Photo: Splash
According to Alicia Keys at least, this week saw a “moment that will forever change the course of music history”. Jay Z and 15 other artists appeared together on stage in New York to announce ‘the first ever artist-owned global music and entertainment platform.” However not everyone was quite as enthusiastic as Keys - industry expert and Cowboys and Indies author Gareth Murphy explains why the music business needs to learn from the lessons of its past.
In today's struggling music market, it's dangerous to be cynical. To survive, we all need to adapt and keep the faith.
Sadly, it's extremely difficult to not be cynical about Jay Z's latest venture. Tidal is basically a rebranded Spotify copy, except twice the price. Ok, the sound quality is lossless, but who'll really notice the difference? Perhaps bats, and their human equivalent who live in recording studios.
What cracked me up, however, was the grandiose "declaration" about artists taking their "art" into their own hands. Ahem, a number of the ageing A-listers on that stage already have their own labels and production companies. They decide what they make, when they want.
Secondly, does anyone seriously believe they'll release their new material exclusively through Tidal, who currently boast 540,000 subscribers compared to Spotify’s 60 million users? The hell they will.
Even if they pull out of Spotify and Beats and offer "windowing" to preview big releases, to make any impact they will still have to sell their products on iTunes and in physical stores. This means their PR teams will continue to blitzkrieg the media - every radio, TV station, newspaper, magazine and blog. They will, in other words, keep shoving their "art" down the throats of third parties. Sensitive artistes, these superstars are not. They're in the business of smash hits, and Tidal simply isn't big enough.
So what's the point? More money? Fair enough. But then what's all these references to "tiered stock"? It remains very unclear about the size of the cash advances and equity portions for those artists taking part. As New Republic pointed out: "If the original 16 artists each received a 3 percent stake in Tidal, that’s nearly half the company already disbursed. Presumably, Jay Z intends to keep a large chunk as well. If Jay Z intends to allow all artists an ownership stake in Tidal, how much will less famous artists receive?" Will we see some sort of Ponzi scheme pyramid where the first in get more than the rung below? Sounds like it.
I also question their dubious assumption that an artist-controlled platform is better at bringing music to the people. Myspace didn't work precisely because artists are notoriously unconvincing at selling themselves. The bigger MySpace got, the more unbearable it became. Or in the case of major artists, remember how Prince damaged his own legacy by releasing every bowel movement that passed through his studio? Personally, I'd hate to see Kanye West with his own video channel: after the umpteenth hour of Kim K, audiences would be begging for some sort of editorial control.
The 130 year history of recorded music proves beyond doubt that, irrespective of fashion or format, musicians need labels, A&R counterpoints, radio DJs, critics, shop keepers - that vast community of midwives and big mouths who source, filter, purify and distribute what reaches the public. As such, I fear Jay Z's ill-judged venture may actually be a step backwards.
There lingers a dangerous misconception that Napster was to blame for the CD crash, and that today's music business crisis is a technological and legal problem. In reality, corporate hubris, high prices, low-nutritional pop and the devaluation of music by an orgy of marketing gimmickry, provoked a public revolt throughout the Nineties.
We, the people, started to dislike the music business and all the brands synonymous with it. It's taken ten years of pain to flush out the MBA graduates from the labels, improve public perceptions and reach a point where two producer-friendly platforms, Spotify and Apple, now dominate a growing market.
I don't doubt that Jay Z is sincere in his intentions, but the proof is in the pudding: Tidal's lavish launch (and beyond parody video) has provoked an outburst of cynicism - arguably the worst anti-music-business sentiment since Napster.
If you hope and believe, as I do, that the music business can return to its former glory, consider instead the quiet work of the Beggars Group and its affiliated Rough Trade stores. This vibrant transatlantic community includes the world's most innovative labels such as XL Recordings, Rough Trade Records, Domino, Matador, 4AD, Secretly Canadian, Jagjaguwar and many others. Contemplate also the positive effect of Record Store Day and the growing popularity of vinyl. Look also at the collective spirit of the indie lobbies - AIM, A2IM, Impala and Merlin, who do battle against the IT goliaths and who lobby governments on behalf of hundreds of labels and artists.
Despite the crippling recession, these indies have been sowing the seeds of recovery; they're finding and developing the new talent, they're keeping the best of the old system alive. Above all, they are doing the most to restore the public's lost faith.
And the shrunken majors know it. In my many interviews with the moguls of the American music business, all eyes were on the Beggars Group and its highly respected founder, Martin Mills. It's curious that during the first record crash of the Twenties and Thirties, EMI and Decca – new English companies at the time, became key players of the global renaissance. Their approach was simple: to produce the best records, and work with radio corporations to standardise a new business model.
Today's digital revolution is stabilising into a three horse race: Apple and Spotify are fighting over the higher end of the music market. The real problem, YouTube, or more precisely its Google owners, has chosen the cheap end of the market: ad-encrusted teen pop. At this stage, Spotify is miles ahead of every other streaming service, and even the Apple-funded Beats will struggle to catch up. That said, let's not exaggerate the demise of the iTunes Store: expect surprises from Apple later this year.
Despite all these stars complaining about their paltry royalties, Spotify and iTunes are producer friendly companies. Compared to the arrogant geeks behind YouTube, they're positively cultural. They just need to keep growing. Which ultimately comes down to the quality of music being produced versus us, the public and how much we feel music is worth in our daily lives.
Jay Z and his collaborators kept alluding to an image: "when the tide comes in, all the ships go up." It surely can't be a coincidence that this exact expression has been repeatedly used in indie conferences by Martin Mills in light of his own success with Adele – a tacit suggestion that success for the larger indies would benefit everyone in the harbour. Interestingly, Mills spotted this eloquent image in a scene in Cowboys and Indies, where former CBS co-president Dick Asher, forced to abandon his anti-payola crusade, observed the effect Thriller and MTV had on the industry slump of the early eighties. The proverbial rising tide refers to public demands, aroused by one great record.
As such, the only way Jay Z and his cohorts can pull this off is by releasing the best music in the world exclusively on Tidal, and I think, by reinvesting the profits in subsequent waves of hot new artists - as Beggars, CBS and every other winning label did before them. In the interests of sportsmanship, let's give them a chance, and even forgive Tuesday's PR train crash as a rush job involving too many inarticulate egos. But at the same time, let's not lose sight of the grass roots renaissance being driven by the indie community, where I believe, the future is really happening.
Cowboys and Indies: The Epic History Of The Music Industry by Gareth Murphy is out now on Serpent's Tail. Find out more on the book's official Facebook.
