Support NeoGAF

[Smooth Operator]

I'm getting sick of this idea that people who stream music aren't paying for it.

.[/spoiler]

I love your avatar, Sade is the love of my life.

 

[Kill Your Masters]

You never hear Tim Cook's net worth whenever he tries to sell you something. Steve Jobs, God bless, he had to have been pretty rich — nobody's ever said, "Oh, the rich getting richer! I won't buy an iPhone!" Yeah, right. It's not about being pretentious; again, this is a thing for all artists. You pay $9.99 for Spotify, so why not $9.99 for TIDAL. We're not asking for anything else, we're just saying that we'll spread that money to artists more fairly. We're not saying anything other than that, and we're saying that we're in a position to bring light to this issue.

I cant listen to the Apple, Google, general tech exuse from him and generally from Tidal supporters.

You (Tidal musicians) fucks use Twitter and Facebook and Youtube for free to distribute your ideas, your music and your persona, and the best and fastest way to access all of this is an smartphone, that was revolutionised by Apple and Jobs, so please, dont talk shit. Its nowhere near close.

Tech companies make our lives better and easier, Nicki Minaj makes my ears bleed, Madonna makes my eyes bleed.

 

[DOWN]

That explanation about the student discount was cringeworthy. Basically "Yes because we really get you and this is about you really caring about music." That anti-marketing storm.

 

[neorej]

Yes but you also have to consider the fact that the Tim Cooks and such are usually on the side of doing the the ripping off than receiving.

You can oppose this tidal initiave but I don't see what there is to gain by pretending the music industry as-is is honkey dorey for the artists.

Noone is pretending that it is. But at the same time, people are pretending as if Hova and friends are setting out to automagically fix that by screwing over the customer while at the same time not addressing the real problem and the real reason they're getting short-changed in the recording industry; the labels.

Historically;
- Cassette-decks came out; they were going to kill the recording industry, because people could copy music at home
- CDs came out; they were going to kill the recording industry, because people could copy them to tape at an even higher quality
- Writable CDs came out; they were going to kill the recording industry, because people could copy CDs without quality loss
- Internet happened; it was going to kill the recording industry, because people could download music for free
- Streaming services happened; it was going to kill the recording industry, because revenues were not high enough to support the lifestyle artists got accustomed to


The only two constants in this are the labels and the fact that technology is moving forward. After everything that happened, we've still got music. We've still got albums coming out. We've never seen a broader range of music to choose from, R&B, country, metal, rock, hip hop, pop, J-pop, babymetal, and many many more. Music is being crossed over, and collaborations we've hardly imagined possible are being done. Artists find it easier to penetrate an international market, because crossing the borders no longer requires expensive marketing campaigns abroad, but instead your music gets discovered in countries you've never heard of.

If anything, music is alive thanks to technological advances and in spite of everything the recording industry has tried. It's thanks to the fans that Arctic Monkeys even got signed. It's thanks to the internet that relatively unknown bands can sell out a gig, partly because their catalog is available for streaming and partly thanks to social media. As long as labels are allowed to play the role they play and artist-managers support and accept that role, nothing is going to change.
Labels are thrilled with Tidal, simply because the $20 fee means twice as much income for them. Tidal isn't changing that landscape. If they would, record labels would be up in arms over the service. But here we are, nothing. Not even a peep. That's how disruptive Tidal is goign to be. Record labels have a history of screaming bloody murder if they feel their net-income is going down. Yet, with the announcement of Tidal, they remain silent. That, basically, tells you the entire story of how revolutionary Tidal will be.

 

[rambis]

Noone is pretending that it is. But at the same time, people are pretending as if Hova and friends are setting out to automagically fix that by screwing over the customer while at the same time not addressing the real problem and the real reason they're getting short-changed in the recording industry; the labels.

Historically;
- Cassette-decks came out; they were going to kill the recording industry, because people could copy music at home
- CDs came out; they were going to kill the recording industry, because people could copy them to tape at an even higher quality
- Writable CDs came out; they were going to kill the recording industry, because people could copy CDs without quality loss
- Internet happened; it was going to kill the recording industry, because people could download music for free
- Streaming services happened; it was going to kill the recording industry, because revenues were not high enough to support the lifestyle artists got accustomed to


The only two constants in this are the labels and the fact that technology is moving forward. After everything that happened, we've still got music. We've still got albums coming out. We've never seen a broader range of music to choose from, R&B, country, metal, rock, hip hop, pop, J-pop, babymetal, and many many more. Music is being crossed over, and collaborations we've hardly imagined possible are being done. Artists find it easier to penetrate an international market, because crossing the borders no longer requires expensive marketing campaigns abroad, but instead your music gets discovered in countries you've never heard of.

