Tidal Isn't for All—No Matter What Jay Z Tweets

UPDATE: Last night, Tidal's press conference brought Jay Z, Beyoncé, Jack White, Nicki Minaj, Alicia Keys, and other members of the music Illuminati together to announce that they're all co-owners of the new service. And while I would have loved to be a fly on the wall of their original gathering (in which Daft Punk wore their helmets at the table—isn't that a bit of a faux pas?), all I got from the press event was symbolism. The fact that majority shares of Tidal will go to artists is great, but I—and seemingly the rest of the Internet—don't really get how giving money to music's 1% really helps the rest of them earn a living. My colleague Isabelle Roughol had a great alternative:

Next to each of these mega stars on the stage, they should have put an up-and-coming artist for whom streaming fees do actually pay the Ramen noodles. That would be a statement.

---

A few weeks ago, Jay Z acquired Swedish company Aspiro—which owns Tidal and WiMP—for $56 million. And today, his new streaming service is turning Twitter turquoise.

Jay Z is announcing the official reboot of Tidal today at 5pm Eastern. To drum up attention for the launch, he's gotten top tier musicians to change their Twitter profile photos and tweet about the new hi-def service using #TIDALforALL. Everyone from Jay Z and his wife Beyoncé to Kanye West, Madonna, Rihanna, Arcade Fire, and Coldplay have shown their social support.

And while that's all fine and dandy, not everyone is buying it.

With 35,000 users pre-relaunch (compared to Spotify's 60 million), Tidal may be fighting a battle that star power can't win. Yes, they're pulling out all the stops: in addition to the social media campaign, they're allegedly lining up exclusive releases with more big names. They're also offering sweeter deals for musicians—TechCrunch reports that some artists are getting paid up to double per stream what they make on other services. (This is part of Tidal that I'm 100% behind.)

But high-definition listening is unlikely to go mainstream and neither is its $19.99 price tag (although they also have a lossy version of the service for $9.99). Moreover, Tidal's star-studded social media blitz isn't being met with universal enthusiasm. Most of the the tweets I've seen have been unimpressed with such a transparent marketing move. Social media users are used to seeing avatar changes and concentrated campaigns around social causes; using similar tactics and language for a brand promotion feels disingenuous, especially when it comes from respected and beloved artists.

What "music history" is really being made? When Madonna says "do it for the music", what exactly are we doing for the music? If Tidal is going to position itself as a music service for musicians, with more money going to the artists and less to the labels, great. I'm on board. But right now, all we know about the service is that a handful of the wealthiest musicians in the world are on its side.

I'm very curious to see what happens with Tidal. Is it going to be significantly different from other streaming services? If top artists release albums there exclusively, that could entice fans to switch over. With such a small audience, though, that's a big risk for artists and labels alike. So the jury's still out—but if anyone can pull this off, it's Jay Z. We'll see what his 5pm press conference has to offer.