, that is your right..... IT IS YOUR BODY. That is liberty, you tool. That is called rights. Now, as adamant as I about "taxes", I am all for voluntarism. I am for setting up rehab centers to get those people that want help, the help they need. I want less regulations so that even poor people can benefit from newer technologies vs. being stuck with old, unreliable, junk, unsafe used cars (or replace cars with xxxx). Technology now is inherently better than it was 30 years ago. So even at it's worst, or cheapest quality, it is still better and more efficient than something made 3 decades ago. But no, we need to force cars to have BS like back-up camera's and stability control so the barriers to entry are thousands higher than they otherwise would be. But yes, you know everything. You have me "pegged". I'm just a "White", middle class kid, that carries AK's to walmart in my lifted "chevy truck" blasting "rage against the machine"(again, not music), after watching faux news and beating my "conservative" chest after a binge session of Bill'o the Clown. Hint, I am 1/4 Cherokee, and 1/2 Irish, and 1/4 Scottish..... So white as a snowflake.....Eyeroll....And own 2 Subaru's. That listens to just about anything that isn't rap or country. I have visited 35 of 50 states, all via work, and I have been inside a ninth district and come from a welfare queen of a mother. However, at least she was smart enough, relatively speaking, to stop after pooping me out. I grew up on a dirt road and stayed in a house that had no power more times than I can count on all my fingers and toes. But you got me, you know me 100%. Congrats on not being able to think for yourself and having to resort to making things up in the absence of real facts. You should really learn what the former is, as you have really proven yourself to be a fool today. Maybe you can grow-up and learn to not assume so much.

6. sprockkets

Posts: 1612; Member since: Jan 16, 2012

You can't beat spotify's quality. Ogg Vorbis at 96kbps kills everyone, including people like pandora who start at 64kbps aac. At high quality, 160kbps vorbis is transparent, unlike pandora who goes to 128kbps aac.

13. NexusX

Posts: 613; Member since: May 16, 2013

like you can tell the difference listening to hiphop,

2. theguy2345

Posts: 1216; Member since: Jun 24, 2014

This service is terrible. Just going to the site, it feels so stuck up, like it is better than everything else. And I don't like that they are deceiving people when they tell them they are getting high resolution audio, when most people don't have the sound equipment to handle it. It's also crazy expensive. $20 a month is way too much compared to the competition. Make it $10, and see the numbers boost. But they won't, because they are a bunch of greedy millionaires.

7. xq10xa

Posts: 810; Member since: Dec 07, 2010

The website feels stuck up. Nope. This takes the cake so far today for dumbest comment. A website that feels bro...deep. And who is Jay Z?

27. theguy2345

Posts: 1216; Member since: Jun 24, 2014

It just gives the vibe of conceited. That's just what I got off of it. And Wikipedia is your friend.

Latest Stories

This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use only. You can order presentation-ready copies for distribution to your colleagues, clients or customers at https://www.parsintl.com/phonearena or use the Reprints & Permissions tool that appears at the bottom of each web page. Visit https://www.parsintl.com/ for samples and additional information.