If anything, music is alive thanks to technological advances and in spite of everything the recording industry has tried. It's thanks to the fans that Arctic Monkeys even got signed. It's thanks to the internet that relatively unknown bands can sell out a gig, partly because their catalog is available for streaming and partly thanks to social media. As long as labels are allowed to play the role they play and artist-managers support and accept that role, nothing is going to change.
Labels are thrilled with Tidal, simply because the $20 fee means twice as much income for them. Tidal isn't changing that landscape. If they would, record labels would be up in arms over the service. But here we are, nothing. Not even a peep. That's how disruptive Tidal is goign to be. Record labels have a history of screaming bloody murder if they feel their net-income is going down. Yet, with the announcement of Tidal, they remain silent. That, basically, tells you the entire story of how revolutionary Tidal will be.

The music industry has been a steep decline for a while. Since the year 2000. I don't know what point you are trying to make with the history lesson but the music industry now is over $40billion dollars less revenue than what used to be. And even digital revenue, the current great hope is seeing declines. Because you as a certain type of a consumer are not feeling the crunch doesn't not mean it doesn't exist.

I also think the logic that we know Tidal will have no impact because of labels not making noise yet is crazily flawed. That may be a confirmation bias you have but that doesn't mean it reflects reality. People aren't saying that the internet or new technology is what's is killing the music industry so idk why you are arguing to that point. Its the broken business models like spotify.

I also don't think you realize the huggest difference right now between tidal and spotify. As of now, you can only submit music to spotify via a distributor or label. Which means there is no way for artists to independently submit music. With Tidal, their main pitch is that a label is not required. That in itself is a huge shift as we see more and more artists go independent.

 

[DarkFlow]

Those people are at the top. What about everyone else?

Well they gave only them 3% each. I guess the indie artist gets the scraps, so really this is about the rich getting richer.

 

[liquidtmd]

People aren't saying that the internet or new technology is what's is killing the music industry so idk why you are arguing to that point.

V: ...frankly been a part of what's been driving the downfall of the recorded music industry

They're talking in context of internet streaming, no?

 

[Frodo]

I also don't think you realize the huggest difference right now between tidal and spotify. As of now, you can only submit music to spotify via a distributor or label. Which means there is no way for artists to independently submit music. With Tidal, their main pitch is that a label is not required. That in itself is a huge shift as we see more and more artists go independent.

And instead of advertising this they went with the super freaking rich guys asking for more money... Shake my head.

 

[mrklaw]

You say this like they always get a say in what happens with their music. Spotify a lot of the times doesn't even have to engage an artist to use their music.

The music industry has a long reaching system in place that largely forces artists who can't afford to support their own music at significant disadvantages. Its not as easy to just not sign a contract when every label has the corrupt practices. I applaud moves like this to take back power from corporations.

I know its hard to care about people who make more money than you but that doesn't mean that they aren't getting screwed.

I know spotify often don't engage with artists - they engage with the labels and publishing houses which own the rights. Just like a radio station wouldn't engage with an artist, they'd pay the collection agencies etc.

The problem is that the artists have shitty contracts that allow their labels to not pay them much for streaming rights. They need to renegotiate those, or leave that label and move to one that will give better rates.

 

[rambis]

Well they gave only them 3% each. I guess the indie artist gets the scraps, so really this is about the rich getting richer.

Not sure what your point is but usually its people who are financially capable that make these type of investments. Jayz was able to spend 54 million to buy equity in this company, its not surprising that up and coming artists aren't being listed as financial backers. And when the main pitch again is higher royalties for the artists, aka less money for the platform holders versus something like spotify, I'm not sure what you are talking about.

What are you arguing?

 

[D4Danger]

It's hard to take this seriously when his point of reference is $6 water. That ain't the world I live in.

 

[rambis]

They're talking in context of internet streaming, no?

Speaking of context....

The royalty rates will be higher than other services. In addition to that, there won't be that free tier that's been depressing the recorded music industry, and frankly been a part of what's been driving the downfall of the recorded music industry, is that free consumption.

