Nicki Minaj and Taylor Swift have BAD BLOOD on Twitter

Status
Not open for further replies.
Man, this is dumb, but the way Nicki is acting is weird. Like, it's blatantly about Taylor, but she's pretending it's not. That's not a good look, call someone out if you want to call them out. But tip toeing and letting your fans do the attack, and then retweeting them, is pathetic.
 
The fact is the Anaconda video is too straight forward and actually a bad concept to be video of the year. Simple edits and by the numbers directions and choreography. The whole thing is a straight rip of Sir Mix-A-Lot, nicki should try and be more original if she wants recognition.
 
For more context, Nicki Minaj's videos Anaconda and Feeling Myself (ft. Beyonce) were not nominated in a VMA catergory that other perceived lesser videos were nominated for. Nicki called this out, feeling that she'd created a superior experience.
Click to expand...

SsLkoMZ.gif


Not seen the other but her Anaconda video is practically borderline porn.

Also, fucking white media? Really???
 
Rembrandt said:
link me. everything I've read says otherwise. and idk why anyone would care about their twitter campaign; that's on people for making weird assumptions just because celebrities changed their avi. most people on my timeline thought it was for some new music, not anything charity wise. and the quality wasn't the only thing they were showing off.

it was the only time i've seen people come out and talk about how rich the CEO of the company was in response to higher artist payouts.
Click to expand...

It's like a 1.5% difference, and IIRC Tidal still pays out to the label and not the artist directly which means it's doubly meaningless. Tidal is a more expensive, worse experience than basically every other competing streaming service that is built on an argument that completely ignores the real issue.
 
Nicki Minaj just needs better PR people like Taylor does. Taylor just knows how to appear nice while secretly insulting someone.

I agree that in general male black artists are at times snubbed for awards (ie praising Macklemore when we have someone like Kendrick), but generally it is a pretty even turf for women artists of color. An oddity in a world where usually women of all types are at a disadvantage.
 
Pops Maellard said:
It's like a 1.5% difference, and IIRC Tidal still pays out to the label and not the artist directly which means it's doubly meaningless. Tidal is a more expensive, worse experience than basically every other competing streaming service that is built on an argument that completely ignores the real issue.
Click to expand...

No streaming service goes directly to artists, unless they're unsigned (so they benefit most on Tidal which they also said several times), so stop bringing this point up like it matters. The point of that whole matter is that it pays more per play which is then distributed to the artist, meaning an artist would make more money on Tidal than Spotify/Pandora/YouTube. No matter how you cut it, they're getting paid more. How is it a worse experience?
 
Nicki clearly took a shot at Igloo Australia. That is who she's talking about....

SteveWinwood said:
14 minutes ago

NICKI MINAJ ‏@NICKIMINAJ

I'm so glad u guys get to see how this stuff works. Taylor took her music off spotify and was applauded. We launched Tidal & were dragged.

PREACH
Click to expand...

*Danny Myers gif*

Nicki TALKING ABOUT IT.
 
I love when "artists" pretend that they aren't winning awards because the world is racist or sexist or any -ist that they think they could apply to their situation.
 
Rembrandt said:
It makes a huge difference with streaming becoming the future of music. If one pays more to the label (which obviously gets distributed to the artist), that means the artist gets paid more. See my links before.

But it was also paying the most to artists (I think Apple may pay as much if not more, idk for sure, though), so it wouldn't make sense to ignore that point. People were hyped for Apple Music and that was rich people getting richer without championing things that would be beneficial to those that make the music we consume. They may have talked about it, idk. but the whole "rich getting richer" is a stupid argument.
Click to expand...

The issue that Tidal never really discussed or wants to discuss is that their labels have them by the balls. This was their way of circumventing the label and getting more because they owned a company. They weren't going to make 20 million more a year out of this.

Apple is not dumb like they were. They're not going to advertise this with artists signing a form and pleading for assistance for a better service that rewards artists with more. No, they're going to hype it up as cool and awesome. They're going to stay far away from the sympathy angle because that does not sell. You can't sell rich people being sad about not having enough money to a bunch of poor people in the world.

It was rich getting richer from the get go. It was nothing else. Seeing it as it failed because the owner is black is willfully ignoring any PR or videos released. This was a failed business venture because they couldn't remove the perception that they just wanted more money. We make fun of other rich people who do stuff like this all the time and they felt they were any different?
 
SteveWinwood said:
14 minutes ago

NICKI MINAJ ‏@NICKIMINAJ

I'm so glad u guys get to see how this stuff works. Taylor took her music off spotify and was applauded. We launched Tidal & were dragged.

PREACH
Click to expand...

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

She can't be fucking serious, can she? She's serious... Oh god that's hilarious.
 
Rembrandt said:
No streaming service goes directly to artists, unless they're unsigned (so they benefit most on Tidal which they also said several times), so stop bringing this point up like it matters. How is it a worse experience?
Click to expand...

That's exactly my point. Tidal is pretending that the issue is how /much/ artists receive per stream, coupled with "free" streaming, but the real issue is that no streaming service pays directly to the artist.

IMO the experience is worse as it's supported on less devices, has far less features, a worse UI than Apple Music/Spotify/Rdio, and costs significantly more on the basis of "lossless" streaming, which is completely irrelevant for the overwhelming majority of their content.
 
SteveWinwood said:
14 minutes ago

NICKI MINAJ ‏@NICKIMINAJ

I'm so glad u guys get to see how this stuff works. Taylor took her music off spotify and was applauded. We launched Tidal & were dragged.

