Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Come on guys, it is just a new album by an established artist. All the controversy is contrived to generate exactly the type of click-bait headlines you are falling for.
Musically, I am not interested anyway (that's just me). The significance of this is elsewhere: That one iTunes competitor is apparently starting to fall apart.
 
We don't need fake ass established artists pushed on us, we just want good music. I hate how democratic and commercial music has become... once again after years of the internet allowing breakthroughs we are back to record labels in control shoving **** down our throats.
 
If you realize a lot of these people in the music and entertainment business at large got sucked into some weird occult stuff for some reason that I, as a fan of logic and reason will never understand, then it will start to come together and make sense. ...

While some of it can be attributed to stress or substance abuse, other parents clued me into what was going on with the occult aspect of entertainment and some of the random but repeated elements I was seeing started to make sense. It's really weird. Seeing adults messing around with occult symbols and ritualistic behavior like emo teenagers just puzzles me.
I would take the dire warnings from other parents of occultism in music with an enormous grain of salt. It's largely done to sell records to teenagers who need a way to rebel against their parents. This has been going on for many decades. Every few years, new people come along to "save" concerned parents and their kids from the "evils" of Rock & Roll (or whatever music of the day). Funnily enough, the people at the top making the accusations often want the attention and cooperation of said concerned parents and the community/political sway that that brings, and/or donations to support their cause. (I have little doubt there's a group somewhere now explaining to each other in ominous tones how fidget spinners are a tool of the devil.)

Banning kids from listening to it will just increase its allure, and their conviction that their parents "just don't understand", and they'll find a way to listen anyway, and they'll hold onto it ever more tightly. Better to take some time to discuss with them the imagery involved, and how you think it isn't real (I'm a fan of logic and reason as well, but I still think the Rolling Stones' "Sympathy for the Devil" is an awesome song - in the top 100 ever written).

(For some fun, related reading, look up Backmasking, which started off with people playing records backwards, going into it certain that they'd find satanic messages - and guess what, they "did", sort of... in the same way that if you look at clouds long enough, you can "see" bunnies and faces, our minds "find" patterns that aren't really there - see also Pareidolia. After "concerned parents" brought backmasking into the public's eye by suing musicians over words that weren't actually there, a lot of musicians started added backmasked messages on purpose, either silly/snarky messages or occult things - again - designed to sell records to people wanting to "find" a dark secret.)
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 5105973
Why is Macrumors banging on about the availability of this particular album so much? One could think they're sponsored to generate hype...
 
I would take the dire warnings from other parents of occultism in music with an enormous grain of salt. It's largely done to sell records to teenagers who need a way to rebel against their parents. This has been going on for many decades. Every few years, new people come along to "save" concerned parents and their kids from the "evils" of Rock & Roll (or whatever music of the day). Funnily enough, the people at the top making the accusations often want the attention and cooperation of said concerned parents and the community/political sway that that brings, and/or donations to support their cause. (I have little doubt there's a group somewhere now explaining to each other in ominous tones how fidget spinners are a tool of the devil.)

Banning kids from listening to it will just increase its allure, and their conviction that their parents "just don't understand", and they'll find a way to listen anyway, and they'll hold onto it ever more tightly. Better to take some time to discuss with them the imagery involved, and how you think it isn't real (I'm a fan of logic and reason as well, but I still think the Rolling Stones' "Sympathy for the Devil" is an awesome song - in the top 100 ever written).

(For some fun, related reading, look up Backmasking, which started off with people playing records backwards, going into it certain that they'd find satanic messages - and guess what, they "did", sort of... in the same way that if you look at clouds long enough, you can "see" bunnies and faces, our minds "find" patterns that aren't really there - see also Pareidolia. After "concerned parents" brought backmasking into the public's eye by suing musicians over words that weren't actually there, a lot of musicians started added backmasked messages on purpose, either silly/snarky messages or occult things - again - designed to sell records to people wanting to "find" a dark secret.)
Ah yes, back masking--that was fun. I miss the days of vinyl when we could swipe the records backwards and see if anything was there. It was like looking for the prizes in cereal boxes.

Well I do have to ban the kids from the videos because the contents are grossly inappropriate for their age group and gross, period. Which is strange because the music lyrics seem fine and completely unrelated to the way they are "interpreted" in the videos. Most of the music itself is fine.

Fortunately there have been no conflicts, because unlike my MTV generation, these kids don't seem to pay much attention to videos. They like to catch the occasional concert videos, though. And most of those are fine. They might have some occult stuff here and there but it's no worse than the stuff that sailed over my head when I was their age.

The kids themselves have said they think it's hilarious and pathetic and a bit desperate that the performers think they need to pretend they're Illuminati (whatever the heck that actually is) or prance around half naked to sell their music. Like Lady Gaga, for example. She's an extraordinarily talented musician and vocalist. I listen to her music myself. The visuals she puts out...eh, not so much. What little I've shown the kids actually puts them off her. Music marketing has always been rather sad.

I think if the artists want to be really shocking they should do what Gaga ended up doing, which is put on some dressy clothes and tour with Tony Bennett. :eek::p I eagerly await the day Justin Bieber releases his album of Jazz standards. Hey, it worked for Rod Stewart. :D
 
We don't need fake ass established artists pushed on us, we just want good music. I hate how democratic and commercial music has become... once again after years of the internet allowing breakthroughs we are back to record labels in control shoving **** down our throats.
Who is we exactly? Are you a self-elected spokesman?
 



Last week, Jay-Z's new album "4:44" debuted exclusively on his own music streaming service Tidal, and then reports predicted that the album would expand to Apple Music and other services one week later. Now, 4:44 has begun streaming on Apple Music, and is available for $9.99 on iTunes [Direct Link].

Earlier in the week, Jay-Z debuted a video for one of 4:44's tracks, The Story of O.J., on Apple Music while the album was still a Tidal exclusive. Even during its one-week exclusivity window, 4:44 went platinum in under a week, certifying that the record has sold 1 million equivalent album units in the United States. One equivalent album unit represents one full album sale, ten tracks sold from an album, or 1,500 on-demand audio and/or video streams from an album as of February 2016.

jay-z-4-44.jpg

In the midst of Jay-Z's new album launch, Kanye West -- one of Tidal's initial sixteen artists/co-owners -- was reportedly seeking to end Tidal's exclusivity rights over his new music and break from the service (via Billboard). West was said to claim he was owed "more than $3 million" because his album "The Life of Pablo" "resulted in 1.5 million new subscribers to Tidal, for which he was supposed to get a bonus but the company hasn't paid."

Now, a source close to West has said that Tidal's exclusivity rights to his music have been terminated, "based on what is alleged to be Tidal's failure to honor its financial obligations." West has been vocal in the past about company rivalries negatively affecting the music industry as a whole, eventually allowing The Life of Pablo onto Apple Music after first saying it would "never" happen.

In addition to Apple Music, 4:44 has also begun streaming on Amazon Music Unlimited, although Spotify has not been included in the expansion of Jay-Z's newest album. Earlier this year, Jay-Z removed his entire catalog of music from Apple Music and Spotify, without giving a clear indication as to why, and while many of the songs reappeared on Apple Music a few days later, most of it remains missing from Spotify.

Article Link: Jay-Z's Album '4:44' Ends Tidal Exclusivity and Debuts on Apple Music and iTunes


Lol, we have seen this before. Jay always wins. He will make the Dr. Dre, Jimmy I deal look small. Just wait!
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.