Talking about the "free" streaming models. Business analysts have estimated that spotify, which doesn't pay out per stream uses a model that is overly biased to artists with more plays and pays them more than they are actually producing.

And instead of advertising this they went with the super freaking rich guys asking for more money... Shake my head.

I don't follow sorry..

I know spotify often don't engage with artists - they engage with the labels and publishing houses which own the rights. Just like a radio station wouldn't engage with an artist, they'd pay the collection agencies etc.

The problem is that the artists have shitty contracts that allow their labels to not pay them much for streaming rights. They need to renegotiate those, or leave that label and move to one that will give better rates.

They plain out refuse to engage with artists, its not sometimes. And artists self distribute to radios all the time when they can. Im not sure what you are talking about.

And yes part of the problem is that the artists sign shitty contracts. But again this is a byproduct of how the current industry is set up in which artists are basically cornered into these deals unless they can finance themselves.

 

[Delusibeta]

If they actually have reasonable payouts for artists, then I'm all for it.

They won't. It's exactly the same payout structure as Spotify, except they skim 25% off the top rather than 30%. It doesn't solve the problem of labels skimming the rest off before giving the artists some crumbs.

As for Jay Z attempting to kill off free streaming, have fun trying to kill YouTube, Grooveshark and Soundcloud, never mind the free streaming services that actuality pays out money to artists (read: labels).

Again, I anyone really cared about indie artists (read: labels) they would have several Drip.fm subscriptions.

 

[KidJr]

Jay stays hopping on bandwagons and acting like he invented them. Oh, so unknown artists will be able to have their music heard through Tidal, maybe cosigned by entrenched artists? Hello, Jay-Z, I know you never been on MySpace, but I would have thought you were familiar with THE ENTIRETY OF THE INTERNET.

And then this lunacy from Vania shows how utterly and completely out of touch the wealthy are. "The data says that students don't really care about paying for streaming. I actually don't believe that, necessarily — I think that this demographic here, sitting in the room, cares very deeply about music."

"We're ignoring data, because we think broke people are going to pay for our service because, they like, love music. We're going to pretend the rest of the world just discovered the internet yesterday too. Bandcamp? Soundcloud? YouTube? Spotify? What are those again? It's all very ethereal."

Sounds like another successful company I know, oh yeah thats right Apple do something similar and doesnt make them any less successful does it?

 

[DarkFlow]

Not sure what your point is but usually its people who are financially capable that make these type of investments. Jayz was able to spend 54 million to buy equity in this company, its not surprising that up and coming artists aren't being listed as financial backers. And when the main pitch again is higher royalties for the artists, aka less money for the platform holders versus something like spotify, I'm not sure what you are talking about.

What are you arguing?

None of these people put a cent into this, they got gifted this shit to back it. My "point" is this new service doesn't really give two shits about the no name indie artist, and really only cares that the big artist can get a few more % points of a stream.


I also don't understand why you think the avg consumer gives one single fuck about how much any artist makes per stream. News flash, they don't. I truly could not give one single fuck how much they make off a stream, the fact they make anything and someone's not stealing it should make them jump for joy. I feel bad that indie artist that no one cares about is getting shit, but that's not my problem.

 

[rambis]

None of these people put a cent into this, they got gifted this shit to back it. My "point" is this new service doesn't really give two shits about the no name indie artist, and really only cares that the big artist can get a few more % points of a stream.


I also don't understand why you think the avg consumer gives one single fuck about how much any artist makes per stream. News flash, they don't. I truly could not give one single fuck how much they make off a stream, the fact they make anything and someone's not stealing it should make them jump for joy. I feel bad that indie artist that no one cares about is getting shit, but that's not my problem.

I'm really not following what you are saying. Please explain how you arrived at your "point" lemme guess, do I have to "open my eyes"?

And yes, I get it, you don't care about people who make more than you. I get it. That doesn't mean its ok to handwave legitimate issues.

 

[CloudWolf]

If a person can pay $6 for a bottle of water, something that used to be free

Even the Cims in Cities: Skylines aren't prepared to pay that much for water.

 

[More Fun To Compute]

So this service if for people who think that water should cost $6 a bottle and that Apple products are not expensive for what they are and that Tim Cook does not have more money than he knows what to do with. In truth there are probably millions of idiots like this out there who will jump at this service enthusiastically just to be part of something more exclusive sounding.

