People Who Pay for Music Have Better Taste In Music…

musicescape

We’ve seen ample evidence of this in vinyl, and now we’re seeing it in streaming.  Because people who voluntarily pay more for music generally have better taste in music.

Enter Tidal, a CD-quality, lossless streaming service that costs $19.99 a month.  That is more than twice that of Spotify, and there isn’t a free tier.   The service (available at tidalhifi.com) also has HD-quality music videos and curation, and was launched in the fall of last year for serious audiophile listeners in the US, UK, and Canada.

Here’s what TIDAL subscribers listen to most, according to a ranking just emailed by the company.

tidallist

 

Image: ‘Discovering Vampire Weekend,’ by Alexandre Normand (licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic (CC BY 2.0).

17 Responses

  1. NoIdea

    DMN:

    Who decided you could be an authority on taste?

    Paying for higher fidelity downloads will definitely mirror a trend to records (dating myself with that noun) produced on a higher scale, but beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

    There’s a lot of low fidelity stuff which is just as good so let’s not call this ‘better taste’ because all that will do is open up a flame thread (preemptive see below here)

    You have no right to determine the quality of the composition. Stick to the facts.

    Reply
  2. Bandit

    Better taste!?!?

    That “Pink Floyd” album is a tasteless yawn. Roger was right in departing that self parody of a band.

    Reply
  3. Arthur

    Future Islands – Seasons is an awesome track though.. Quit hating this list is better than what you’ll see on he iTunes storefront of most purchased songs

    Reply
  4. Anonymous

    Maybe Tidal can tell me what my favorite color is too, or perhaps my favorite food.

    Sorry, taste is subjective. This is Bullsh*t.

    Reply
  5. Matt Lewis

    After reviewing that song list, I’m convinced that “Better Taste” is a bad choice of words.

    Reply
  6. DW

    Taste Smaste. If you consider the printed word, intelligence usually sets the bar. Its the same. I’ve noticed that all the haggling over these choices, not one single Bach, Chopin, Verdi, Ravel, work was mentioned. Instead, Pink Floyd sets the bar? Not even one classical composition was mentioned. Does anyone out there taste anything other than this commercial crap (that doesn’t include Bill Frissell, although . . . ) If this is all that is hitting the public’s palette, and the actual intelligent process of creating compositions that offer high caliber compositional merit with serious imaginary brilliance is being ignored, what does that have to say about the pretentiousness of ‘taste?’

    Reply
  7. Steve

    Bull****. I work with young people who have come out of foster care and care homes. They have no choice but to use free sources for their music most of the time due to budget constraints, but their music taste is in some cases excellent. Plus, like NoIdea says, who made you boss? I class most of that list as pap. Endless river? Away and listen to Dark Side of the Moon or Wish You Were Here.

    Reply
  8. CVoice Music

    So if I listen to anything but these artists, say romanian music and other various genres like classical or reggae, then that means I automatically have poor taste in music.

    Hmm, there is a horrible trend in these ASCAP emails I get giving the crapiest articles that state something as fact but have the worst evidence for their completely unsupported opinions

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Verify Your Humanity *