Michael' bio in Tidal

It's a stupid project anyway and I bet it'll be overhyped like crazy for no damn reason. For 19$ a month people should go buy their favorite albums and enjoy them for unlimited time. You can get at least 2 CDs per month with that price.
 
Hopefully the Estate will contact them and do something to clean that up.
 
^theyre about to talk about this in GMA any minute. I just saw the tease.
I just read the bio. This is a copy paste all music or billboard. I've read it before.
 
Last edited:
^^Its from All music. Funnily enough, Beyonce's bio wasn't copied from All music. I guess she gets some perks when it is her husbands company. Her bio is all about her music and achievements, where as Michael's bio has full of tabloidish gibberish.

If I were someone new to MJ and wanted to buy his music, but I would totally think twice after reading that bio:puke:

Anyways, hopefully the estate sort it out.
 
Last edited:
Me too. I didn't read Beyoncé's but all of that stuff in Michael's is totally unnecessary.
Thanks so much for sending to Estate.
 
I didn't send it to estate, thanks belong to one active MJ fan in twitter world:clapping:
I only spreading the info that the estate have been made aware of it.
 
I'm surprised it even had to go there, I know Jay Z is not the website editor but the Beyonce bio shows they have some say in it.
 
Ironically, as the majority stakeholder of the royalties of work by TIDAL front-runners like Beyonce, Rihanna, Taylor Swift, etc. via Sony/ATV won't Michael's Estate make the most cash from this service? Most of the bios are messy, but Michael's is particularly harsh.
 
I might be a bit dense when it comes to this sort of thing (I'm fairly traditional in how I purchase music, I still buy CDs and upload them onto iTunes) but I really don't understand the appeal of these streaming sites. As someone who doesn't and never has listened to music on my phone, I don't want to have to log-in to a site like Spotify or Tidal to listen to my music. I have an iPod classic because I want to carry the maximum amount of songs on one device and I want to OWN the songs I listen to. From what I can tell, there is no way to legally own or download songs from these streaming websites to do with as you please. I don't want to be restricted to purchasing a song and only being able to listen to it on Spotify etc.


Why can't they come up with a subscription-based site where you can legally buy x amount of albums per month and you can download them onto whatever device you like, be it a
smartphone, laptop, iTunes or even burn it onto a CD? £20 a month and you can download whatever you like up to a certain limit (say, ten albums a month, £2 an album). It beats buying expensive CDs at £10.99 a pop and you're still supporting the artist. Labels need to drastically bring down the price of albums if they want people to start buying them again. The days of spending £10-15 on one album are a thing of the past (and I say that as one of the few remaining people who still purchase CD albums).
 
Matty, I can only answer that for myself. I started to use Spotify about a year ago and ever since that's my main way of listening to music, at least when I am at home. Yes, I do like to own my favourite albums as well and I do buy them from my very favourite artists - eg. MJ - but I rarely listen to CDs now, I use Spotify. Why? As with everything it has advantages and disadvantages, so it depends on what a person likes.

Advantages are:

A very wide variety of music at your disposal. Not just the albums you bought, but you can listen to virtually any album that was ever released. Well, those which are on Spotify. There are some which aren't but the available music is still huge, a lot lot bigger than what you can ever own at home. I would not be able to listen to all these albums, all this music if we were still in the 80s and 90s and you had to buy an album to listen.
From all that music you can create all kind of playlists. Of course, you can do that on iTunes as well, or own your computer with MP3 playlists etc., but again you only have a limited amount of music and albums at home, but at Spotify you have almost everything.

I also think the streaming stats count somewhat in the sales/chart positions of an artist. Not sure how much, nevertheless it's interesting to see who is popular and who is not so much esp. in the case of not current artists. You can find some interesting facts, like "wow, this song was such a huge hit when it was released and now it barely has 100,000 spins, so it did not prove to be that presistent after all". Or vica versa. Like in the case of They Don't Care About Us which I think did not even break into the Billboard Top 40 when it was released but now it's very popular on streaming services. It's not necessarily important, but these stats do show some interesting facts and tendencies abour whose music has staying power and whose not so much.

As for the price. I don't think Tidal has, but Spotify has a free version. The downside of that is the advertisements and that high quality streaming is not available. So for audiophiles it is not that great. I am not so much, so it is OK for me, but if it isn't to you you can switch to Premium account for $4.99/month. I also think the Premium account makes it possible for you to listen to music in off-line mode. I'm not sure how that works.

I guess it's just what someone prefers. I love the fact of so much music at my disposal and to be able to explore and discover albums and artists I have never heard before and then include what I like in my playlists. To me that is the biggest advantage.

BTW, those Sony docs which were leaked due to the hacking scandal not long ago reveal that the music industry is moving more and more into the direction of streaming. The docs said that not even music download like iTunes is that popular any more, it's all about streaming. I think the industry will never be able to turn back time and make people buy albums and music like they used to. Times are changing, customs are changing, technology changes. They try to find a way to make profit from these current trends, rather than wanting people to start buying albums again, IMO.
 
Same biography is on Itunes, Spotify, and All Music.
So they've all copied the Steve Huey bio from Allmusic? I can understand that a bio should be a little 3 dimensional and not be all saccharine sweet-unless you ONLY cover the music, and not have a bio at all-but I think half of Michael's is totally unnecessary.

Anybody know how to contact the Estate or have their email address? I have no problem with sending a proper letter. That might get more attention. I'm not sure if I get on michaeljackson.com, if they even read that stuff.
 
I would love to write a proper bio for these sites.

I did find this on John Branca's web site: http://www.johnbranca.com

ZIFFREN BRITTENHAM LLP
1801 Century Park West
Los Angeles, CA 90067-6406
Tel 310-552-3388
Fax 310-553-7068
 
Last edited:
Barbee0715, I agree the biography is unsavory however; some online fans were suggesting a boycott of Tidal based on this biography alone. This is why I posted the biographies are the same on other streaming sites that some online fans have never mentioned boycotting.
 
So they've all copied the Steve Huey bio from Allmusic? I can understand that a bio should be a little 3 dimensional and not be all saccharine sweet-unless you ONLY cover the music, and not have a bio at all-but I think half of Michael's is totally unnecessary.

Anybody know how to contact the Estate or have their email address? I have no problem with sending a proper letter. That might get more attention. I'm not sure if I get on michaeljackson.com, if they even read that stuff.

I find it odd that iTunes, Tidal etc sites allows that kind of bios in their sites. Those are virtual music shops and they are selling a product. They are supposed to promote people spending money to their shops, but with those bios they are doing opposite. It is like shop advertising that they are selling milk from farmer that treats his animals inhumanely, makes no sense either way.

I don't think they should just fix Michael's bio, but all people that have tabloid garbage written in their bio.

Here is twitter for The Official Online Team of the Michael Jackson Estate
MJ OnlineTeam @MJonlineteam

They should get Joe Vogel to write MJ's bio on those places, as they asked him to write about Thriller to Library of Congress.
 
Thanks everybody for these addresses. I'm not on Twitter, but this is really helpful. And I agree that bios on music sites should not contain tabloid rumour or trashy information-no one's should. I guess I should check out some other artists' bios before I come up with something-I think I'm just going to complain about it-so they can get a better one posted. And Joe Vogel would probably be a great choice for Michael's. He really has a way with words.
It's the same frustration I have with Wikipedia-they have so much garbage in Michael's bio and I actually check it a couple times a week-They edit it constantly. They finally took out the amount in the Chandler settlement at the beginning of the piece, but listed it later on. The only way I can figure out how to make changes, is to become a member. I can't figure out a way to send suggestions. :(
 
Back
Top