 

[neorej]

The music industry has been a steep decline for a while. Since the year 2000. I don't know what point you are trying to make with the history lesson but the music industry now is over $40billion dollars less revenue than what used to be. And even digital revenue, the current great hope is seeing declines. Because you as a certain type of a consumer are not feeling the crunch doesn't not mean it doesn't exist.

I also think the logic that we know Tidal will have no impact because of labels not making noise yet is crazily flawed. That may be a confirmation bias you have but that doesn't mean it reflects reality. People aren't saying that the internet or new technology is what's is killing the music industry so idk why you are arguing to that point. Its the broken business models like spotify.

I also don't think you realize the huggest difference right now between tidal and spotify. As of now, you can only submit music to spotify via a distributor or label. Which means there is no way for artists to independently submit music. With Tidal, their main pitch is that a label is not required. That in itself is a huge shift as we see more and more artists go independent.

The only businessmodel that's broken is the recording industry itself. It's based on an era where vinyl ruled supreme and hasn't adapted since. Exactly where is Spotify's business model broken? Spotify is making money and handing over 70% in revenue to the labels. That's the exact same distribution labels are getting for selling on iTunes or physical media sales. And it's also the same distribution that Tidal is maintaining. Whatever happens after that, is entirely up to the labels. If artists feel they get short-changed on that deal, they should take it up with the label, not Spotify. Not iTunes, Not the retailers. Their labels.


Tidal is claiming they're for the artist, and if they do, I'll applaud them, but so far, they're very quiet about it, so it remains to be seen how good Tidal treats the indies and the up- and comers.

Edit: don't take my word for it. Take Steve Albini's or Courtney Love's.

 

[Prine]

Sounds like another successful company I know, oh yeah thats right Apple do something similar and doesnt make them any less successful does it?

IS this sarcasm? Serious question?

Tech company that introduces and revolutionises consumer tech, as well as improve peoples lives, being compared to a man that does none of that but introduces a business model for himself and his peers. The audacity of comparing the 2 is alarming. Sounds nothing like Apple.

 

[Ryaaan14]

Good luck lol

 

[Nibel]

What a huge pile of nothing.

 

[Ray Wonder]

I bought a 35 pack of nestle water for $6.

 

[Dénouement]

Jay-z saying people hated it before they even knew what it was. They had their opportunity to properly explain what it is and change people's minds, and completely botched it. Of course people are going to focus on the creepy marketing where the shareholders say they're "rewriting history" and "building a new world."

 

[itsgreen]

I think Mr. Z is overestimating the willingness of people to pay for music...

If he splinters the market place (artist going exclusively with Tidal or something like that), I predict people will just start downloading again and don't pay anything...

Also the 'we deserve more money'-argument from the top grossing musicians (whether they deserve it or not) is not a great argument with people who don't make anything near that.

 

[rambis]

The only businessmodel that's broken is the recording industry itself. It's based on an era where vinyl ruled supreme and hasn't adapted since. Exactly where is Spotify's business model broken? Spotify is making money and handing over 70% in revenue to the labels. That's the exact same distribution labels are getting for selling on iTunes or physical media sales. And it's also the same distribution that Tidal is maintaining. Whatever happens after that, is entirely up to the labels. If artists feel they get short-changed on that deal, they should take it up with the label, not Spotify. Not iTunes, Not the retailers. Their labels.

Tidal is claiming they're for the artist, and if they do, I'll applaud them, but so far, they're very quiet about it, so it remains to be seen how good Tidal treats the indies and the up- and comers.

Its becoming quite apparent who actually knows how the industry works and who doesn't. As presented, Tidal and Spotify are nothing alike and iTunes and Spotify have completely different models so idk why you would compare them.

Again, you have to have a deal with at least a distributor to put music on Spotify. This is an huge implication. Not to mention aggregation.

As far as how the model is broken. It doesn't effectively compensate artists who don't get the top amount of plays. I'm at work on a phone by there are plenty of articles around the web detailing this and tearing their model to shreds. Its no secret.

I've already explained a bit about he crooked corner the record labels have artists in but this is not the only problem by far. No matter how much handwaving you do.

 

[mrklaw]

They plain out refuse to engage with artists, its not sometimes. And artists self distribute to radios all the time when they can. Im not sure what you are talking about.