PREACH
Click to expand...

I don't remember Taylor being applauded for taking her music off Spotify, in fact I remember her being criticized for being "greedy" and such.
 
Subpar Spatula said:
The issue that Tidal never really discussed or wants to discuss is that their labels have them by the balls. This was their way of circumventing the label and getting more because they owned a company. They weren't going to make an extra 50 million a year off this.

Apple is not dumb like they were. They're not going to advertise this with artists signing a form and pleading for assistance for a better service that rewards artists with more. No, they're going to hype it up as cool and awesome. They're going to stay far away from the sympathy angle because that does not sell. You can't sell rich people being sad about not having enough money to a bunch of poor people in the world.

It was rich getting richer from the get go. It was nothing else. Seeing it as it failed because the owner is black is willfully ignoring any PR or videos released. This was a failed business venture because they couldn't remove the perception that they just wanted more money. We make fun of other rich people who do stuff like this all the time and they felt they were any different?
Click to expand...

What is your first post even saying? 99% of signed artist don't own the rights to their music. They cannot get paid directly from the streams on any service. Tidal launched with a campaign letting people know that their service will pay the artists more, through the labels of course BUT SO IS EVERY STREAMING SERVICE, so with artists complaining about the low payout, they pushed that angle. There is literally nothing wrong with letting people know that their service will be more beneficial to those that make the music we basically consume for free.

Apple is going to Apple because they have an insanely loyal fanbase that probably would have subscribed to their service if it was worse than everything and more expensive, that's just the way it is. For somebody that doesn't have the market share they do, they have to take the angles they get. It's fucking stupid to shame a company because they're pointing out that they're actually helping artists.

Is Apple Music not the rich getting richer? Was Taylor Swift removing her music from Spotify because of the low payouts and then going to Apple Music not the rich getting richer? I don't understand where this claim came from besides the fact that there's no free service (which makes sense if they're paying more).

Pops Maellard said:
That's exactly my point. Tidal is pretending that the issue is how /much/ artists receive per stream, coupled with "free" streaming, but the real issue is that no streaming service pays directly to the artist.

IMO the experience is worse as it's supported on less devices, has far less features, a worse UI than Apple Music/Spotify/Rdio, and costs significantly more on the basis of "lossless" streaming, which is completely irrelevant for the overwhelming majority of their content.
Click to expand...

That's because it's impossible for signed artists. They championed them paying indie artists more, which is good and bringing any notice to low payouts to artists is a good thing. Since they can't fight a problem they can't win, the second best thing is to address the problem they could actually fix, even if it only leads to Spotify/Pandora paying the labels/artists more.

They offer a $10 a month plan which is the same as Spotify. Fair points, though.
 
Anaconda & Bad Blood are both trash videos. Let's be real. The only real snub in the VMA's is if Alright doesn't win. I don't think Kendrick gives two shits about it though.
 
The music videos for both Anaconda and Bad Blood are truly awful, awful stuff, neither deserving of any kind of recognition. Vapid schlock. How is this worth fighting over? I would have thought that both artists would already know their MVs are tacky, tasteless commercials.
 
Rembrandt said:
Posted on Digital Music News, the data makes it clear that TIDAL averages almost double the royalty payout to Spotify. Spotify claims to pay an average of .72 cents (that’s $0.0072) per stream to rights owners; based on the numbers presented here, TIDAL’s average payout to the label was about 1.2 cents ($0.012). This number comes from taking the average Label Share Net and dividing it by the average Unit Price (bottom of the chart). Note that TIDAL seems to earn an average of $0.014 per stream, but that’s before the company takes their cut.

TL;DR; TIDAL pays an indie label an unweighted average of 1.2 cents per stream, whereas the same label would earn .72 cents per stream on Spotify. It’s literally fractions of a cent, but if Office Space taught us anything, fractions of a cent can really add up.

As shown by Information is Beautiful’s updated-for-2015 visualization of the subject, signed artists make .0019 cents per stream on Pandora and .0011 cents per Spotify stream. The worst payout of all for musicians, however, comes from Youtube, which pays out about .0003 per play. An artist signed to a record label would thus have to have their Youtube video played 4,200,000 times in order to earn the monthly U.S. minimum wage of $1,260.

So how much more does Tidal pay per stream, then? The service doles out .007 cents per — while it doesn’t sound like much of a difference to its competitors, a signed artist would only need to be streamed 180,000 times on the service to make the monthly minimum wage.
.
Click to expand...

so you did a great job of making 2 links look like a wall of evidence.

the first is an unnamed source on a no name blog who says some indie label says they pay more. the second infographic based link still clings to the frame that you do, which is that higher renumeration for labels (if it is indeed higher, which i don't buy; this shit is obfuscated every which way) directly leads to higher compensation for artists, which is dubious at best and still brings us to my original reply, which is that the labels are the issue, not the royalty rate, if you actually care about artists getting paid. i remain unconvinced, and i don't buy the racial angle which you haven't addressed, but i won't hold you to it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

  • Locked
Trudeau busts a move with teenagers at a Taylor Swift concert while Montreal burns
4
946
LordOfChaos replied
Dave Grohl roasts Taylor Swift at concert, Swiftie assassination plot underway
47
3K
Bring Back Scalebound replied
  • Locked
Resetera no longer supporting Twitter
3
1K
Hookshot replied
  • Locked
Grimes calls out Elon Musk on Twitter because he's ignoring his child's medical crisis
2
70
5K
Days like these... replied
Humanity has peaked and I have proof
2
63
3K
Days like these... replied
Top Bottom