You are thinking in the right direction, but most people listen to music to do exactly that.. listen. Offering reading material to people will not likely generate interest, especially in the internet age.
For this idea to work, some great music publicists would need to be involved on a day in day out basis. Those types of organizations already exist in Pitchfork, Hypebot, etc. If Pitchfork launched their own streaming service, then we would have a perfect example of the company you describe.I think the solution to the music industry issue is soon to hit the market and spread like wildfire. That is: the exploration of alternate forms of currency and payment.
Technological and intellectual advance of culture is always fueled by a general interest in improving art. TIDAL may have been the spark of lifeblood and publicity that the music industry, and maybe capitalism, needed. It was an S.O.S. from the popular faces we respect as the best, and I believe that music fans the world over will respond in kind with ideas that will leave the rest of us wide eyed and drooling.
With the creation of a new music service that benefits artists who are already ridiculously rich, here’s an alternative idea:
Create a streaming service for independent music.
Here’s the idea:
– there is a massive number of sites that review indie music, right? So why not bring their reviews together and create a “metacritic”-type site that initially serves music based on the average review score.
As listeners have a chance to listen (or not), the number of plays on the site can take over as the main scoring mechanism.
– the creators of the service can start out by getting paid a decent salary, but nothing exorbitant. As the service picks up steam, the revenues go to the artists until all artists receive 80% (or whatever is agreed on) of revenues from their music. Beyond that, the site keeps the money as profit. This ensures that artists get paid _before_…
View original post 133 more words
South University Music Spotlight 