And yes part of the problem is that the artists sign shitty contracts. But again this is a byproduct of how the current industry is set up in which artists are basically cornered into these deals unless they can finance themselves.

I'm talking about why artists need to stop shitting on spotify for 'not paying them any money' when the problem is at their own backdoor. If they have a shitty agreement with their label then renegotiate it for better streaming terms, or leave.

Artist-label relations are shitty anyway. You're having to make your money from touring or merchandising or both because you won't make anything from CD sales or downloads or streams. The whole relationship there needs to change, and will over time.

I just think some artists are pointing the finger in the wrong direction.

 

[Moze]

Does anybody trust Jay Z? The guy is a snake. I would pay more money to not use a service he is a part of.

The circle jerk when all those artists came on stage to launch the service was disgusting.

 

[linsivvi]

J: Well, we can't exclude the major labels because they have contracts with the artists.

Which is what everyone who has remotely a clue has been saying.

But if you don't have a contract as an independent artist, they you can do whatever you want and we would love to work with you.

Does that mean that artists that are currently on TIDAL, when their contracts expire, could have the option of going in lieu of a record company, and work with something like TIDAL?

J: I'm on Tidal. I don't have a record deal. So… yes.

LMAO. Not everyone is Jay Z. There are literally millions of unsigned artists out there, some with maybe a few songs written as a hobby. Yeah good luck in keeping that promise of working with anyone without a contract. See how many people you have to hire to maintain that.

 

[rambis]

I'm talking about why artists need to stop shitting on spotify for 'not paying them any money' when the problem is at their own backdoor. If they have a shitty agreement with their label then renegotiate it for better streaming terms, or leave.

Artist-label relations are shitty anyway. You're having to make your money from touring or merchandising or both because you won't make anything from CD sales or downloads or streams. The whole relationship there needs to change, and will over time.

I just think some artists are pointing the finger in the wrong direction.

Spotify has a shitty model that doesn't stand to reason with basic mathematics. Idk how many times this can be said.

It doesn't matter if you like the device and want to protect it's good name. You have to call a spade what it is.

 

[ClosingADoor]

Spotify has a shitty model that doesn't stand to reason with basic mathematics. Idk how many times this can be said.

It doesn't matter if you like the device and want to protect it's good name. You have to call a spade what it is.

Spotify has a consumer friendly model and made legal streaming big in a lot of countries. The model for the user is just fine. The artists and company have to fight their shares out themselves, what do I have to do with that?

 

[Vincent Grayson]

Music is so ubiquitous in the "first world" at this point that I just can't picture a scenario where I'd pay anyone a monthly fee for access to a large library. I can and do get all of those songs and more via any number of total legal means should I want a specific song, and if not, there's even more ways.

If the music industry wants to sell me on giving them money every month, they need to offer something I don't already have for free.

 

[rambis]

Spotify has a consumer friendly model and made legal streaming big in a lot of countries. The model for the user is just fine. The artists and company have to fight their shares out themselves, what do I have to do with that?

This is true but im not sure anybody asked you.

 

[Deft Beck]

Tidal is years late. I will not switch from Spotify just because he and fifteen other artists suddenly want more money for no other reason than "higher quality music" and a fake sense of rebellion against services that deprive millionaire musicians of their pithy streaming royalties.

 

[ClosingADoor]

This is true but im not sure anybody asked you.

I'm sorry. I will no longer posts on message boards until someone specifically asks me a question. What was I thinking, posting my opinion on a public forum! Please accept my sincere apology.

Are you for real man? If you don't want to hear other peoples opinions, do you discussion through PM.

 

[Kammie]

As a user that pays for Spotify, I'm mostly concerned that artists are going to yank their music and put it on Tidal, splitting the available catalogs of music. That's not good for any fan of music. Splitting the content onto three or four services, so full access requires me to subscribe multiple times just damages the entire streaming model.

Personally I'm all for it. I pay for Spotify but I strongly disagree with a business model that an artist barely profits from. If fragmentation happens, then eventually things may change. On top of that, I live in a country where pirating is seen as a normal thing, and everybody takes advantage of the free model. Not because they can't pay but because there is just no respect for the medium. I don't like it.

And if the music is not on Spotify, you can buy it individually like in the old days. There's nothing stopping you. An album is easily worth ten dollars when you consider that music adds more value to most people's lives than any other entertainment medium.

