What Do Daft Punk, Arcade Fire, Jason Aldean, and Rihanna Have in Common? They Own Tidal

Screen Shot 2015-03-30 at 2.05.47 PM

The Haxan Cloak and Tri Angle Records’ complaints of being ripped off were not even on Tidal’s radar at their launch event…

If you were hoping to learn more about Tidal’s payout structure at their launch event, you’ll be sorely disappointed. What we did find out is that Tidal is co-owned by Jay Z, Beyoncé, Kanye West, Alicia Keys, Win Butler, Régine Chassagne, Daft Punk, Jack White, Jason Aldean, Chris Martin, Calvin Harris, J. Cole, deamau5, Madonna, Nicki Minaj, Rihanna, Nicki Minaj, and Usher.

Artist control was the number one reason behind this collective purchase of a streaming system. These superstar artists are pissed that tech companies have control, they want the power back in their own hands.

This tells us that high profile artists will likely get a decent revenue share, but what about the smaller artists? Who knows… Tidal’s royalty payments might not be transparent at all.

Jay Z and Daft Punk  stressed that artists aren’t just a product for tech companies, saying this is what the industry has been waiting for. It’s true, we have been waiting for something like this, even the major labels are getting sick of free streaming services — and they own part of them!

All of Tidal’s co-owners are passionate about music, and they’ve worked their butts off to make it in the industry. But will they remember the little guys now that they have their own shiny new streaming service?

The launch event took shots at both Spotify and Apple/Beats Music. Jay Z blasted services that focus on selling hardware. Radiohead played on the speakers as these celebrities signed some kind of Tidal Bill of Rights. Tidal also made sure to secure Taylor Swift‘s catalog before the event. Will these artists resist the urge to cash in like Beats Music did?

The only other detail that was revealed about the service is that Tidal has entered a partnership with Sprint.



Nina Ulloa covers breaking news, tech, and more: @nine_u

15 Responses

    • don't panic, follow the money...

      NO FREE TIER and Internet Freehadist lose their shit…

      Google backs free streaming aggressively (via astruturf public interests groups and shills) because they serve the advertising to Spotify and Pandora. Getting rid of the free tier kills Google’s business on these platforms.

      97% of all of Google’s revenue is from advertising. All other products combined account for the remaining 3%… follow. the. money…

  1. David

    Taylor Swift’s back catalog is available on any subscription-only streaming service. Tidal is a subscription-only streaming service. So ‘securing Taylor Swift’s catalog’ is no big deal for Tidal. If they got access to ‘1989’, that would be worth mentioning, but I don’t think they have.

    • Nina Ulloa

      they haven’t secured 1989. i just mentioned it because they didn’t have the catalog until right before the relaunch.

  2. Remi Swierczek

    Grant deception into the streaming dead end tunnel.
    Yet, mega opportunity, great consolidation of political power to push for conversion of Radio and streaming to simple discovery based music store.

      • Remi Swierczek

        Do you think it’s a breakthrough event? Absolutely positively not!
        Bring some productive comments in place of anonymous loud shit!

  3. Sarah

    That’s a lot of artists, which is nice. But I’m not clear on how this actually gives the typical professional artist any more control.

    Am I missing something?

    • Anonymous

      I am not sure what it accomplishes for anyone. Artists or consumers.

  4. Anonymous

    Well they’ve all certainly made more then enough money off me, never once paying or thanking or showing any class or respect, so i’ll be sure to opt out of their store when i distribute in the future…

    The more i think about it, i keep battling with just making all my music free and completely avoiding all music industry platforms and people all the way, so then they’d get zero from me other then lawsuits…

  5. Anonymous

    So how is this going to benefit anyone in all reality? Like all streaming services, there are operating costs. Therefore it is highly unlikely the service will pay more than 70%, which is the industry standard.

  6. Adam

    Will be interesting to see how this plays out.

    Running a streaming service (even a paid one) requires tens, if not hundreds, of millions of dollars in capital. Will they raise capital from VCs (who no longer have much of an appetite for streaming services) or go it alone?

    How long will these “stars” remain loyal as the losses mount up month after month?

  7. FarePlay

    “Breaking: How Can Tidal Help Artists If They’re Already Ripping Them Off?”

    Paul. We all have a point of view in this conversation, but Ms Ulloa as one of your contributors is so unbalanced I think DMN is crossing a line into opinionated journalism, like Fox Broadcasting. She has not one, but two fairly inflammatory posts about Tidal, both of which point out her prejudice about successful musicians, whose intent is yet to be determined.

    Honestly, I don’t know where Tidal is headed, but for at least a moment it is very exciting to see an artist owned company enter into the music streaming space. It is my sense that Tidal rushed into the marketplace to steal some thunder from the imminent relaunch of Apple Music and the possibility of locking down as many artists as possible for exclusive release deals. As a celebrity owned brand this is Tidal’s best shot at solvency.

    In time, Ms Ulloa’s opinions may in fact be accurate, but let’s not shoot the horse before It is even out of the starting gate.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Verify Your Humanity *