For fans of R&B singer Frank Ocean, the Aug. 20 release of his independently-released and long-delayed sophomore album, Blonde, was a day they thought may never come.
Many voraciously whipped out their iPhones, eager to be among the first to listen. Unknowing Spotify users were disappointed to read a message that informed them, “Frank Ocean’s new music is not available on Spotify yet,” but that users should rest easy, because they were “working on it.”
Ocean, following the likes of music heavyweights including Chance The Rapper, Drake and Rihanna, released his album exclusively through Apple’s nascent music streaming service, Apple Music. For the foreseeable future, those hoping to hear it must either shell out $9.99 to download the files or sign on as an Apple Music customer for $9.99 per month.
To the casual listener — perhaps one of Spotify’s industry-leading 60 million users — it hardly seems possible to justify choosing either of these options, especially if you just want to hear one album.
Exclusive music releases, which are becoming increasingly commonplace, do listeners a great disservice. Even some of the largest recording labels, long believed to be the enemy of music lovers, are joining the crusade against exclusive streaming, albeit for different reasons.
While it does represent the livelihood of artists like Frank Ocean, music should be accessible to whomever seeks it. Hip-hop producer Metro Boomin expressed the sentiments of many when he tweeted, “Apple Music, Tidal, Spotify, Pandora, whatever you use, my album will be instantly available and accessible for you. Because that’s the point.”
When artists cut exclusivity deals with the likes of Tidal and Apple Music, their fans become victims of corporate behemoths essentially bidding to hoard music for themselves, duking it out in an economic tug-of-war.
In today’s digital world, it’s not as if famished Frank Ocean supporters won’t find ways to get their hands on the music.
Kanye West caused amusement in February with the release of his album, “The Life of Pablo,” which he perhaps regrettably promised would “never be on sale,” leaving Tidal as the only option — or so West and his team thought.
In the first day alone, BitTorrent, a platform for illegal music downloads, saw West’s album downloaded nearly 500,000 times. Had they been legal streams or downloads, it would be enough to earn Gold certification from the Recording Industry Association of America, a hallmark that most musicians aspire to achieve but is realized by few.
It’s clear that the basement-dwellers of the world can concoct ways to get illicit versions of exclusive releases to the masses faster than streaming companies can ideate methods to stop them. It’s time that companies like Apple and, to a lesser extent, Tidal realize that the war over exclusive streaming is a losing battle.
From an artist’s perspective, incentives do exist. For independent artists like Ocean, who are growing more and more capable of self-sustenance in the digital age, streaming companies can act as a sort of stand-in for a label, investing in and enabling them more creative freedom.
This should be more of a commentary on the state of the recording industry than an argument for exclusive streaming. Labels should reassess their own business models and ensure that artists see more of the fruits of their labor so they aren’t forced to resort to something that will pay them what they deserve.
But to cede to the pressures of exclusive releases is to sell one’s fans to the streaming behemoths. Let people have their music.
