Slow clap for Jack White's defense of TIDAL

It's bad enough no one wants to support music culture any more. Not even by downloading music. It's bad enough Spotify and Pandora continue to try and influence copyright and royalty laws in America and worldwide to ensure their bottom line stays, while musical culture slowly erodes. It's bad enough more and more musicians have to set up a gofundme to pay to replace their stolen van , or even mount a tour. Contrary to popular opinion, the majority of musicians are not fabulously wealthy. Nor are they kinda wealthy.
The majority of musicians are going through periods where they are destitute. It's amazing to me that people, especially some of my friends in advertising, keep answering this glaring problem with "better get used to it." As problem solvers, finding a way to ensure our culture thrives seems like a problem worth solving. Yet very few even want to see it as a problem.
Whatever gains that might have been made by TIDAL, a good-on-paper artists-first, artist-owned idea, have been destroyed by egos as well as management issues. In just a few short months, TIDAL should have already been a beacon on a digital road filled with robber barons. Instead, it's already on the defensive.
And that's just my problem.
While a lot of Jack White's defense of TIDAL yesterday was sensible, it stupidly brought the whole conversation back to the big guy's money. As if we've learned nothing from Lars Ulrich and Napster.
The series of questions Jack White chose to respond to come directly from his Vault subscribers as well as from Facebook Fans. I have no issue with Jack White, a famous person, speaking for the little guy. He once was the little guy, so he knows what it's like. A lot of musicians see him as an inspiration, and well they should. A lot of his answers to these questions were spot on. TIDAL's purpose is to support artists, get the indie and little heard ones out there as much as the big names. Here's a great example of how to frame the conversation.

I think TIDAL is great for the fact that it will get more money to artists. After reading how little Pharrell from Pandora streaming off of one of "Happy." Really made me realize how little musicians just starting out must be making, when Pharrell only made $2700 off of something like 43 million plays
Jack: Yep, whoever started the model of making a website that gets paid by big advertisers (Youtube) and does not pay that money to the artists GENERATING the interest. Makes no sense to an artist trying to survive.

It's amazing to me that people, especially some of my friends in advertising, keep answering this glaring problem with "better get used to it." As problem solvers, finding a way to ensure our culture thrives seems like a problem worth solving. Yet very few even want to see it as a problem.
Whatever gains that might have been made by TIDAL, a good-on-paper artists-first, artist-owned idea, have been destroyed by egos as well as management issues. In just a few short months, TIDAL should have already been a beacon on a digital road filled with robber barons. Instead, it's already on the defensive.
And that's just my problem.
While a lot of Jack White's defense of TIDAL yesterday was sensible, it stupidly brought the whole conversation back to the big guy's money. As if we've learned nothing from Lars Ulrich and Napster.
The series of questions Jack White chose to respond to come directly from his Vault subscribers as well as from Facebook Fans. I have no issue with Jack White, a famous person, speaking for the little guy. He once was the little guy, so he knows what it's like. A lot of musicians see him as an inspiration, and well they should. A lot of his answers to these questions were spot on. TIDAL's purpose is to support artists, get the indie and little heard ones out there as much as the big names. Here's a great example of how to frame the conversation.

I think TIDAL is great for the fact that it will get more money to artists. After reading how little Pharrell from Pandora streaming off of one of "Happy." Really made me realize how little musicians just starting out must be making, when Pharrell only made $2700 off of something like 43 million plays
Jack: Yep, whoever started the model of making a website that gets paid by big advertisers (Youtube) and does not pay that money to the artists GENERATING the interest. Makes no sense to an artist trying to survive.

already happening. Stop talking about the big guy and his money. Start framing the argument in different terms. People will never truly understand what they are losing until then.