 

[rambis]

I'm sorry. I will no longer posts on message boards until someone specifically asks me a question. What was I thinking, posting my opinion on a public forum! Please accept my sincere apology.

Are you for real man? If you don't want to hear other peoples opinions, do you discussion through PM.

I'm not sure where youre coming from but you just asked why should you care when ultimately this has nothing to do with you. What response do you expect?

 

[ClosingADoor]

I'm not sure where youre coming from but you just asked why should you care when ultimately this has nothing to do with you. What response do you expect?

Nothing specific, but a "nobody asked you" is a little rude don't you think, when the whole point of a message board is for people to leave their opinions.

I'm just saying, the consumer is right in the end and decides the model. Spotify works, so the model is right for them. How those incomes are distributed is then Spotify and the labels concern.

 

[Kabouter]

I pay 84 cents per 1000 litres of water though, not $6 for a bottle.

 

[Deft Beck]

Personally I'm all for it. I pay for Spotify but I strongly disagree with a business model that an artist barely profits from. If fragmentation happens, then eventually things may change. On top of that, I live in a country where pirating is seen as a normal thing, and everybody takes advantage of the free model. Not because they can't pay but because there is just no respect for the medium. I don't like it.

And if the music is not on Spotify, you can buy it individually like in the old days. There's nothing stopping you. An album is easily worth ten dollars when you consider that music adds more value to most people's lives than any other entertainment medium.

Artists earn income in more ways than just streaming revenues. Often, streams will lead people to look for concert tickets or merchandise. There was a famous rock band who set up a concert in Eastern Europe for the first time due to reports of high piracy rates of their music, and the concert sold out. Furthermore, "No respect for the medium" is a nebulous opinion.

Regressing back to the model of music as a product versus the idea of entertainment as a service with associated static artifacts such as digital streams and other files seems like an inaccurate portrayal of how music is distributed nowadays. We are going to have to figure out how to balance evolving technology with the cries of the music industry in the coming years, regardless.

I also question your last sentence. Some like movies more than music. What about musicals?

 

[LanceVance]

I got 99 problems but staying with Spotify ain't one

 

[Diablos]

So is he actually working with Arcade Fire on anything or was that all just hypothetical to try and appease the 'indie' crowd?

 

[Jhriad]

I hadn't heard much about this service other than it being a new streaming service that's focused on paying artists more.

There is no free tier

Good to know I can safely ignore Tidal from this point forward.

 

[otake]

I get the sense from the media reports that I should be concerned about how little an artists makes from streaming services..... Why?

The way this is pitched, it's like I should sign up so artists are payed more (?).

If this works out and becomes a success, it would be a paradigm shift. I don't think it will.

Personally, I don't care what an artists makes of pandora or spotify. Don't even care if they remove their music. I will listen to what's on pandora because it's easy and free. Convenience trumps everything else.

 

[DoktorEvil]

lol speak for yourself. I don't know any sane person who would spend $6 on a bottle of water.

Go to a warehouse EDM event.

Plenty of people pay 6 dollars just for water, but they're probably rolling.

 

[Bill S. Preston. Esq.]

That's some next level analytics!

Lol!

 

[neorej]

I pay 84 cents per 1000 litres of water though, not $6 for a bottle.

See, 84 cents! While it used to be free. You're exactly who JayZ is targeting with Tidal.

 

[OldRoutes]

J: I know everyone thinks "new company, main business competitor is Spotify" but we're really not here to compete with anyone, we're actually here to improve the landscape. If just the presence of TIDAL causes other companies to have better pay structure, or to pay more attention to it moving forward, then we've been successful in one way. So we don't really view them as competitors. As the tide rises, all the boats rise.

I didn't understand any of this, Jay Z. Nothing you just said made sense.

 

[otake]

I didn't understand any of this, Jay Z. Nothing you just said made sense.

He's lowering the bar for measuring the companies success.

 

[M3d10n]

I just want some random industrial and chill music to play in the background while I write my code at work. I don't even keep track of artists names and whatnot, too much effort. Local radio is only terrible pop/mainstream garbage.

If they get rid of the free Spotify tier I'll just go right back to shoutcast radios, which pay zero to the artists because they are either playing off someone's HDD or are retransmissions of radios from different countries from which the ads will be lost on me.